Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Tom Raga Friday, December 27, 2013 8:55 AM Lynch, Jamie; mbrello@aep.com RE: Requested Response Jamie: The subject matter experts who will be providing details are not in the office this week. response, depending on the models and research necessary, during the week of Jan. 6. My goal is to have a Thanks, Tom From: Lynch, Jamie [mallto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 8:52 AM To: Tom Raga; mbrello@aep.com Subject: FW: Requested Response Mike& Tom, Senator Seitz requested that I get an update on the status of re-drafting your response to Jacobson per his further suggestions below. If you could let us know when to expect something that would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Senator Seitz Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 9:04 AM To: 'Tom Raga'; mbrello@aep.com Subject: RE: Requested Response Tom, This is a start but it fails to answer the following specific allegations: 1. SB 58 will cost Ohio families $528 more on average over 3 years and businesses as much as $3291 more 2. SB 58 gives utilities more to cover their taxes (roughly 44% overall) 3. The formula would give utilities as much as 19 to 140 times or more what they can charge customers today 4. Customers have to pay the utilities more than 40 cents per every dollar they don't spend on electricity 5. SB 58 requires customers to pay utilities for energy efficiencies the utility had nothing to do with, even efficiencies the customer paid for themselves 1 6. SB 58 allows utilities to force customers to pay shared savings on things that happened in the past as far back as 2006 7. SB 58 doubles the maximum cap on shared savings and DP&L customers could be required to pay more than 4.5 times as much as before I think each of these allegations is false and presenting them in a "myth/fact" response format would be a most useful addition to what you have prepared. From: Tom Raga [mailto:tom.raga@aes.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:24 PM To: Senator Seitz Cc: Lynch, Jamie; Mike Brello (mbrello@aep.com) Subject: Requested Response Attached is a one-pager responsive to the request regarding OMA and Jacobson. Thanks, Tom This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-Mail, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender by return e-Mail and delete this e-Mail from your system. Unless explicitly and conspicuously stated in the subject matter of the above e-Mail, this e-Mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-Mail does not constitute consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties. 2 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Friday, December 27, 2013 8:52 AM 'Tom Raga'; mbrello@aep.com FW: Requested Response Mike & Tom, Senator Seitz requested that I get an update on the status of re-drafting your response to Jacobson per his further suggestions below. If you could let us know when to expect something that would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Senator Seitz Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 9:04 AM To: 'Tom Raga'; mbrello@aep.com Subject: RE: Requested Response Tom, This is a start but it fails to answer the following specific allegations: 1. SB 58 will cost Ohio families $528 more on average over 3 years and businesses as much as $3291 more 2. SB 58 gives utilities more to cover their taxes (roughly 44% overall) 3. The formula would give utilities as much as 19 to 140 times or more what they can charge customers today 4. Customers have to pay the utilities more than 40 cents per every dollar they don't spend on electricity 5. SB 58 requires customers to pay utilities for energy efficiencies the utility had nothing to do with, even efficiencies the customer paid for themselves 6. SB 58 allows utilities to force customers to pay shared savings on things that happened in the past as far back as 2006 7. SB 58 doubles the maximum cap on shared savings and DP&L customers could be required to pay more than 4.5 times as much as before I think each of these allegations is false and presenting them in a "myth/fact" response format would be a most useful addition to what you have prepared. 3 From: Tom Raga [mailto:tom.raga@aes.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:24 PM To: Senator Seitz Cc: Lynch, Jamie; Mike Brello (mbrello@aep.com) Subject: Requested Response Attached is a one-pager responsive to the request regarding OMA and Jacobson. Thanks, Tom This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-Mail, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender by return e-Mail and delete this e-Mail from your system. Unless explicitly and conspicuously stated in the subject matter of the above e-Mail, this e-Mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-Mail does not constitute consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties. 4 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Senator Seitz Thursday, December 19, 2013 9:04 AM 'Tom Raga'; mbrello@aep.com RE: Requested Response Tom, This is a start but it fails to answer the following specific allegations: 1. SB 58 will cost Ohio families $528 more on average over 3 years and businesses as much as $3291 more 2. SB 58 gives utilities more to cover their taxes (roughly 44% overall) 3. The formula would give utilities as much as 19 to 140 times or more what they can charge customers today 4. Customers have to pay the utilities more than 40 cents per every dollar they don't spend on electricity 5. SB 58 requires customers to pay utilities for energy efficiencies the utility had nothing to do with, even efficiencies the customer paid for themselves 6. SB 58 allows utilities to force customers to pay shared savings on things that happened in the past as far back as 2006 7. SB 58 doubles the maximum cap on shared savings and DP&L customers could be required to pay more than 4.5 times as much as before I think each of these allegations is false and presenting them in a "myth/fact" response format would be a most useful addition to what you have prepared. From: Tom Raga [mallto:tom.raga@aes.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:24 PM To: Senator Seitz Cc: Lynch, Jamie; Mike Brello (mbrello@aep.com) Subject: Requested Response Attached is a one-pager responsive to the request regarding OMA and Jacobson. Thanks, Tom This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-Mail, in whole or i11part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender by return e-Mail and delete this e-Mail from your system. Unless explicitly and conspicuously stated in the subject matter of the above e-Mail, this e-Mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-Mail does not constitute consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties. 5 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Monday, December 16, 2013 12:16 PM Public Utilities; rep27@ohiohouse.gov; Strigari, Frank; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; Republican Senators FW: Ontario tilts against wind turbines as costs spiral All-please see the enclosed per Chairman Seitz's request. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (6J4) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Julie Johnson [mallto:juliejohnson@ctcn.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 5:30 PM To: Senator Seitz; rep27@ohiohouse.gov; rep85@ohiohouse.gov Subject: Ontario tilts against wind turbines as costs spiral http://www.thestar.com/news / queenspark/ 201 3/1 2/10/ontario tilts a gainst wind turbines as costs spiral cohn.html Ontario tilts against wind turbines as costs spiral: Cohn Economics, more than politics, is causing the greatest drag on wind power as Liberals look for light at the end of the wind tunnel. Resistance to wind turbines in Ontario emanated mostly from rural residents and was quickly exploited by opposition politicians e!'lger to steal Liberal seats. By: Martin Regg Cohn Provincial Politics, Publ ished on I\w Dec l 0 2013 Who would have imagined Ontario as Ground Zero for the global anti-wind movement, pitting people power against wind power? Instead of a low-carbon environment, the governing Liberals generated a highly toxic political environment. Yet it is economics, more than politics, that is causing the greatest drag on wind power today. Diminishing returns have prompted the Liberals to tilt against wind turbines. The pace of future wind expansion will be scaled back over the next 20 years, according to the Long Te1m Energy Planreleased this month by the government. The latest plan is a belated admission that previous energy plans were off target. To understand how much the Liberals miscalculated, it's worth looking at another report that preceded this one. Prepared for influential clients in the energy industry by global consulting firm !HS-CERA, the title of this private study says it all: "Too Much, Too Fast-The Pace of Greening the Ontario Power System." 6 It treats our wind turbines as a case study on how greening the power system can plunge it into the red. A cautionary tale for international clients, the report would have been essential reading for provincial energy planners as they looked for the light at the end of our wind tunnel: "What happened in Ontario ... provide(s) universal lessons regarding how a simple, appealing, but unrealistic idea can intersect with the political process and set in motion environmental policies that run counter to the underlying costs and complexity of the electric power sector." Over the past decade, the government rapidly signed contracts for I 0,000 megawatts of wind and solar- exceeding the coal capacity it had targeted for elimination. Yet dirty coal and clean wind are not interchangeable, despite the equivalency implied in the Liberals' successful campaign pitches. You can burn coal (or natural gas) when needed. But you can't make the wind blow on demand. In Ontario, "wind conditions tend to produce power least when consumers want powermost." Additional wind capacity requires more standby power from natural gas-which explains why the Liberals had to build (and in two cases, cancel) so many gas-fired power plants. "This back-up requirement meant that as a source of new power supply, the integration of wind by natural gas-fired technologies was 30 per cent more expensive" than by gas alone. Another problem: You can't make the wind stop blowing. "Wind conditions tend to produce power most when consumers need power least .... Overgeneration creates an operational problem that requires reducing output from hydro, nuclear, and/or wind generators." Unfortunately, most of that unneeded wind power didn't displace dirty coal, but forced costly cuts in clean hydro and emissions-free nuclear power. Ramping down hydro is hard, given natural water flows. Nuclear shutdowns are expensive, given the hefty restart costs. Why did the Liberals sell a mismatched green vision, and why did voters (mostly in urban areas) buy into it? The study's authors appear puzzled by the lack of government foresight and the electorate's lack of oversight. "Looking back ... too many people believed that renewable power was a direct substitute for conventional power plants, including coal-fired," they conclude. "The simple idea to replace coal-fired power plants with wind turbines went unchallenged in Ontario and made the green vision appear plausible." Resistance to wind turbines emanated mostly from rural residents and was quickly exploited by opposition politicians eager to steal Liberal seats. While the NIMBYists beat their breasts, the bean counters took their eyes off the turbines. Politics trumped economics. Ontario's latest long-term plan reads like a disguised damage control strategy that takes its cue from the private consultant's report quoted here. Others in the global energy industry who read the IHS-CERA report effectively had a sneak peak: "Lessons from the Ontario power system provide valuable insights," the consultants write. "Trying to do too much too fast will inevitably result in cost escalation that ... drives monthly power bills beyond politically acceptable levels. The unintended consequence is political backlash." And double jeopardy: Not just NIMBY ism, but billion-dollar boondoggles. mailto:mcohn@thes!ar.ca, Twitter: @reggcohn 7 Nielson, Stephen From: Senator Seitz Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:53 AM Glover, George (glover@focusedcapitolsolutions.com) FW: GCHC Amendment (revised) Sent: To: Subject: Does this answer your question? Bill From: DHeyman@lsc.state.oh.us [mailto:DHeyman@lsc.state.oh. us] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 3:09 PM To: Senator Seitz; Lynch, Jamie Cc: rclark@lsc.state.oh.us; kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us Subject: Fw: GCHC Amendment (revised) Dear Senator Seitz, Regarding AM1339-1, the GCHC amendment to S.B. 58, these are the reasons we altered the language that was suggested by the interested parties. 1. We recodified it from the suggested insertion into section 4928.11 to a new section, 4928.112. We believe the use of a new section provided greater clarity by making the new requirement stand out. 2. We believe the codification into three divisions made the new provision easier to understand. 3. The clause, "during a period of emergency or disaster," which seems, per the emails from Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Glover, to be the language causing the problem with the LSC version, was added based on the implication of the original suggested placemeht of the amendment in section 4928.11 and the concern for priority in the restoration of service during interruption . That section states, ''The ru les .. .shall include standards for operation, reliability, and safety during periods of emergency and disaster." Thus, when we moved the codification to 4928.112, we did not want to alter the intended meaning , which we believed included this statement about periods of emergency and disaster. It seemed that the phrase specified the nature of an interruption for which an electric distribution utility would put together a service restoration plan. 4 . LSC will often make changes to the language or codification of a suggested bill or amendment, to improve clarity and logical placement within the Revised Code. If a bill or amendment is given to us with specific instructions to leave the wording or placement completely intact, with no alteration, we will do so. This amendment was not given to us with such instructions. Please contact me if you have any further questions or concerns. Derek K. Heyman Attorney Legislative Service Commission 614.644.7770 (voice) 614.353.0878 (mobile) 614.644.1721 (fax) -----Forwarded by Derek Heyman/LSC/Ohia_Legislature/US an 12/09/2013 03:04 PM----From: Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohia_Legislature/US To: Derek Heyman/LSC/Ohia_Legislature/US@OHIO_LEGISLATURE Date: 12/09/2013 01:16 PM Subject: Fw: GCHC Amendment (revised) 9 Here it is. ----· Forwarded by Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US on 12/09/2013 01: 13 PM ----From: "Lynch, Jamie" To : "kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us" Date: 12/09/2013 01 :05 PM Subject: FW: GCHC Amendment (revised) Kathy-please see below. Senator Seitz would like a written explanation as to why LSC deviated from the actual language provided to them when drafting the enclosed amendment. