To: Senate Public Utilities Committee
From: Alan R.
Rosenfield, ScD FASM, Energy Specialist, League of Women Voters of Ohio
Date: April 23, 2013
Re: Testimony on SB 58, Retail
Electric Service
There has been concern that the renewable
energy requirements of 127-SB221 will lead to costs beyond the three-percent
cost cap required by the legislation. I have found that these renewable energy
costs are negligible and are likely to remain so for quite a few years.
My cost comparison is between natural gas and
wind power. Gas is currently the cheapest fossil fuel, whose rapid increase in
usage threatens the dominance of coal. Wind power has increased more slowly,
but is the largest source of renewable energy. The price of fulfilling the
mandate of 127-SB221 is essentially the cost difference between gas and wind
power sources.
The history of the cost comparison is
complicated. Five years ago, when 127-SB221 was enacted, gas was significantly
more costly than wind. Shortly thereafter the price of natural gas fell
sharply. In the spring of 2012, when the price of gas was at its bottom,
electricity generation by wind cost about forty percent more than generation
using natural gas. However, over the last year, gas prices have risen and the
costs for the two energy sources are now similar.
What does this all mean to the homeowner faced
with a monthly electric bill of more than $100? When gas prices were at their
historical lows last spring, the renewable-energy requirement added about 30
cents to his utility’s monthly cost to supply him with electricity. If the wind
tax credit had not been available in 2012, the additional cost would have been
33 cents more. Today the extra cost is about five cents (the Attachment to this
testimony shows how to obtain residential rates from power-plant rates).
Since it costs the utility about $100 per household
per month to provide electricity, renewable energy costs far under one dollar
are a small cost of doing business. Clearly the three-percent cost cap is not
in danger of being exceeded.
There are financial benefits to the small cost
of 127-SB221. Just as counties in Eastern Ohio have benefited from the shale
gas boom, there have been benefits to counties in Western Ohio from wind power.
Citizens and local governments in Paulding County, population about 20,000,
have already received about $1.5 million from the Timber Creek Wind Farm.
There are concerns that renewable-energy costs
will sharply escalate in the future. The
small costs of 127-SB221 so far are partly due to the small amounts of
renewable energy being used in Ohio - 1.5 percent of electricity produced last
year and 2.5 percent this year. When the next session of the General Assembly
convenes in 2015, the requirement will be 3.5 percent; for the following
General Assembly, in 2017, it will be
5.5 percent. So, five years from now, non-renewable energy will still supply
almost 95 percent of our electricity. It is difficult to see how renewables
will have a significant effect on costs even then and it is clear that the
three-percent cost cap is very unlikely to be exceeded.
Will the cost cap ever be exceeded? Predictions of the future depend on
assumptions made by economists; and the further in the future, the less
accurate their predictions are likely to be. Instead of making predictions, I
will discuss factors that need to be taken into account:
1. The futures prices of natural gas are
currently stable.
Contracts for future delivery of natural gas are traded on the New York
Mercantile Exchange. The prices there are the consensus opinion of the most
knowledgeable traders. Currently prices of natural gas for delivery in May 2014
are about the same as for May 2013; there is no indication that a sharp drop in
gas prices is in the offing.
2. The price of wind power has fallen. Electricity generation
by wind is no longer expensive. It is now 40 percent lower than it was five
years ago.
4. Increasing the amount of renewable energy
does not cause increased electric rates. I have surveyed ten Midwestern and Appalachian
states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin) As of December 31, 2012, Ohio generated the least
renewable energy and had the third highest residential electricity rates. Table
1 (attached) shows the data. Comparison among all of these states showed no
tendency for residential rates to be higher in states with greater amounts of
renewable energy.
In conclusion, the three-percent price cap of
127-SB221 has not been approached and chances are small that it will be
approached within the next few years. There appears to be no reason to modify
it.
Attachment: How
Generation Rates Affect Utility Bills
There are several claims that renewable energy
mandates cost customers millions of dollars. For example, the Corpus Christi
Caller-Times recently reported that an opposition activist claimed that the
Texas renewable law cost consumers $70 million per year. Since residences in
Texas account for about half of the electricity used in the state, their share
is $35 million. This amount is divided among about ten million households for
an average of $35 per year or thirty-five cents per month.
An alternative is to compare the costs of
generation. During last year’s debate on SB315, discussion in this committee
included the comment that wind energy then cost $20 per Megawatt-hour more than
gas powered electricity. One Megawatt-hour is 1000 kilowatt-hours, which is
close to the electricity used monthly by the typical Ohio household. But last
year SB221 required only 1.5 percent of electricity to be renewable. So the
renewable-energy premium was only 1.5 percent of $20 of thirty cents per month.
TABLE 1: STATE ECONOMIC
AND ENERGY DATA
State
|
Residential
Electric Rates,
(a)
|
Unemployment
Percent (b)
|
Renewables
Percent (c)
|
Illinois
|
10.37
|
9.5
|
4.2
|
Indiana
|
10.38
|
8.7
|
3.5
|
Iowa
|
10.85
|
5.0
|
26.2
|
Kentucky
|
9.33
|
7.9
|
3.0
|
Michigan
|
14.14
|
8.8
|
4.4
|
Minnesota
|
11.37
|
5.5
|
18.8
|
Missouri
|
10.07
|
6.7
|
2.1
|
Ohio
|
11.66
|
7.0
|
1.6
|
W. Virginia
|
9.85
|
7.3
|
3.6
|
Wisconsin
|
13.27
|
7.2
|
8.1
|
(a) Electric
Power Monthly, February 2013; December 2012 rates used.
(b) Bureau of Labor Statistics: Unemployment Rates
for States, Monthly Rankings, Seasonally Adjusted, Feb. 2013. http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
(c)
Ref (a); Annual result for 2012