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Glover, George [mailto:glover@focusedcapitolsolutions.com] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 2:50 PM To: Home - Senator Seitz; Senator Seitz Cc: Lynch, Jamie; tobrien@bricker.com Subject: GCHC Amendment (revised) Bill - Per our conversation attached is the revised GCHC amendment to SB 58. LSC' s inclusion of the language below was not in the agreed to amendment (attached) and could provide an unnecessary limitation on a hospital's ability to receive priority service interruption. Please feel free to contact Tom O'Brien at (614) 227-2335 with any questions regarding the amendment. Thanks for your assistance. George Taft I George T. Glover I Managing Director Focused Capitol Solutions LLC 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: Cincinnati· Fax: 513.357.8740 Direct: 513.357.9486 •Cell: 513.607.9492 www.taftlaw.com I glover@focusedcapitolsolutions.com From: O'Brien, Thomas [mailto:TOBrien@Bricker.com] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 2: 17 PM To: Glover, George Subject: Revisions to LSC version of GCHC amendment George, attached is a slightly revised draft of the LSC version of the GCHC amendment to SB 58. The revision removes the words 10 "during a period of emergency or disaster" from the requirement that hospitals be given priority in the event of a service Interruption. This language was not reflected In the agree-to amendment language, which I am also attaching. The problem with the LSC's language is that it limits the occasions for which hospitals will receive priority in service restoration. There are outages that may not be part of an "emergency or disaster" but the negative effect of any service interruption will be the same to a hospital facility. Tom [attachment "Hosptial Amendment FINAL.docx" deleted by Derek Heyman/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US] [attachment "130SB58-1339Xl.doc" deleted by Derek Heyman/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US] 11 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:52 AM 'DHeyman@lsc.state.oh.us' rclark@lsc.state.oh.us; kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us RE: GCHC Amendment (revised) DerekThank you for the email. The Senator said that points 1 & 2 are okay, but we will have to get back to you on point 3. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: DHeyman@lsc.state.oh.us [mailto:DHeyman@lsc.state.oh.us] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 3:09 PM To: Senator Seitz; Lynch, Jamie Cc: rclark@lsc.state.oh.us; kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us Subject: Fw: GCHC Amendment (revised) Dear Senator Seitz, Regarding AM1339-1, the GCHC amendment to S.B. 58, these are the reasons we altered the language that was suggested by the interested parties. 1. We recodified it from the suggested insertion into section 4928.11 to a new section, 4928.112. We believe the use of a new section provided greater clarity by making the new requirement stand out. 2. We believe the codification into three divisions made the new provision easier to understand. 3. The clause, "during a period of emergency or disaster," which seems, per the emails from Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Glover, to be the language causing the problem with the LSC version, was added based on the Implication of the original suggested placement of the amendment in section 4928.11 and the concern for priority in the restoration of service during interruption. That section states, "The rules ... shall include standards for operation , reliability, and safety during periods of emergency and disaster." Thus, when we moved the codification to 4928.112, we did not want to alter the intended meaning , which we believed included tl1is statement about periods of emergency and disaster. It seemed that the phrase specified the nature of an interruption for which an electric distribution utility would put together a service restoration plan. 4. LSC will often make changes to the language or codification of a suggested bill or amendment, to improve clarity and logical placement within the Revised Code. If a bill or amendment is given to us with specific instructions to leave the wording or placement completely intact, with no alteration , we will do so. This amendment was not given to us with such instructions. Please contact me if you have any further questions or concerns. Derek K. Heyman 12 Attorney Legislative Service Commission 614.644.7770 (voice) 614.353.0878 (mobile) 614.644.1721 (fax) -----Forwarded by Derek Heyman/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US on 12/09/2013 03:04 PM----From: Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US To: Derek Heyman/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US@OHIO_LEGISLATURE Date: 12/09/2013 01 :16 PM Subject: Fw: GCHC Amendment (revised) Here it is. -----Forwarded by Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US on 12/09/2013 01 :13 PM----From: "Lynch, Jamie" To : "kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us" Date: 12/09/2013 01 :05 PM Subject: FW: GCHC Amendment (revised) Kathy-please see below. Senator Seitz would like a written explanation as to why LSC deviated from the actual language provided to them when drafting the enclosed amendment. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Glover, George [mailto:glover@focusedcapitolsolutions.com] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 2:50 PM To: Home - Senator Seitz; Senator Seitz Cc: Lynch, Jamie; tobrien@bricker.com Subject: GCHC Amendment (revised) Bill - Per our conversation attached is the revised GCHC amendment to SB 58. LSC's inclusion of the language below was not in the agreed to amendment (attached) and could provide an unnecessary limitation on a hospital's ability to receive priority service interruption. Please feel free to contact Tom O'Brien at (614) 227-2335 with any questions regarding the amendment. Thanks for your assistance. George Taft I George T. Glover I Managing Director Focused Capitol Solutions LLC 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 13 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: Cincinnati· Fax: 513.357.8740 Direct: 513.357.9486 •Cell: 513.607.9492 www.taftlaw.com I glover@focusedcapitolsolutions.com From: O'Brien, Thomas [mailto:TOBrien@Bricker.com] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 2:17 PM To: Glover, George Subject: Revisions to LSC version of GCHC amendment George, attached is a slightly revised draft of the LSC version of the GCHC amendment to SB 58. The revision removes the words "during a period of emergency or disaster" from the requirement that hospitals be given priority in the event of a service interruption. This language was not reflected in the agree-to amendment language, which I am also attaching. The problem with the LSC's language is that it limits the occasions for which hospitals wlll receive priority in service restoration. There are outages that may not be part of an "emergency or disaster" but the negative effect of any service interruption will be the same to a hospital facility. Tom [attachment "Hosptial Amendment FINAL.docx" deleted by Derek Heyman/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US] [attachment "130SB58-1339Xl.doc" deleted by Derek Heyman/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US] 14 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sam Randazzo Thursday, December 05, 2013 3:53 AM Home - Senator Seitz Lynch, Jamie Fwd: OCC Letter Senator, below is the e-mail communication between Kevin Murray (in our office) and Frank Strigari regarding the fundamental defects in the representations OCC has made regarding the the effect of SB 58 on the price of certain types of light bulbs. To better follow the flow, I suggest reading Kevin's 12:47 PM e-mail first then reading his follow up response to Frank's restatement of Kevin's findings. The bottom line is OCC is making false claims regarding SB 58. OCC has a staff of technical experts who are paid through funds raised by an assessment that lands on all consumers (including commercial and industrial consumers). These technical experts should have the skills to ensure that OCC's claims hold up when subjected to scrutiny. In some ways, this light bulb example is another indication of how another government mandate (making OCC the residential advocate) can leave consumers worse off rather than what may have been intended by the General Assembly. OCC also knows or should know that it's "price suppression" claims are based on false portrayals of how the PJM market works and what has actually happened to retail prices in Ohio since the portfolio mandates were adopted. Indeed, the disconnect between retail electric prices in Ohio and electric prices in the competitive wholesale market was a featured part of the testimony presented by Bruce Weston when he appeared before your Committee. Unlike OCC and the PUCO and the utilities, the funding that we rely upon to do the things that you have asked of us comes from customers that make voluntary contributions. We have to request funding each and every year to carry on this work. Our budgets do not allow us to fund billboards or radio spots. Unlike the OMA, we don't seek bribes to sign settlements that screw consumers. The funds we get each year are inadequate to cover the cost of demonstrating how the claims of OCC, the Sierra Club, the OMA and, in some cases, utilities, are based on bad data, bad models or a misleading portrayal of the bigger picture consequences of the claim assuming it is true. Our timely responses to the many requests you have issued is, for example, only possible in our case because of people like Kevin Murray, Scott Elisar and, perhaps me, who don't ask how much money they will get for doing the work. In this regard, we have previously spoken to you and other legislators about providing Ohio businesses with a tax credit (for example) for contributions voluntarily made to an organization like IEU-Ohio so that we might better sustain the work that is required to advance and protect the interests of businesses (big and small) in this increasingly complicated and politicized sector of the economy. As you consider the SB 58 related performance of OCC and the OMA and next steps, I suggest that providing a means tax credit or otherwise - to allow Ohio businesses (big and small) to rationalize making contributions to customer-driven organizations like IEU-Ohio might be a timely subject. It could be an effective way to address the problems created by agencies such as OCC that rely on bogus numbers or organizations like the OMA that rely on bad or unethical behavior. I hope this is useful. Sam Sent from my iPad Mini Sam Randazzo sam@mwncmh.com 15 614.395.4268 Begin forwarded message: From: Kevin Murray 16 Confidentiality Notice: This message is intended for use only by the individual or entity to whom or which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by telephone. Thank you. From: Kevin Murray [mailto:murraykm@mwncmh.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 12:47 PM To: Strigari, Frank Cc: Scott Elisar; Charles Willoughby - Gmail; Sam Randazzo Subject: RE: OCC Letter SB 58 would not cause the cost of CFL and LED light bulbs used by residential customers to increase dramatically. In fact, SB 58 would have no effect on the cost of CFL and LED bulbs at all. Electric distribution utility programs that distribute CFL and LED bulbs to residential customers have two basic designs. The first option (which is the predominant way most utility programs operate) utilized discounts at retail points of sale to lower the price of more efficient bulbs (rather than increase the price) to induce the customer to by the bulbs. The bulbs are stocked and sold at retailers such a Lowes, Wal-Mart and Home Depot. The retailer keeps track of the bulbs sold and is reimbursed by the electric distribution utility to compensate for the discounted sales price. The second option is to distribute free CFL or LED bulbs to customers. For example, an electric distribution company may send CFL bulbs to a customer that requests a kit on energy savings opportunities. Regardless of whether the bulbs are discounted at the point of sale or distributed free, the cost of the bulbs is paid for through the rider customers pay to compensate the electric distribution utility for the costs of its energy efficiency compliance. The misleading cartoon distributed by the Office of the Ohio Consumer's Counsel ("OCC") fails both the common sense test and laugh test as well. If electric distribution utilities were to offer CFL and LED bulbs at the inflated prices of $31.00 and $75.00 (respectively) claimed by OCC, customers would simply bypass the electric distribution utility and buy these bulbs at the normal retail selling prices offered by Lowes, Wal-Mart and Home Depot. Unlike electric distribution service, the sale of CFL and LED bulbs in Ohio is not a monopoly service. Opponents of SB 58 like OCC have argued the shared savings provisions in the legislation in the bill are too rich and a giveaway to utilities. It bears noting that OCC has endorses settlement in which the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio ("PUCO") has authorized electric distribution utilities to collect shared savings. Thus, the debate seems to more over the amount of shared savings and whether they should be authorized by the legislation and the degree of discretion afforded to the PUCO on this issue. In any event if an electric distribution utility is authorized to collect shared savings the amounts associated with the shared savings becomes part of the overall revenue requirement associated with the electric distribution utility total compliance cost. Shared savings are a not a discreet cost associated with any specific energy efficiency program or measure. Please let me know if this is responsive to your question of if you need additional information. Kevin Murray 17 Executive Director Industrial Energy Users-Ohio 21 East State Street, 17th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-4228 Direct Dial: 614.719.2844 Fax: 614.469.4653 murraykm@mwncmh.com The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. From: Charles Willoughby [mailto:cwgw2l@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 11:57 AM To: Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Kevin Murray Subject: Fwd: OCC Letter Can you help respond to Frank's questions below? Charles Willoughby (330) 904-2001 cwgw21@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/WiltoughbyCharles ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: "Strigari, Frank" Frank.Strigari@ohiosenate.gov 18 Confidentiality Notice: This message is intended for use only by the individual or entity to whom or which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by telephone. Thank you. **This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free** -- 19 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Sam Randazzo Wednesday, December 04, 2013 9:24 PM Lynch, Jamie Re: AM1394-1 Thanks for all your hard work. Sent from my iPad Mini Sam Randazzo sam@mwncmh.com 614.395.4268 On Dec 4, 2013, at 4:15 PM, "Lynch, Jamie" From: sschwartz@lsc.state.oh.us [mailto:sschwartz@lsc.state.oh.us] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 4:12 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: AM1394-1 <130HB9-1394X1.pdf> **This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free** 20 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Senator Seitz Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:32 PM 'Michael Beirne' RE: Hydropower amendment? Mike-many thanks. We are fighting some extremely avaricious people and we need all the help we can get. Bill Seitz From: Michael Beirne [mailto:mbeirne@amppartners.org] sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 5:42 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: FW: Hydropower amendment? Jamie, fyi for you and Sen. Seitz. Wind folks went to Gangwer and we got a request for comment. Below are our responses. Thanks. From: Michael Beirne Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 4:24 PM To: 'Marcus Roth' Subject: RE: Hydropower amendment? Marcus, you can attribute the following to Jolene Thompson, OMEA Executive Director. We're disappointed that the wind industry-which when it benefits them wants the renewable community to work together - has apparently decided to cut bait when it comes to their parochial interest. It's further disappointing since we are one of the entities they approach when they have power to market. We agree that one of the policy goals was to incent the development of new generation. However, we understood another policy goal to be to encourage a more diverse power supply portfolio. AMP and our members are believers in the benefits of a diverse and balanced power supply portfolio - that includes fossil resources, along with a variety of renewables, including hydro, wind, solar and landfill gas. Hydro power has many attributes - the output can be scheduled and the facilities don't need to be firmed up like wind. However, hydro facilities are extremely long-lived projects and are capital intensive compared to wind - often above market prices for some period of time. Additionally, the hydro power industry isn't heavily subsidized like the wind industry. Bond debt service for hydro facilities is usually for very long periods - 30-35 years or more-Greenup still has debt outstanding. Additionally, the FERC and USACE requirements for hydro are significant and ongoing for the length of the license (SO year initial then 30 year renewal). AMP is non-profit and does not profit from REC's- some members use the funds from REC sales to lower the costs for power to their consumers; some simply retire their RECS. Is it fair that those who have invested in expensive hydro are now denied the benefits of doing so because they did so because it was the right thing to do and there were no special subsidies or RECS? 21 Michael A. Beirne AVP Government Affairs and Publications American Municipal Power (AMP) Ohio Municipal Electric Association (OMEA) 1111 Schrock Rd., Suite 100 Columbus, Ohio 43229 614-540-0835 (office) 614-309-9732 (mobile) From: Marcus Roth [mailto:mroth@gongwer-oh.com] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM To: Michael Beirne Subject: RE: Hydropower amendment? Thanks Mike. Should I attribute this to you? Since wind people are fighting this, can you offer policy rationale for adding old hydro plants to the RPS? They say the whole point of the RPS was to encourage investment in new generation, not water it down with old facilities. Also, since AMP isn't subject to the RPS, why should the company get to profit from selling RECs? Feel free to call if you'd rather talk than write. Thanks, Marcus Roth Gongwer News Service 614-221-1992 From: Michael Beirne [mailto:mbeirne@amppartners.org] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 11:19 AM To: Marcus Roth Subject: RE: Hydropower amendment? Was literally just getting ready to send ... The Greenup Hydroelectric Power Plant is a pollution-free, 70.2 MW run-of-the-river hydroelectric plant located on the Ohio River, near Franklin Furnace, Ohio. The facility is located at the Greenup Locks and Dam, which is owned and operated by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers. The facility is operated in close cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Greenup was placed into commercial service in 1982 and has an annual capacity factor of approximately 45%. Greenup, is currently owned by the City of Hamilton, Ohio. The City will sell a 48.6% stake in Greenup to AMP and acquire a 51.4% stake in Meldahl when the Meldahl facility begins commercial operation, which is expected to be in 2014. A run-of-the-river hydro plant generates electricity using the power in river water as it passes through the plant without causing an appreciable change in river flow. The addition of Greenup to AM P's power supply portfolio will directly benefit 48 municipal electric communities. Greenup produces clean, renewable energy. The proposed amendment to SB 58 would permit the facility to qualify for renewable energy credits. Five other hydro projects AMP operates and oversees construction of already qualify for 22 renewable energy credits under existing law. AMP operates the Belleville Hydroelectric Plant, and oversees the construction of four new run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects on the Ohio River. These five projects, plus Greenup, total more than 400 MW of clean renewable energy, and an investment of more than $3 billion. Hope this helps. Let me know if you need anything else. 23 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Wednesday, December 04, 2013 12:31 PM Ohman, Alan FW: Please See Enclosed - Low income Please see the enclosed email per Chairman Seitz's request. He wanted me to relay that he is open to helping Senator Smith pass Senator Kearney's bill on landlord tax credits to help some more. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Tom Raga [mailto:tom.raga@aes.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 6:03 PM To: Lynch, Jamie; Chrisy Wright; Dave Boehm; Denny Larr; John Keaton; Michael Carey; Mike Brello; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Steve P. Lake; Ty Pine; Judi L Sobecki Subject: RE: Please See Enclosed - Low income Jamie: Responding to Sen. Smith's letter, low-income residents are already a part of our energy efficiency program. We believe that her concerns are already being represented and addressed. Our E.E. team has outlined a few facts regarding our program: Since 2009, DP&L's energy efficiency programs have included more than $3 million in low income expenditures saving more than 3 million KWhs. The funds are used to make low-income homes within DP&L's service territory more energy efficient. The types of services provided include lighting upgrades, HVAC replacements, refrigerator replacements, insulation, and in some cases, basic electrical repairs. While the low income programs are the least cost effective programs in terms of energy efficiency, DP&L has done them since the inception of our programs because they have benefits beyond energy efficiency. Furthermore, in DP&L's recently filed energy efficiency plan and stipulation, DP&L committed $2.8 million to low income programs for 2014 and 2015 and added a new partner to our program implementation team. As for SB 58, it is important to note that the bill removes programs that are not cost effective from the shared savings calculation (version 8 -lines 1828-1830). Thanks, Tom From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 9:47 AM To: Chrisy Wright; Dave Boehm; Denny Larr; John Keaton; Michael Carey; Mike Brello; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Steve 24 P. Lake; Tom Raga; Ty Pine Subject: Please See Enclosed Senator Seitz requested that I send around the enclosed letter for comment on low-income issues. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-Mail, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender by return e-Mail and delete this e-Mail from your system. Unless explicitly and conspicuously stated in the subject matter of the above e-Mail, this e-Mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-Mail does not constitute consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties. 25 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sam Randazzo Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:52 PM Lynch, Jamie; Chrisy Wright; Dave Boehm; Denny Larr; John Keaton; Michael Carey; Mike Brello; Scott Elisar; Steve Lake; Tom Raga; Ty Pine Kevin Murray; Scott Elisar; Charles Willoughby - Gmail RE: Sub. S.B. 58 Amendments AM1326 Clarifies that an electric distribution utility can't count stuff that is contractually committed to a municipal power agency (AMP). We have no positive or negative comments on this amendment and see it as doing nothing to change the actual or intended meaning of the bill. AM1336 Modifies Dash 8 language to make it clear that the Btu conversion methods adopted by the PUCO pursuant to this Section are not automatically conversion methods for purposes of 4928.661 (waste heat recovery and CHP related) . We have no positive or negative comments on this amendment and see it as doing nothing to change the actual or intended meaning of the bill. If this amendment is adopted, the requirement that the PUCO specify the conversion factor for waste heat recovery will remain part of the law to be satisfied when the PUCO elects to do so. AM1337 Clears up some potential confusion regarding the application of the EE/PDR cost cap. We have no negative comments on this amendment - if may help to avoid confusion. AM1339 Hospital amendment We have no negative comments on this amendment AM1347 Modifies run-of-the-river REC quantity available prior to 1-1-19 We have no negative comments on this amendment AM1348 Uses regional transmission organization definition in 4928.66 to clarify meaning of the term elsewhere. We have no negative comments on this amendment 48 The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. Sam f\.andazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (founded 19?5) 2I E... 5tatc Street, I 7th r=loor, Columbus, ()hio +:72 I 5 (6 i+) 71 9-281-0 (o~~ice), (6 I+) 469-1-65? (Fax) (61+))95-4268 (cell) sam@mwncmh.com (e--mail) From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:31 PM To: Chrisy Wright; Dave Boehm; Denny Larr; John Keaton; Michael Carey; Mike Brello; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Steve Lake; Tom Raga; Ty Pine Subject: Sub. S.B. 58 Amendments Please see enclosed for the amendments we have received back from LSC. Bring any issues to my attention ASAP. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SP AM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 49 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: John Funk Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:40 PM Lynch, Jamie Latest story Dear Ms. Lynch, Here's my latest effort. I am concerned about tomorrow's committee meeting. If you think Sen. Seitz would have time to call me tonight, please give him my mobile number below. Here's link to the story: http: II bit. ly/ 1bfBSes John Funk Utility & Energy Reporter The Plain Dealer 1801 Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 216-999-4138 (direct) 1-800-688-4802 ext 4138 216-316-6949 (mobile) Follow me on Twitter: @johncfunk For complete energy coverage, go to: http://www.cleveland.com/ohio-utilities/ 52 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Thompson, Chrissie Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:26 PM Lynch, Jamie RE: Confirming two items in SB 58 Perfect timing. Thanks. Chrissie Thompson State capital reporter The Cincinnati Enquirer 513-368-2883 cthompson@enguirer.com http://www.cincinnati.com http:// ci nci n nat i. co m/blo gs/po Iit ics/ Follow me on Twitter: @CThompsonENQ Follow me on Facebook From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:38 PM To: Thompson, Chrissie Subject: RE: Confirming two items in SB 58 ChrissieI. Yes, it caps how many RA TEPA YER dollars they can spend, they can spend all the shareholder dollars they want. 2. Dams on rivers or lakes that border Ohio or its adjoining states still qualify. A Canadian plant on Lake Erie would not qualify unless it is deliverable into PJM. Hope this helps. Sorry about the delay. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Thompson, Chrissie [mailto:cthompson@enguirer.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 11:38 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Confirming two items in SB 58 Importance: High Hey, Jamie. 53 Just two things I want to confirm before our story runs (on line today, in paper tomorrow): 1) The bill still caps how much utilities can spend on energy-saving programs, right? I didn't see any changes related to that in the comp doc Sen. Seitz sent me. 2) An earlier version of the bill allowed utilities to get their renewable power from hydroelectric plants in Ontario or Quebec. The compromise bill eliminates that provision. But dams on rivers or lakes that border Ohio or its adjoining states still qualify, right? So would a Canadian plant on Lake Erie qualify? Chrissie Thompson State capital reporter The Cincinnati Enquirer 513-368-2883 cthompson@enguirer.com http://www.cincinnati.com http:ljcincinnati.com/blogs/politics/ Follow me on Twitter: @CThompsonENQ Follow me on Facebook From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:25 AM To: Thompson, Chrissie Subject: RE: S.S. 58 Further Information This message has been archived, please click here to view the message. 54 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: Sam Randazzo Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:10 PM Lynch, Jamie Scott Elisar; Kevin Murray; Ty Pine; Denny Larr RE: Sub. S.B. 58 Amendments To: Cc: Subject: I have responded to Senator Patton's office seeking comments on AM1296X1 and indicating that I think this amendment will face stiff and diverse opposition. I also confess to not understanding how the second page fits into the bill. The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you . Sam l\.andazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (founded 1975) E_. State Stn::et, 17th floor, Columbus, Ohio 4;H 15 (611-) 71 9-284-0 (of.flee), (6 1+) +6 9-46 5? (fax) (61 +) ) 9 5-+268 (cell) sarn@mwncmh.com (e-mail) 21 From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:31 PM To: Chrisy Wright; Dave Boehm; Denny Larr; John Keaton; Michael Carey; Mike Brello; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Steve Lake; Tom Raga; Ty Pine Subject: Sub. S.B. 58 Amendments Please see enclosed for the amendments we have received back from LSC. Bring any issues to my attention ASAP. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 61 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:38 PM 'Thompson, Chrissie' RE: Confirming two items in SB 58 Chrissie1. Yes, it caps how many RA TEPA YER dollars they can spend, they can spend all the shareholder dollars they want. 2. Dams on rivers or lakes that border Ohio or its adjoining states still qualify. A Canadian plant on Lake Erie would not qualify unless it is deliverable into PJM. Hope this helps. Sorry about the delay. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Thompson, Chrissie [mailto:cthompson@enquirer.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 11:38 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Confirming two items in SB 58 Importance: High Hey, Jamie. Just two things I want to confirm before our story runs (on line today, in paper tomorrow): 1) The bill still caps how much utilities can spend on energy-saving programs, right? I didn't see any changes related to that in the comp doc Sen. Seitz sent me. 2) An earlier version of the bill allowed utilities to get their renewable power from hydroelectric plants in Ontario or Quebec. The compromise bill eliminates that provision . But dams on rivers or lakes that border Ohio or its adjoining states still qualify, right? So would a Canadian plant on Lake Erie qualify? Chrissie Thompson State capital reporter The Cincinnati Enquirer 513-368-2883 cthompson@enguirer.com http:ljwww.cincinnati.com http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/ Follow me on Twitter: @CThompsonENQ Follow me on Facebook 72 From: Lynch, Jamie [mallto:Jamie.Lynch@ohlosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:25 AM To: Thompson, Chrissie Subject: RE: S.B. 58 Further Information This message has been archived, please click here to view the message. 73 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:28 PM Chrisy Wright; Dave Boehm; Denny Larr; John Keaton; Michael Carey; Mike Brello; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Steve Lake; Tom Raga; Ty Pine FW: Status of SB 58 Please see enclosed per the Chairman's request. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us [mailto:kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:33 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Status of SB 58 Hi Jamie, Thanks for letting me know the status of SB 58 and the plan to report the bill and possibly bring it to the Senate for a floor vote tomorrow. If the bill is scheduled for a floor vote, we will need to prepare a committee report (a new sub bill with all amendments engrossed in the bill) very quickly so that it is ready for 1:30 session. Having a final in-list will help us to work ahead so that session is not delayed as we work to prepare that report for the floor. I'd like to confirm the in-list for SB 58 that we discussed in our phone conversation. You mentioned that the in-list includes all of Sen. Seitz's amendments. In addition, Sen. Coley's run-of-the-river hydroelectric facility amendment and Sen. Smith's amendment may also be added. Please verify that the following list is accurate. In AM AM AM AM AM AM 1325--streamlined opt out --LSC is still working on this one 1326--municipal power agency 1336--energy conversion method changes 1337--compliance plan 1339--priority service to hospitals 1354--shared savings changes --LSC is still working on this one Possibly In AM 1348--technical/corrective amendment AM 1316--Sen. Smith amendment AM 1347--Sen. Coley amendment Please let me know when you hear whether SB 58 will be on tomorrow's Senate calendar. Thank you, Kathy Kathleen Luikart Research Associate 78 Legislative Service Commission 77 South High Street, 9th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-6136 (614) 466-4071 79 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:33 PM Lynch, Jamie Status of SB 58 Hi Jamie, Thanks for letting me know the status of SB 58 and the plan to report the bill and possibly bring it to the Senate for a floor vote tomorrow. If the bill is scheduled for a floor vote, we will need to prepare a committee report (a new sub bill with all amendments engrossed in the bill) very quickly so that it is ready for 1:30 session. Having a final in-list will help us to work ahead so that session is not delayed as we work to prepare that report for the floor. I'd like to confirm the in-list for SB 58 that we discussed in our phone conversation . You mentioned that the in-list includes all of Sen. Seitz's amendments. In addition, Sen. Coley's run-of-the-river hydroelectric facility amendment and Sen. Smith's amendment may also be added. Please verify that the following list is accurate. In AM AM AM AM AM AM 1325--streamlined opt out --LSC is still working on this one 1326--municipal power agency 1336--energy conversion method changes 1337--compliance plan 1339--priority service to hospitals 1354--shared savings changes --LSC is still working on this one Possibly In AM 1348--technical/corrective amendment AM 1316--Sen. Smith amendment AM 1347--Sen. Coley amendment Please let me know when you hear whether SB 58 will be on tomorrow's Senate calendar. Thank you, Kathy Kathleen Luikart Research Associate Legislative Service Commission 77 South High Street, 9th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-6136 (614) 466-4071 82 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Thompson, Chrissie Tuesday, December 03, 2013 11:38 AM Lynch, Jamie Confirming two items in SB 58 Importance: High Hey, Jamie. Just two things I want to confirm before our story runs (online today, in paper tomorrow): 1) The bill still caps how much utilities can spend on energy-saving programs, right? I didn't see any changes related to that in the comp doc Sen. Seitz sent me. 2) An earlier version of the bill allowed utilities to get their renewable power from hydroelectric plants in Ontario or Quebec. The compromise bill eliminates that provision. But dams on rivers or lakes that border Ohio or its adjoining states still qualify, right? So would a Canadian plant on Lake Erie qualify? Chrissie Thompson State capital reporter The Cincinnati Enquirer 513-368-2883 cthompson@enguirer.com http:ljwww.cincinnati.com http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/ Follow me on Twitter: @CThompsonENQ Follow me on Facebook From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamle.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:25 AM To: Thompson, Chrissie Subject: RE: S.B. 58 Further Information This message has been archived, please click here to view the message. 87 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, December 03, 2013 10:36 AM Public Utilities FW: Solar industry in NW Ohio All-Please see the enclosed article per Chairman Seitz's request. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov -----Original Message----From: Ewing, Steve Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 8:30 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Solar industry in NW Ohio http://www.toledoblade.com/Energy/2013/12/01/Solar-firms-prove-costly-investments.html -Steve 90 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, December 03, 2013 10:36 AM Public Utilities FW: Solar industry in NW Ohio All-Please see the enclosed article per Chairman Seitz's request. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov -----Original Message----From: Ewing, Steve Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 8:30 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Solar industry in NW Ohio http://www.toledoblade.com/Energy/2013/12/01/Solar-firms-prove-costly-investments.html -Steve 91 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, December 03, 2013 10:36 AM Public Utilities FW: Solar industry in NW Ohio All-Please see the enclosed article per Chairman Seitz's request. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov -----Original Message----From: Ewing, Steve Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 8:30 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Solar industry in NW Ohio http://www.toledoblade.com/Energy/2013/12/01/Solar-firms-prove-costly-investments.html -Steve 92 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Senator Seitz Tuesday, December 03, 2013 10:26 AM 'Charlotte Hickcox' RE: SB 58 Documents Charlotte-many thanks! Bill --~-----~- From: Charlotte Hickcox [mailto:chickcox@ohiochamber.com] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 2:22 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: SB 58 Documents Jamie, I wanted to make sure Sen. Seitz got copies of the following documents: Ohio Chamber Key Vote letter delivered to all Senators today, both hard copy and email Op-Ed that I sent out today to all daily and weekly papers Press release from a coalition of seven business trade associations also sent this afternoon Let me know if you or the Senator have any questions. Thanks I Charlotte B. Hickcox I Director, Energy & Environmental Policy Ohio Chamber of Commerce 1230 E. Town Street. I Columbus, OH 43215 o: 614.228.4201 It: 614.228.6403 I c: 614.537.4339 e: chickcox@ohiochamber.com 94 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Michael Beirne < mbeirne@amppartners.org > Monday, December 02, 2013 5:42 PM Lynch, Jamie FW: Hydropower amendment? Jamie, fyi for you and Sen. Seitz. Wind folks went to Gongwer and we got a request for comment. Below are our responses. Thanks. From: Michael Beirne Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 4:24 PM To: 'Marcus Roth' Subject: RE: Hydropower amendment? Marcus, you can attribute the following to Jolene Thompson, OMEA Executive Director. We're disappointed that the wind industry- which when it benefits them wants the renewable community to work together- has apparently decided to cut bait when it comes to their parochial interest. It's further disappointing since we are one of the entities they approach when they have power to market. We agree that one of the policy goals was to incent the development of new generation. However, we understood another policy goal to be to encourage a more diverse power supply portfolio. AMP and our members are believers in the benefits of a diverse and balanced power supply portfolio - that includes fossil resources, along with a variety of renewables, including hydro, wind, solar and landfill gas. Hydro power has many attributes - the output can be scheduled and the facilities don't need to be firmed up like wind. However, hydro facilities are extremely long-lived projects and are capital intensive compared to wind - often above market prices for some period of time. Additionally, the hydropower industry isn't heavily subsidized like the wind industry. Bond debt service for hydro facilities is usually for very long period s - 30-35 years or more-Greenup still has debt outstanding. Additionally, the FERC and USACE requirements fo r hydro are significa nt and ongoing for the length of the license (SO year initial then 30 year renewal). AMP is non-profit and does not profit from REC's- some members use the funds from REC sales to lower the costs for power to their consumers; some simply retire their RECS. Is it fair that those who have invested in expensive hydro are now denied the benefits of doing so because they did so because it was the right thing to do and there were no special subsidies or RECS? Michael A. Beirne AVP Government Affairs and Publications American Municipal Power (AMP) Ohio Municipal Electric Association (OMEA) 1111 Schrock Rd., Suite 100 Columbus, Ohio 43229 614-540-0835 (office) 614-309-9732 (mobile) 101 From: Marcus Roth [mailto:mroth@gongwer-oh.com] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM To: Michael Beirne Subject: RE: Hydropower amendment? --------- --- -- Thanks Mike. Should I attribute this to you? Since wind people are fighting this, can you offer policy rationale for adding old hydro plants to the RPS? They say the whole point of the RPS was to encourage investment in new generation, not water it down with old facilities. Also, since AMP isn't subject to the RPS, why should the company get to profit from selling RECs? Feel free to call if you'd rather talk than write. Thanks, Marcus Roth Gongwer News Service 614-221-1992 From: Michael Beirne [mailto:mbeirne@amppartners.org] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 11:19 AM To: Marcus Roth Subject: RE: Hydropower amendment? Was literally just getting ready to send ... The Greenup Hydroelectric Power Plant is a pollution-free, 70.2 MW run-of-the-river hydroelectric plant located on the Ohio River, near Franklin Furnace, Ohio. The facility is located at the Greenup Locks and Dam, which is owned and operated by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers. The facility is operated in close cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Greenup was placed into commercial service in 1982 and has an annual capacity factor of approximately 45%. Greenup, is currently owned by the City of Hamilton, Ohio. The City will sell a 48.6% stake in Greenup to AMP and acquire a 51.4% stake in Meldahl when the Meldahl facility begins commercial operation, which is expected to be in 2014. A run-of-the-river hydro plant generates electricity using the power in river water as it passes through the plant without causing an appreciable change in river flow. The addition of Greenup to AM P's power supply portfolio will directly benefit 48 municipal electric communities. Greenup produces clean, renewable energy. The proposed amendment to SB 58 would permit the facility to qualify for renewable energy credits. Five other hydro projects AMP operates and oversees construction of already qualify for renewable energy credits under existing law. AMP operates the Belleville Hydroelectric Plant, and oversees the construction of four new run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects on the Ohio River. These five projects, plus Greenup, total more than 400 MW of clean renewable energy, and an investment of more than $3 billion. Hope this helps. Let me know if you need anything else. 102 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Glover, George Monday, December 02, 2013 2:54 PM Lynch, Jamie SB 58 Jamie - Thanks, forgot to ask if the hospital (GCHC) amendment will be part of an omnibus amendment or a separate amendment? George Taft I George T. Glover I Managing Director Focused Capitol Solutions LLC 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel : Cincinnati• Fax: 513.357.8740 Direct: 513.357.9486 •Cell: 513.607 .9492 www.taftlaw.com I glover@focusedcapitolsolutions.com From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 2:48 PM To: Glover, George Subject: RE: SB 58 10:15 Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Glover, George [mailto:glover@focusedcapitolsolutions.com] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 2:47 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: SB 58 Jamie - Thanks for the information. Do you know what time the Senate Public Utilities Committee is meeting on Wednesday? George Taft I George T. Glover I Managing Director Focused Capitol Solutions LLC 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 104 Tel: Cincinnati• Fax: 513.357.8740 Direct: 513.357.9486 •Cell: 513.607.9492 www.taftlaw.com I glover@focusedcapitolsolutions.com From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 2:09 PM To: Glover, George; 'mhinnenkamp@springfieldtwp.org' Subject: FW: 130HB311-1292X1 Please see the enclosed per Senator Seitz's request. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Jennelle.Day@ohiohouse.gov [mailto:Jennelle.Day@ohiohouse.gov] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 12:27 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Cc: Senator Seitz Subject: Fwd: 130HB311-1292X1 Senator Seitz, Please find the attached amendment for HB311. If you have any questions please let me know or contact Rep. Schuring directly at 3304187040. Thanks, Jennelle Day Legislative Aide Representative Kirk Schuring Begin forwarded message: From: "i faust@lsc.state. oh. us" Date: December 2, 2013 at 11:45:10 AM EST To: "Day, Jennelle" Subject: 130HB311-1292Xl (See attached file: 130HB31 l-1292Xl.pdf) 105 Nielson, Stephen From: To: Glover, George Monday, December 02, 2013 2:47 PM Lynch, Jamie Subject: SB 58 Sent: Jamie - Thanks for the information. Do you know what time the Senate Public Utilities Committee is meeting on Wednesday? George Taft I George T. Glover I Managing Director Focused Capitol Solutions LLC 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: Cincinnati• Fax: 513.357.8740 Direct: 513.357.9486 •Cell: 513.607.9492 www.taftlaw.com I glover@focusedcapitolsolutions.com From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 2:09 PM To: Glover, George; 'mhinnenkamp@springfieldtwp.org' Subject: FW: 130HB311-1292X1 Please see the enclosed per Senator Seitz's request. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Jennelle.Day@ohiohouse.gov [mailto:Jennelle.Day@ohiohouse.gov] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 12:27 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Cc: Senator Seitz Subject: Fwd: 130HB311-1292X1 Senator Seitz, Please find the attached amendment for HB3 l l. If you have any questions please let me know or contact Rep. Schuring directly at 3304187040. Thanks, 106 Jennelle Day Legislative Aide Representative Kirk Schuring Begin forwarded message: From: "jfaust@lsc.state.oh.us" Date: December 2, 2013 at 11:45:10 AM EST To: "Day, Jennelle" Subject: 130HB311-1292Xl (See attached file: 130HB311-1292Xl .pdf) 107 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Seitz III, William J. Monday, December 02, 2013 1:56 PM Lynch, Jamie RE: Amendment to Sub. S.B. 58-8 We are not doing this Taft I William J. Seitz Ill I Of Counsel Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: 513.381.2838 • Fax: 513.381.0205 Direct: 513.357.9332 •Cell: 513.382.8281 www.taftlaw.com I seitz@taftlaw.com From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 1:51 PM To: Seitz III, William J. Subject: FW: Amendment to Sub. S.B. 58-8 Somehow I missed this one ... it didn't go through to my inbox and I just had a chance to check yours. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited . If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Keaton, John A [mailto:John.Keaton@duke-energy.com] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 12:00 PM To: Home - Senator Seitz; Senator Seitz Cc: Lynch, Jamie; Barrett, Lee E; Spiller, Amy B; Watts, Elizabeth H; Duff, Tim Subject: Amendment to Sub. S.B. 58-8 Sen. Seitz, 109 Duke Energy Ohio requests that in Sec. 4928.6630 of Sub. S.B. 58-8, at line 2050, the sentence beginning, "Any election exercised ... ", and ending on line 2053 with, "to this section.", be struck from the -8 version of Sub. S.B. 58. This onerous language would significantly and negatively impact implementation of the Company's recently negotiated energy efficiency compliance plan, and it runs contrary to the spirit of achieving prudent reforms while maintaining meaningful standards. It ignores the timing of significant compliance cost increases. It treats compliance plans, negotiated and stipulated to in the regulatory process, differently than other agreements entered into under the demands of current law. And, it places Duke Energy Ohio in a difficult position to advocate for the total package of reforms. Duke Energy Ohio, along with those several parties that sought intervention, recently negotiated in good faith and entered into a settlement agreement with regard to the Company's latest EE/PDR compliance plan. The onerous language at lines 2050-2053 of Sub. S.B. 58 would significantly and negatively impact implementation of that plan. This would occur due to the rate of erosion of customer participation that the Company would expect to be higher than anticipated at the time the plan was developed. The Company has considered different ideas on the subject of continuation of existing plans, understanding that other stakeholders in this process have conflicting agendas. However, our position about customer participation has not wavered. If an EDU elects to continue an energy efficiency compliance plan based on pre-Sub. S.B. 58 law, customer participation should continue as per pre-Sub. S.B. 58 law. I.e., should an incumbent electric distribution utility (EDU) serving a particular mercantile customer elect to continue their existing energy efficiency compliance plan, said mercantile customer may continue to opt-out of participation under the same conditions as exist today. In the -8 version of Sub. S.B. 58, mercantile customers would continue to plan, participate, and opt-out as they have been doing for years. This is protected with language in proposed Sec. 4928.6650, at lines 2266-2269. When we all began to discuss the possibility of seeking reforms to the relevant law, it was based on a collective perception that a "hockey stick" effect loomed in the 2018-19 time frame. This being when the energy efficiency yearon-year target increments doubled, the same time that from our point of view, opportunities to achieve savings would be diminished such that additional savings would become far more expensive. Supposing that Sub. S.B. 58 is passed at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the current FE and AEP compliance plans, and supposing that all 4 EDU's decided to follow through on their previously negotiated agreements, the last 2 of those agreements (DPL and Duke Energy Ohio) would sunset at the end of 2016--a full 2 vears prior to the "hockev stick" effect. Furthermore, much attention has been paid to the need to maintain the integrity of contracts entered into as a result of the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS) and energy efficiency and peak demand reduction (EE/PDR) mandates. Most of this has come up during discussions by legislators of the AEPS but the logic is sound . We believe that, all else being equal, utility EE compliance plans should be viewed in the same light. After all, customers who stand to benefit significantly from the proposed reforms intervene in the approval processes for our compliance plans, as some of them did in the Company's most recent case. Those customers rightly expect the plans to be executed as negotiated. Other parties should be afforded the same consideration. As for the process to develop legislative reforms, Duke Energy has provided substance rather than rhetoric to achieve necessary changes while maintaining meaningful standards. We have supported for the need for reforms, and as to the appropriateness, validity, and substance of the changes put forth by this group--sans this one issue. This includes many elements that accrue to the benefit of customers. The Company's advocacy has come by way of direct contact with legislators, media, and business groups like the Ohio and Greater Cincinnati Chambers. If Sub. S.B. 58 is advanced with the damaging language, continued advocacy for the legislation on the part of Duke Energy Ohio would run counter to the posture the Company took during recent negotiations for a compliance plan to begin in 2014. For the reasons stated above, and consistent with our position since the onset of this process, Duke Energy Ohio asks that the language referenced above at lines 2050-2053 be stricken from the -8 version of Sub. S.B. 58. Please call or email with any questions. Thank you for your leadership on this issue and the opportunity to be involved in the legislative process. We look forward to continuing that involvement. 110 Regards, Joh Keaton State Government Regulatory Affairs Director for Ohio Duke Energy 111 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Denny Larr Monday, December 02, 2013 1:41 PM Lynch, Jamie RE: Sub. S.B. 58 Amendments Just confirming that Senator Seitz does NOT plan to include the IGS amendment. Thanks, Jamie. From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 1:31 PM To: Ewing, Steve; Strigari, Frank; Chrisy Wright; Dave Boehm; Denny Larr; John Keaton; Michael Carey; Mike Brello; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Steve Lake; Tom Raga; Ty Pine Subject: Sub. S.B. 58 Amendments AllPlease see enclosed for the amendments to Sub. S.B. 58 received by our office by the deadline that was at noon today. The Chairman requested that I relay to you all what amendments our office plans on offering in Committee and I have listed those below: 1. Attachment "2013_12_02_10_54_52.pdf' 2. Attachment "SB 58-Clarification Sought" 3. From the "Dash 8-Changes" email, our office is drafting the attachment titled "Hospital Amendment FINAL" and from the attachment titled "Dash 8 Changes FINAL" our office is drafting points 1, 3, and 4. As a side note, he wanted me to mention that he is not opposed to Senator Smith's amendment. Also, we are still waiting on language from Senator Coley's office on a run-of-the-river amendment that the Chairman also plans on accepting in Committee. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 113 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Sam Randazzo Monday, December 02, 2013 12:44 PM Lynch, Jamie Solar firms prove costly investments - Toledo Blade Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Completed FYI - The Toledo Blade is doing several articles on this topic; a topic that may be relevant to the current effort to modify Ohio's portfolio mandates. As you may know, Ohio's renewable mandate has a solar-specific requirement. For months now, the Ohio Manufacturers Association (OMA) has been asserting that the proposed changes to Ohio's curent portfolio mandates will, if enacted, increase electric bills. This OMA assertion does not pass the laugh test and is part of a campaign that includes trumped up "studies" that rely on fictionalized accounts of the relationship between the mandates and retail electric prices. The high cost of the renewable jobs identified in the article below helps to illustrate why the OMA views are anti-consumer and anticompetitive. The Toledo Balde article includes findings that are similar to findings that have been made in Europe where analysts have taken a look at the cost of subsidies provided to certain energy producing technologies. (See Wall Street Journal article pasted in below the Toledo Blade item and the article at the following link http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewableenergy-a-920288.html) ) http://www. toledo b1 ade.com/Energy/201 3/12/0l/Solar-firms-prove-costl y-invesiments.h1ml Solar firms prove costly investments DEALS GONE BAD Tens of millions wasted on fledgling industry BY KRIS TURNER BLADE STAFF WRITER One in a series Five years ago, government and local economic development officials made the costly decision to invest in northwest Ohio's fledgling solar industry. Loans, grants, and tax credits worth more than half a billion dollars were doled out to businesses that promised to create almost 1,000 jobs and rejuvenate the region's manufacturing base. Public officials - eager to capitalize on that momentum - pushed through subsidies and passed legislation that benefited solar companies. Big-name politicians such as Vice President Joe Biden and former Gov. Ted Strickland, both Democrats, visited solar factories to tout job creation. 116 The incentives, legislation, and stump speeches were part of a narrative that the Toledo region had become a major player in the solar industry. That tale, however, did not have the happy ending business owners and politicians hoped for: Most of the jobs companies projected were not created, and tens of millions of dollars were wasted. A Blade investigation of solar companies in northwest Ohio that received financing from the government or local economic development agencies reveals it took more than $611,000 on average to create each job at solar start-up firms. Those businesses, which received more than $88 million, currently employ 144 people. The start-ups expected to hire more than 900 additional workers. Many of the companies that received money either closed their doors or only have about a dozen people on staff. The biggest share of government assistance - $482.9 million - went to First Solar Inc., a Tempe, Ariz., business that was founded in Toledo by inventor Harold McMaster. The company, which is the largest global manufacturer of thin-film solar panels, aggressively ramped up its operations at its Perrysburg Township factory during the past decade. Its work force soared from 156 in 2002 to 1,296 in 2011. Although First Solar is one of the global solar industry's largest players, it has laid off 94 employees since 2012. The 380 jobs the company added since 2008 are worth about $1.3 million per job when divided against the millions the firm received in public funds. First Solar isn't the only firm whose jobs are worth millions per position. Toledo's Buckeye Silicon received $2. 7 million from the state of Ohio but never had more than two employees on site during visits from The Blade. Government and local economic development officials chose solar power as a winning industry, but they did so at a great price to taxpayers and themselves. "It's clear that a lot of politicians feel a strong urge to try to give industry-specific or firm-specific incentives," said Charles Ballard, an expert at Michigan State University who speciajjzes in Rust Belt economics. 1 Elected officials love photo ops and press releases. It's very easy to say, 'We gave a company th] incentive and it is going to bringjobs.' "It's not as easy to go back five years later, and these companies have not produced jobs." Signs of failure Drive past Perrysburg's Willard & Kelsey Solar Group, and the failure of northwest Ohio's solar industry is on full display: The company's hulking 200,000-square-foot plant is idle. The solar-panel manufacturer closed at the end of June. The struggles of solar companies extend beyond the doldrums of the recession and the fierce competition that Chinese manufacturers brought to the solar-panel market, which drastically decreased prices in the past few years. Some firms received funding before their technology was fulJy developed others didn't have a solid business plan, and a few were grossly mismanaged. Willard & Kelsey, which received $14.2 million in government tax breaks, loans, and grants, promised to create 400 jobs when it requested financial assistance from the state of Ohio. The firm laid off most of its staff in 117 January, 2012. State officials who were responsible for keeping tabs on Willard & Kelsey were unaware of the layoffs. A Blade investigation published in October revealed the state is often unaware whether business incentives create jobs and if companies properly use the funding they receive. According to internal payroll records obtained by The Blade, Willard & Kelsey had 39 employees throughout 2009. Those workers were paid an average of about $38 an hour, or about $78,582 a year. In tum, each of those positions - funded with local and state incentives - cost $364, 102 to create. Willard & Kelsey's executives paid themselves millions and spent tens of thousands of dollars on lavish corporate expenses. Records maintained by the firm's former chief executive officer also stated that Willard & Kelsey misappropriated a $5 million state loan. A state audit released in July found the business could not account in detail for how it spent $1.3 million of its state loan funds. The state filed two lawsuits in August against Willard & Kelsey seeking more than $10 million in damages. The lawsuits include two counts of fraudulent and unlawful transfers, two counts of civil conspiracy, and two counts of civil aiding and abetting. The lawsuits filed in Hamilton County Commercial Court have been scheduled for a pretrial hearing in July. Lyn Tolan, deputy director of communications and policy for the Ohio Development Services Agency, declined to comment on Willard & Kelsey. The agency provided the firm with $5.6 million in grants and a loan and monitors how state funding is used. The Blade reached out to Republican Gov. John Kasich's office for an interview, but Mr. Kasich's spokesman did not respond to the request. The governor's office has refused to discuss breakdowns in the way Ohio manages and tracks business incentives. It has shirked interview requests from The Blade for the past two months. Buckeye Silicon's story is almost identical to Willard & Kelsey's. The polysilicon manufacturer has been accused of fraud in a lawsuit filed by Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, who is trying to recoup a $2. 7 million state loan. The company pledged to create nine jobs, but only had two people on staff this fall. Those positions cost Ohio taxpayers $1.36 million apiece. It's unlikely that the state will recover the money it lent to Buckeye Silicon. "These loans should not have been made and should have been serviced better," said Jeff Jacobson, vice chairman of the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority, which awarded loans to both Buckeye Silicon and Willard & Kelsey. "We should have cut our losses when we realized the state of the industry and the inability of the players we were doing business with to make a go of it." Isofoton North America, which scouted several locations in the United States, settled on building a $31 million solar-panel factory in Napoleon after the state agreed to finance part of the project. In total, the firm garnered $8.4 million in local and state incentives. Reversal of fortune 118 The Spanish solar-panel manufacturer planned to hire 330 people. Napoleon was named "America's Number One Solar Small Town" by the Washington-based Solar Energy Industries Association in December, 2012, because of Isofoton's presence. The accolade, though, was premature. Just one month later, the order Isofoton needed to jump-start its plant fell through. Isofoton's North American business plan hinged on approval of the now-defunct $180 million Turning Point Solar Project, which was planned for Zanesville, Ohio, about 60 miles east of Columbus. It would have been the largest solar-panel development east of the Mississippi River. The project has been dead in the water since the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio rejected a proposal to finance Turning Point with fees charged to American Electric Power customers. "We didn't anticipate or expect the PUCO decision," said Michael Peck, chairman oflsofoton North America. "You could criticize us for that." The company has about 20 employees and runs one shift. Each job cost about $419,079 in assistance to create. Mr. Peck said Isofoton North America has been hard-pressed to find financial backers, particularly after its parent company entered into involuntary receivership in Spain. Isofoton North America is required to raise more capital by this month, per an agreement Mr. Peck reached with Ohio development officials. "It's incumbent upon us, as a private-sector entity, to prove the private-sector viability of what we are doing," Mr. Peck said. "The state is not a charity." The company owes a quarterly, interest-only payment of $25,400 to the state air authoritythis month. It is due to start payments on the principal and interest in March. The company also owed a payment of $44, 793 to the Ohio Development Services Agency last month. The agency, which loaned Isofoton $3 million, deferred most of the firm's payments from July to this month. All of the firm's state funding was granted by the Kasich administration. If Isofoton doesn't receive more orders and increase its production, repaying the state funds will be extremely difficult, Mr. Peck said. "I would say that we kind of had our legs kicked out from underneath us and we're recovering," he said. Toledo's Xunlight Staying financially afloat is paramount at Toledo's Xunlight Corp., which has not turned a profit since its 2006 founding. Xunlight, which produces lightweight, flexible solar panels, has struggled to fill its orders in a timely manner. It is overhauling its manufacturing process to meet its customers' demands, said John Buckey, the firm's president. The changes will cut Xunlight's costs by 38 percent and decrease its production time from about three hours to half an hour, Mr. Buckey said. Xunlight also will eliminate the need to ship materials to and from an assembly plant in China, he added. 119 Xunlight was born from research conducted at the University of Toledo. Its solar panels have provided power to United States military tents and mobile power stations in developing countries. The firm has about 70 employees and received $52.5 million in loans, grants, and tax credits. Those jobs cost $749,673 per position, and Xunlight employees make $31,200 a year plus benefits. The company was unable to live up to its original job-creation requirement of 181 jobs, and the state approved a February, 2011, request to reduce that requirement to 40 positions. One of the company's biggest problems was it tried to commercialize its technology before it was ready, said Rick Stansley, head of the University of Toledo Innovation Enterprises, which invested $3 million in Xunlight. UTIE had to write off $1 million of that investment as a loss. "What ended up happening is that process of moving this from an experiment to commercialization took them longer than they expected," Mr. Stansley said. "They had scaled up for production based on their technology, which may have not come to fruition." There was another issue with an investment in Xunlight: The company missed slightly more than $193,000 in payments due in February and May, 2012 on a $5 million state air authority loan. Those missed payments prompted the air authority and the Ohio Development Services Agency, from which Xunlight borrowed $3 million, to defer the firm's loan payments until next year. "The payments are pretty reasonable," Mr. Buckey said. "I don't see them making a big difference in our monthly cash flow." Even though most ofXunlight's funding was granted under Governor Strickland, its loan payments were deferred by Governor Kasich's administration, which also was responsible for slashing the company's jobcreation requirement. Although Xunlight was given a grace period by the state, the firm has failed to pay some of its vendors and is being sued for $553,782 by MRR Inc., a Toledo temporary employment agency that helped Xunlight staff its plant. Dennis Kebrdle, Xunlight's chief transition officer, declined to discuss the lawsuit and refused to say how much the company owes its other vendors. "It is what it is. It was our biggest vendor," he said of the half-million-dollar lawsuit. A pricey success Although solar businesses failed and others continue to face financial hardships some companies, such as SoCore Energy, did exactly what they pledged to do. SoCore installed solar panels on Walgreens pharmacy rooftops across Ohio after receiving more than $5 million from the air authority. The project, however, was pricey for taxpayers. It created four permanent jobs that, based on total assistance, cost $1.29 million each. SoCore, based in Chicago with an office in Maumee, requested $3.3 million of its loan be forgiven. The state has forgiven $1.1 million so far. "In addition to creating the required jobs, the loan made it possible for SoCore to contribute to economic development in Ohio," SoCore President Pete Kadens wrote in an email to The Blade. 120 Ohio and solar Craig Winn, president of Applied Energy Technologies, said Ohio's solar market isn't a boon for his firm, which targets projects in states that offer hefty incentives to solar companies. Applied Energy Technologies, a producer of solar-panel support racks, was awarded a $210,000 grant from Ohio in 2012. It has received $18,350 of that funding thus far. The company is based in Clinton Township, Michigan, and has a facility in Maumee. It is staffed with about 12 people when it's running one shift, which is the norm because the most lucrative federal solar incentives have expired. "Our basic premise is to go where the business is and to look at state legislatures and see what's coming in," Mr. Winn said. "We also look at what measures are sunsetting because then the business dies." Mr. Winn said solar energy will take much longer to take root in the Midwest because the region's fossil-fuel costs are low. The solar markets are hottest in the West and Northeast, which have some of the country's highest energy costs, he said. Although Ohio boasts its solar energy capacity, it doesn't rank among the top 10 states for connected solar installations, according to a July report from the Interstate Renewable Energy Council. Ohio came in 15th place; the top states included California, Arizona, and New Jersey. Less than 0.01 percent of Ohio's renewable energy came from solar power in 2011, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's most recent data. A bill proposed in the Ohio General Assembly could drastically change Ohio's renewable-energy portfolio. The legislation would create exceptions to a 2008 law requiring state utilities to purchase half of their renewable energy from in-state sources by 2025. For business owners, it's another reason to look elsewhere for work in the solar industry. "There's not enough work in Ohio for me to justify putting sales work into it," Mr. Winn said. Kris Turner can be reached at: kturner@theblade.com or 419-724-6103. The New Dark Continent - Wind and solar mandates are breaking Europe's electric utilities Wall Street Journal 10/17/2013 Before the Obama Administration marches America to renewable-energy nirvana, it may want to inspect what success looks like in Europe. The Continent is much closer than the U.S. to realizing its dream of replacing carbon energy sources with wind and solar, and the dream is starting to look like a nightmare. Last week the CEOs of Europe's 1O largest utilities finally cried uncle and called for a halt to wind and solar subsidies. Short of that, they want subsidies of their own. They want to be paid, in essence, not to produce power. The root cause of all this is the Continent's so-called feed-in tariffs for renewable energy, which began In Germany in 1990. A feed-in tariff is a form of mandate that gives solar and wind installations a guaranteed price, usually well above the market price, and ensures that any energy they produce gets priority on the electrical grid . When solar and wind plants are producing , their energy must be taken first, ahead of other kinds of power. By requiring utilities to take this power-and requiring consumers to pay for it-Germany has increased renewables to 25% of its overall capacity. Berlin wants to push that to 35% in 2020 and 80% by 2050. Not every country in Europe has been as ambitious as Germany, but the European Union's renewables target across the entire Continent is also 20% by 2020. These wind and solar subsidies have increased Europe's energy costs by 17% for consumers and 21 % for industry in the last four years. But more ominous is the havoc the mandates are creating for utilities. 121 Old-fashioned power plants, especially coal and nuclear, have traditionally provided what is called "base load" power. These plants produce the power to run refrigerators and street lights and the rest of the 24/7 needs of a modern economy. This was the power that consumers used first-until Europe went mad for renewables. The trouble is, no one knows how much power renewabtes can provide at any particular moment. Imagine having a car that runs on gasoline, with a solar array on the roof. But instead of using the solar power when you needed it, the car was required to add this solar power to the engine's output whenever it was available. So you're driving down the highway at 60 miles per hour, but then the sun comes out and suddenly you're doing 80 unless you take you r foot off the gas. Now Imagine trying to run a whole economy on that sort of power, except it takes hours or days to adjust the throttle every time the weather changes. The utilities have seen their once-predictable power needs replaced with demand that is every bit as unpredictable as the weather. When conditions are poor, they need to step up generation to keep the lights on. But because of the priority given to renewables, they have to be mindful of the possibility of being pre-empted. They still have high fixed costs and capital needs, but thanks to the renewables' privileged position, demand for what they produce waxes and wanes with the wind. All of this is a drag on growth and has taken 55% off the market capitalization of utilities in the Europe in the past five years, according to The Economist. The utility executives who issued their demarche last week may be co·ntent to stay in business as wards of the state, standing by-at taxpayer expense-to pick up the stack when wind and solar fall short. But consumers and taxpayers deserve better. Ending the feed-in tariffs and the forced purchase of renewable power would reduce energy prices and might even help European industry get back on Its feet. It would be a pro-growth reform that wouldn't cost national treasuries a cent. ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 122 Nielson, Stephen From: Seitz III, William J. Monday, December 02, 2013 11:04 AM Lynch, Jamie RE: Sub. S.B. 58 Amendment Sent: To: Subject: Submit this as a single amd to lsc. Circulate this to hatfields. Taft I William J. Seitz Ill I Of Counsel Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: 513.381.2838 • Fax: 513.381.0205 Direct: 513.357.9332 •Cell: 513.382.8281 www.taftlaw.com I seitz@taftlaw.com From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Monday, December 02, 2013 10:56 AM To: Seitz III, William J. Sent: Subject: Sub. S.B. 58 Amendment See enclosed. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regu lations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes tl1at is contained in this oommLmication {including attachments) Is not Intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Inte rn al Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. 134 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Lynch, Jamie Monday, December 02, 2013 11:01 AM michael.fraizer@puc.state.oh.us; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov FW: Interstate power line needs your feedback imageOOljpg Senator Seitz requested that I forward you the enclosed email. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Julie Johnson [mailto:juliejohnson@ctcn.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 9:27 AM To: Senator Seitz Subject: Interstate power line needs your feedback Here is some proof that out-of-state wind wants to sell into other states, like Ohio. Julie http:Uqctimes.com/ news/opinion/editorial/interstate-power-li ne-needs-your-feedba ck/artic le alld0f10-8a52-Scee9e9b-cf66b8743f7f.html Interstate power line needs your feedback • Iowa's futu re a·s a wind power leader rel!es on 111ore utility customers than the state can provide. The state ranks 3rd .nationally iJ1 wind energy production, with 3, 198 turbines generating 25 percent of the state's energy, as well as some reliable income for landowners who negotiated their place on the state's alternative power grid . The next big step requires extending the power grid , and that's the goal of the Rock Island Clean Line, a cross-country transmission line to take Iowa's wind power eastward to more customers. Wind energy cannot be stored . So to get the maximum value of the state's existing turbine network, it makes sense to connect to more customers. 135 That connection, just like the countless transmission lines and thousands of turbines before it, will require extensive negotiations with landowners willing to profit on this expansion. Those are the people essential to the public hearing process underway along the proposed path of the transmission line. The Iowa Utilities Board is in the process of hosting nine forums in counties touched by the Rock Island Clean Line. The meetings culminate Dec. 4 and 5 in our community. The IUB meets 3 p.m ., Dec. 4 at the Cedar County Fairgrounds in Tipton, and 9 a.m., Dec. 5 at the Clarion Hotel in Davenport. If these hearings are like the others , expect serious, passionate discussion. Rock Island Clean Line is trying to chart a half-mile wide corridor to accommodate a 200-foot-wide series of towers. Under regulation of the Iowa Utilities Board , the firm is negotiating with individual landowners. The process is essential to rule out any use of eminent domain to seize land for the project, a tactic we adamantly oppose. So we encourage supporters, detractors and those uncertain to study this issue and attend the forums. We believe the feedback is essential to negotiating the best deal for the partner landowners, Iowa utility rate payers and Iowa's business community, all of whom benefit from diverse energy sources. But we're not among those against every effort to export Iowa wind energy. Here's why: The state has extensive experience negotiating transmission line and turbine right of way with thousands of landowners. Rock Island Clean Line isn't proposing something new. It's just a 21st century application of time-tested utility development. Fortifying Iowa's energy diversity is in everyone's best interest, even as that power is sold out-of-state. Building excess capacity accommodates growth and helps further reduce Iowa's dependence on fossil fuels. 1 Utilities further east will continue to develop diverse power sources. So it's quite likely they 1l be buying alternative power from somewhere. Count us arnong tho.se eager to see Iowa continue to elevate its wind energy (fominance, and all the ,fiT'!anufact\,J(lng , engineering and logistlc::s that go with It. That's why these forums needs maximum input from landowners and customers, not just those adamantly opposed to energy diversification. Iowa already enjoys an outsized role in American wind energy development, manufacturing and engineering . Consider these hearings as an opportunity to conscientiously grow this important Iowa business with informed landowners who choose to be part of the state's nation-leading expansion of wind power. 136 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Seitz III, William J. Monday, December 02, 2013 10:54 AM Lynch, Jamie RE: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Comments Regarding Dr. Jonathan Lesser's Testimony To hatfields Taft/ William J. Seitz Ill I Of Counsel Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati , Ohio 45202-3957 Tel : 513.381 .2838 •Fax: 513.381.0205 Direct: 513.357.9332 ·Cell: 513.382.8281 www.taftlaw.com I seitz@taftlaw.com From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 10:46 AM To: Seitz III, William J. Subject: FW: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Comments Regarding Dr. Jonathan Lesser's Testimony Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov Internal Reve nue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is co ntained In this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged , attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Max Neubauer [mailto:mneubauer@aceee.org] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 10:45 AM To: Lynch, Jamie; Nielson, Stephen; Rachael.carl@ohlohouse.gov; Mauk, Jason; Ewing, Steve; troy.judy@ohiohouse.gov; chad.hawley@ohiohouse.gov; Davis, Ernie; Linkhart, Claire; Keary.Mccarthy@ohiohouse.gov; Nick.muccio@ohiohouse.gov Cc: wayne.struble@governor.ohio.gov; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; Lynch, Jamie; Matt.McDonnell@ohiosenate.gov; Haberman, Maria; Bennett , Greg; Tony.DiMenna@ohiosenate.gov; Groseclose, Emily; Lust, Elizabeth; Collins, Christopher; Dunlap, Dana; Benjamin, Marcus; Bergfeld, Kelsey; Ohman, Alan; Kneisel, Brittney; Rachael.Carl@ohiohouse.gov; Jenna.beadle@ohiohouse.gov; Ryan.crawford@ohiohouse.gov; 140 Grace.snider@ohiohouse.gov; Andrew.krick@ohiohouse.gov; Jeff.dillon@ohiohouse.gov; Felicia.kalan@ohiohouse.gov; Molly. rafeld@ohiohouse.gov; Chris.Corder@ohiohouse.gov; Justin.Yafanaro@ohiohouse.gov; Beth.florence@ohiohouse.gov; Benjamin,webb@ohiohouse.gov; Cory.fleming@ohiohouse.gov; kasey.komjati@ohiohouse.gov; Angela.carlberg@ohlohouse.gov; Jared.holt@ohiohouse.gov; Tamara.howard@ohiohouse.gov; Jaclyn.berman@ohiohouse.gov; Pam.wilson@ohiohouse.gov; Chad.aronson@ohiohouse.gov; Alex.boehnke@ohiohouse.gov; Joseph.garrity@ohiohouse.gov; Amelia.hayes@ohiohouse.gov Subject: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Comments Regarding Dr. Jonathan Lesser's Testimony Senator Seitz and Representative Stautberg, Please find attached to this email ACEEE's comments on Dr. Jonathan Lesser's testimony from October 23, 2013. In his testimony, Dr. Lesser brought into question a number of conclusions from a study we released in April 2013 titled Ohio's Energy Efficiency Resource Standard: Impacts on the Ohio Wholesale Electricity Market and Benefits to the State. We felt compelled to respond to several of Dr. Lesser's assertions so that the House and Senate Public Utilities Committees fully understand the context and conclusions of our study. The attached letter is 3 pages in length, so we did not attempt to respond to all of Dr. Lesser's assertions. ACE EE is at your service if you would like us to expound upon any of the other questions raised in Dr. Lesser's testimony. Please do not hesitate to contact us should the need arise. Cheers, Max Neubauer Senior Policy Analyst American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 529 14th Street NW Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20045 mneubauer@aceee.org (W) 202-507-4005 141 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Marcus Roth Monday, December 02, 2013 10:45 AM Lynch, Jamie RE: SB 58? Thanks Marcus Roth Gangwer News Service 614-221-1992 From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 10:37 AM To: 'Marcus Roth' Subject: RE: SB 58? I forwarded him your request. Thanks, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: J amie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Marcus Roth [mailto:mroth@gongwer-oh.com] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 10:04 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: SB 58? Hi Jamie, Can you ask Sen. Seitz to call me if he'd like to discuss his thoughts on the subbill? Thanks, Marcus Roth Gangwer News Service 614-221-1992 144 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Monday, December 02, 2013 10:37 AM 'Marcus Roth' RE: SB 58? I forwarded him your request. Thanks, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: J amie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Marcus Roth [mailto:mroth@gongwer-oh.com] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 10:04 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: SB 58? Hi Jamie, Can you ask Sen. Seitz to call me if he'd like to discuss his thoughts on the subbill? Thanks, Marcus Roth Gongwer News Service 614-221-1992 147 Nielson, Stephen From: To: Lynch, Jamie Monday, December 02, 2013 10:37 AM seitz@taftlaw.com Subject: FW: SB 58? Sent: Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Marcus Roth [mailto:mroth@gongwer-oh.com] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 10:04 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: SB 58? Hi Jamie, Can you ask Sen. Seitz to call me if he'd like to discuss his thoughts on the subbill? Thanks, Marcus Roth Gongwer News Service 614-221-1992 148 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Monday, December 02, 2013 10:37 AM 'Ryan Augsburger' RE: December 4th Public Utilities Committee Notice Ryan-thanks for the email. There will be no testimony heard on either bill up in Committee on Wednesday. Also, all amendments on Sub. S.B. 58 are due to our office by noon today. Let us know if you have any further questions. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Ryan Augsburger [mailto:raugsburger@Ohiomfg.com] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 9:59 AM To: Nielson, Stephen Cc: Lynch, Jamie; Robert Brundrett Subject: RE: December 4th Public Utilities Committee Notice Good morning. We are hoping to offer testimony on sub bill 58. Is testimony planned up front? Anything we can do to reserve a timeframe for our expert? ALSO We would like to suggest an amendment to the sub bill. Will the Chairman entertain our suggestion? Ryan Ryan Augsburger Managing Director, Public Policy Services The Ohio Manufacturers' Association Protecting and growing Ohio manufacturing www.ohiomfq.com 33 N. High Street Columbus, OH 43215 Tel: 614.629.6817 Mobile: 614.348. 1227 raugsburger@ohiomfg.com 149 From: Nielson, Stephen [mailto:Stephen.Nielson@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:28 PM To: Public Utilities Cc: Keeran, Vincent; Cramer, Stacy; Potts, Lauren; McClelland, John; Mumper, Ken; 'brad.young@ohiohouse.gov'; Estes, Wendy; 'kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us'; 'dheyman@lsc.state.oh.us'; 'rkeller@lsc.state.oh.us'; Strigari, Frank; Wright, Adam; Hydzik, Camilla Subject: December 4th Public Utilities Committee Notice AllPlease see enclosed for the Senate Public Utilities Committee notice for the hearing being held December 4th, 2013. As always, do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Best regards, Stephen Nielson Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Stephen.Nielson@ohiosenate.gov 150 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Seitz Ill, William J. Monday, December 02, 2013 10:17 AM Lynch, Jamie RE: IGS Amendment Send it to hatfields w note, here is the latest; I assume you are still opposed. Taft I William J. Seitz Ill I Of Counsel Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel : 513 .381. 2838 •Fax: 513.381 .0205 Direct: 513.357.9332 •Cell: 513.382 .8281 www.taftlaw.com I seitz@taftlaw.com From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 9:46 AM To: Seitz III, William J. Subject: IGS Amendment See enclosed. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosu re: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that ls contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the pu rpose of {1) avoid ing penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. 151 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Marcus Roth Monday, December 02, 2013 10:04 AM Lynch, Jamie SB 58? Hi Jamie, Can you ask Sen. Seitz to call me if he'd like to discuss his thoughts on the subbill? Thanks, Marcus Roth Gongwer News Service 614-221-1992 152 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ryan Augsburger Monday, December 02, 2013 9:59 AM Nielson, Stephen Lynch, Jamie; Robert Brundrett RE: December 4th Public Utilities Committee Notice Good morning. We are hoping to offer testimony on sub bill 58. Is testimony planned up front? Anything we can do to reserve a timeframe for our expert? ALSO We would like to suggest an amendment to the sub bill. Will the Chairman entertain our suggestion? Ryan Ryan Augsburger Managing Director, Public Policy Services The Ohio Manufacturers' Association Protecting and growing Ohio manufacturing www.ohiomfq.com 33 N. High Street Columbus, OH 43215 Tel: 614.629.6817 Mobile: 614.348.1227 raugsburger@ohiomfg.com From: Nielson, Stephen [mailto:Stephen.Nielson@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:28 PM To: Public Utilities Cc: Keeran, Vincent; Cramer, Stacy; Potts, Lauren; McClelland, John; Mumper, Ken; 'brad.young@ohiohouse.gov'; Estes, Wendy; 'kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us'; 'dheyman@lsc.state.oh.us'; 'rkeller@lsc.state.oh.us'; Strigari, Frank; Wright, Adam; Hydzik, Camilla Subject: December 4th Public Utilities Committee Notice AllPlease see enclosed for the Senate Public Utilities Committee notice for the hearing being held December 4th, 2013. As always, do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Best regards, 153 Stephen Nielson Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Stephen.Nielson@ohiosenate.gov 154 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Seitz III, William J. Monday, December 02, 2013 9:34 AM Lynch, Jamie RE: Today is it. Internal Reve nue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regu lations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that 1s contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used. for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 9:30 AM To: Seitz III, William J. Subject: Claire from the Democratic caucus called and wants to know if you will accept amendments from Members in Committee on Wednesday for 58 or if today's deadline is the absolute cut-off. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 158 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Lynch, Jamie Monday, December 02, 2013 9:30 AM seitz@taftlaw.com Claire from the Democratic caucus called and wants to know if you will accept amendments from Members in Committee on Wednesday for 58 or if today's deadline is the absolute cut-off. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 159 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Charlotte Hickcox Monday, December 02, 2013 9:30 AM Lynch, Jamie RE: New Sub Bill No worries, thanks!! Charlotte 8. Hickcox I Director, Energy & Environmental Policy Ohio Chamber of Commerce 1230 E. Town Street. I Columbus, OH 43215 o: 614.228.4201 It: 614.228.64031 c: 614.537.4339 e: chickcox@ohiochamber.com From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, December 2, 2013 9:25 AM To: 'Charlotte Hickcox' Subject: RE: New Sub Bill Charlotte-sorry for the delay in responding. As of right now we do not have a list of changes to the new sub bill. I think someone may have requested a comp doc from LSC so if I get my hands on that I will be sure to send it your way. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: ( 614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Charlotte Hickcox [mailto:chickcox@ohiochamber.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:06 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: New Sub Bill Hi Jamie, Do you happen to have a list of the changes in the new sub bill? Anything you may have would be helpful. Thanks, and have a great thanksgiving! Charlotte 8. Hickcox I Director, Energy & Environmental Policy Ohio Chamber of Commerce 1230 E. Town Street. I Columbus, OH 43215 o: 614.228.4201 If: 614.228.64031 c: 614.537.4339 e: chickcox@ohiochamber.com 160 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Monday, December 02, 2013 9:25 AM 'Charlotte Hickcox' RE: New Sub Bill Charlotte-sorry for the delay in responding. As of right now we do not have a list of changes to the new sub bill. I think someone may have requested a comp doc from LSC so if I get my hands on that I will be sure to send it your way. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Charlotte Hickcox [mailto:chickcox@ohiochamber.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:06 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: New Sub Bill Hi Jamie, Do you happen to have a list of the changes in the new sub bill? Anything you may have would be helpful. Thanks, and have a great thanksgiving I Charlotte B. Hickcox I Director, Energy & Environmental Policy Ohio Chamber of Commerce 1230 E. Town Street. I Columbus, OH 43215 o: 614.228.4201 If: 614.228.64031c: 614.537.4339 e: chickcox@ohiochamber.com 161 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Nielson, Stephen Monday, December 02, 2013 9:22 AM Lynch, Jamie Message Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Completed Send the below to Rep. Tehar and Jeff Jacobson: 1.)Lesser Testimony 2.) Supplemental Testimony from Cierlone (2 experts from Alcoa) 3.) 1 pg Email from Randazzo to Hickcox about OSU study 4.) Letter to Mayor Jackson 5.) Letter to proponents of OSU study w/ note "We wrote this letter and never received a response" Stephen Nielson Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Stephen.Nielson@ohiosenate.gov 162 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Nielson, Stephen Monday, December 02, 2013 8:34 AM Lynch, Jamie FW: December 4th Public Utilities Committee Notice From: Tom Stacy [mailto:tfstacy@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 1:38 PM To: Nielson, Stephen Cc: Sam Randazzo Subject: Re: December 4th Public Utilities Committee Notice Thanks Stephen. FYI I will be in DC on December 3rd and 4th testifying in a congressional briefing regarding the alleged unconstitutionality of the in-state requirement in the Ohio renewables mandate and the fact that SB 58 hearings recognize the problem but the amended bill fails to timely dispense with it. I thought this might be worth sharing with Senator Seitz ... Happy Thanksgiving to all of you! On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Nielson, Stephen wrote: All- Please see enclosed for the Senate Public Utilities Committee notice for the hearing being held December 4th, 2013. As always, do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Best regards, Stephen Nielson Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 163 Fax: ?614: 466-4250 Email: StenhenNie]sond?lohiosenategov Tom Stacy 164 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Michael Beirne Sunday, December 01, 2013 11:11 PM Lynch, Jamie Keith Brooks; Michael Beirne SB 58 - clarification sought Hi Jamie - hope you had a great Thanksgiving. I'm writing re: the amendment that Marc at the rural co-ops submitted on Nov 18. We believe the language used in SB 58 -8 is based on an earlier amendment, and omits the correct language. We're respectfully requesting the inclusion of this clarifying language (below, based on the -8 version). This would ensure that, in addition to our members, AMPs energy efficiency program is captured by the legislation. Insert "or municipal power agency as defined in 3734.058" after "corporation" in lines 2350 and 2354. Thanks in advance and please let know if you have any questions or need additional information. Mike Beirne AMP/OMEA 614-309-9732 Sent from my iPad 166 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Ewing, Steve Sunday, December 01, 2013 8:30 PM Lynch, Jamie Solar industry in NW Ohio http://www. toledoblade .com/Energy/2013/12/01/Sola r-firms-prove-costly-investments. htm I -Steve 167 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Charlotte Hickcox Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:06 AM Lynch, Jamie New Sub Bill Hi Jamie, Do you happen to have a list of the changes in the new sub bill? Anything you may have would be helpful. Thanks, and have a great thanksgiving! Charlotte B. Hickcox I Director, Energy & Environmental Policy Ohio Chamber of Commerce 1230 E. Town Street. I Columbus, OH 43215 o: 614.228.4201 If: 614.228.64031c:614.537.4339 e: chickcox@ohiochamber.com 168 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Tom Raga Tuesday, November 26, 2013 6:03 PM Lynch, Jamie; Chrisy Wright; Dave Boehm; Denny Larr; John Keaton; Michael Carey; Mike Brello; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Steve P. Lake; Ty Pine; Judi L Sobecki RE: Please See Enclosed - Low income Jamie: Responding to Sen. Smith's letter, low-income residents are already a part of our energy efficiency program. We believe that her concerns are already being represented and addressed. Our E.E. team has outlined a few facts regarding our program: Since 2009, DP&L's energy efficiency programs have included more than $3 million in low income expenditures saving more than 3 million KWhs. The funds are used to make low-income homes within DP&L's service territory more energy efficient. The types of services provided include lighting upgrades, HVAC replacements, refrigerator replacements, insulation, and in some cases, basic electrical repairs. While the low income programs are the least cost effective programs in terms of energy efficiency, DP&L has done them since the inception of our programs because they have benefits beyond energy efficiency. Furthermore, in DP&L's recently filed energy efficiency plan and stipulation, DP&L committed $2.8 million to low income programs for 2014 and 2015 and added a new partner to our program implementation team. As for SB 58, it is important to note that the bill removes programs that are not cost effective from the shared savings calculation (version 8-lines 1828-1830). Thanks, Tom From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 9:47 AM To: Chrisy Wright; Dave Boehm; Denny Larr; John Keaton; Michael carey; Mike Brello; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Steve P. Lake; Tom Raga; Ty Pine Subject: Please See Enclosed Senator Seitz requested that I send around the enclosed letter for comment on low-income issues. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby formally notified 169 that any use, copying or distribution of this e-Mail, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender by return e-Mail and delete this e-Mail from your system. Unless explicitly and conspicuously stated in the subject matter of the above e-Mail, this e-Mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-Mail does not constitute consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties. 170 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Friday, November 22, 2013 8:29 AM kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us Sub. S.B. 58 KathyI still haven't heard back about when to expect the list of changes to the -7 version of Sub. S.B. 58 from interested parties. However, Senator Seitz asked that I relay very important changes right away that he would like seen in the -8 version. On the renewables, he wants to leave the mandates in place until December 31st, 2017. After 2017, he would like it to default to the deliverability language previously included in the -7 version. He also wants to get rid of the buy-Ohio 5% preference standard but keep the severability clause (for if and when it is found unconstitutional). He dictated this over the phone to me last night so if some of it does not make sense, please send your question via email so I can forward it down to Cincinnati for him to answer. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 179 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sam Randazzo Thursday, November 21, 2013 2:42 PM Home - Senator Seitz Lynch, Jamie FORUM: Protect Ohio's energy reforms I Cincinnati.com I cincinnati.com Senator: Below is a link to a Cincinnati Enquirer editorial that is critical of SB 58 and which I am sure you have seen before. At the bottom of the editorial, readers have an opportunity to vote on the question of whether Ohio should loosen the mandates. Notwithstanding the negative editorial on SB 58, almost 88% of the people who responded to the question voted in favor of loosening the mandates. The poll is at the bottom of the page. Like the 25% renewable energy mandate ballot issue in Michigan last November which was soundly defeated (62% opposed), the responses to the question indicate that real people don't like government energy mandates. http:// news.cinci n nati .com/a rticle/20131110/E DITOl/311100034/? ncl ick_check=1 **This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free** 180 Nielson, Stephen From: To: kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us Thursday, November 21, 2013 2:01 PM Lynch, Jamie Subject: Re: S.B. 58 Sent: Hi Jamie, Thank you for the update. Do you think that we'll have committee the week of December 2? Kathy From: Date: "Lynch, Jamie" "kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us" 1112112013 01 :56 PM Subject: S.B. 58 To: Kathy-I do not have an update on the status of the corrections to the -7 version of Sub. S.B. 58 yet. We have not received anything from any of the interested parties and they have not given us an answer on when we should expect it. I do, however, know for certain that the enclosed transparency language needs to be included in the -8 version of Sub. S.B. 58 (not a stand-alone amendment) when you begin drafting it. That is all I know for now. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov -----on Mon, 18 Nov 201316:31:21 -0500 ".Seitz Ill, William J" Message from----- "Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov" :To 58 FW: Transparency Objective -- SB :Subject 181 I Taft Of Counsel I William J. Seitz Ill Hollister LLP & Taft Stettinius Walnut Street, Suite 1800 425 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: 513 .381 .2838 •Fax: 513.381 .0205 Direct: 513.357.9332 ·Cell: 513.382 .8281 seitz@taftlaw.comIwww.taftlaw.com [roailto:sam@mwncmh.com] Sam Randazzo :From Monday, November 18, 2013 10:41 AM :Sent .Seitz III, William J :To Transparency Objective -- SB 58 :Subject language during the call I redistributed this .I suggested to the balance of the Hatfields Senator, below is the language .yesterday 5am l\.a nda zzo LLC Nurick & McNees Wallace 426 8-7 95 (6 14-) sarn@rnwncrnh.com regulations, advice (if any) relating to Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provid ed for in Treasury to be used, and in this communication (including attachments) is not Intended or written federal taxes that is contained under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties .to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein recommending attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If ,This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged this transmission in recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received you are not an intended .delete the message and any attachments error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and Sam Randazzo :From Sunday, November 17, 2013 4:39 PM :Sent Denny Larr :To ;Spiller, Amy B ;agrealy@firstenergycorp.com ;Steven T Nourse ;tpine@firstenergycorp.com :Cc ;Watts, Elizabeth H ;dboehm@bkllawflrm.com ;Christine D Wright ;burkj@firstenergycorp.com ;mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com ;John Keaton; Judi L Sobecki; Barrett, Lee E; Mike Brello ;ibiltz@flrstenergycorn.com Kevin Murray; Scott Elisar; Steve P. Lake; Duff, Tim; Tom Raga RE: For consideration on 9:00 a.m. call re: SBSB :Subject 182 - that I suggested on bill transparency Here (below) is the language Sam Randaz.1.0 LLC Nurick & McNees Wallace +268-~95 (614) sam@mwncmh.com Sam Randazzo :From Friday, November 08, 2013 6:30 AM :Sent Denny Larr :To ;Spiller, Amy B ;agrealy@firstenergycorp.com ;Steven T Nourse ;tpine@firstenergycorp.com :Cc ;Watts, Elizabeth H ;dboehm@bkllawfirm.com ;Christine D Wright ;burkj@firstenergycorp.com ;mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com ;John Keaton; Judi L Sobeck!; Barrett, Lee E; Mike Brello ;jbiltz@firstenergycorp.com Kevin Murray; Scott Elisar; Steve P. Lake; Duff, Tim; Tom Raga Re: For consideration on 9:00 a.m. call re: SBS8 :Subject by are required advise consumers of the consequence of bill impacts caused Alternative Suggestion - when the utilities The approach below should also avoid .be blamed government mandates, consumers think it is the utilities that should .complications associated with a line item approach some of the billing least once each calendar year, the commission shall publish a public At .(C}{3}4828.6611 .Sec which it has identifying the statewide cumulative total dollar cost of compliance for report of the Revised Code, authorized recovery from consumers in this state under Sections utility and the cumulative typical bill effect of the cumulative amount for each electric distribution the residential, commercial and industrial consumers of each electric such authorization on utility to advise The commission shall also require each electric distribution .utility distribution otherwise, of the commission's issuance of consumers, through an annual electric bill insert or .obtain a copy of such report such report and how they may Mi Pad Sam Randazzo sam@mwncmh.com (cell) 4268-395 (614) 183 184 Nielson, Stephen Sam Randazzo Thursday, November 21, 2013 1:48 PM Lynch, Jamie Home - Senator Seitz RE: Transparency Objective -- SB 58 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Yep -- thanks The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you . 5arn l\.andazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (founded 19) 5) E.. 5tate 5treet, 17th floor, Columbus, Ohio ·f~2 I 5 (6 I+) 7 I 9-281·0 (office), (614-) +6 9·-'1·65) (fax) (61 +) ) 9 5-426 8 (cell) sarn@rnwnc:rnh.c.orn (e-mail) 2l From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 1:46 PM To: Sam Randazzo Cc: Home - Senator Seitz Subject: RE: Transparency Objective -- SB 58 Is this the exact language from the attached email? If so, I have already submitted it to LSC. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Sam Randazzo [mailto:sam@mwncmh.com] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 1:30 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Cc: Home - Senator Seitz Subject: Transparency Objective -- SB 58 Jamie: Per Senator's Seitz e-mail below, he asked me to provide you with the bill transparency language so that you might pass it on to LSC with a request to include it in the dash 8 version of Sub SB 58. 186 Sec. 4828.6611 {C}(3}. At least once each calendar year, the commission shall publish a public report identifying the statewide cumulative total dollar cost of compliance for which it has authorized recovery from consumers in this state under Sections of the Revised Code, the cumulative amount for each electric distribution utility and the cumulative typical bill effect of such authorization on the residential, commercial and industrial consumers of each electric distribution utility. The commission shall also require each electric distribution utility to advise consumers, through an annual electric bill insert or otherwise, of the commission's issuance of such report and how they may obtain access to and a copy of such report. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for all you have done and are doing. Sam The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. Sam f\.andazz.o McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (rounded 19?5) 2I r..:.. 5tate 5treet:, I 7th r"loor, Columbus, Ohio +;215 (6 14-) 71 9-28+0 (o~~ice), (6 I+) +6 9-4-6); (Fax) (61 +) ; 9 J-426 8 (cell) sam@mwncmh.com (e-mail) From: Seitz III, William J.[mailto:seitz@taftlaw.com] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 1:01 PM To: Sam Randazzo Subject: RE: Transparency Objective -- SB 58 Thanx let jamie know to so instruct lsc for inclusion in dash 8 Taft I William J. Seitz Ill I Of Counsel Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel : 513.381 .2838 • Fax: 513.381.0205 Direct: 513.357.9332 •Cell: 513.382.8281 www.taftlaw.com I seitz@taftlaw.com 187 From: Sam Randazzo [mailto:sam@mwncmh.com] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:46 PM To: Seitz III, William J. Subject: RE: Transparency Objective -- SB 58 Senator, the transparency language that I circulated as an alternative to a requirement that info be included on the electric bill was on the list of amendments that was circulated by Jamie. However it was not in amendment form (it was attached as a copy of my e-mail). I believe the Hatfields are all OK with the PUCO report and bill insert transparency approach and that all agree that it is vastly superior to a requirement that information be included on the electric bill itself. Thus, I think we are at the point of either having LSC draft an amendment or rolling the transparency item into the dash 8 version of the sub bill. The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. Sam f\.andazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (Founded 1975) 2I E... State 5treet, I 7th F°'loor, Columbus, Ohio 4-7 2 I 5 (61 +) 71.9-281-0 (oHice), (61 +) +69-+657 (Fax) (61 +) J.95-,,..H68 (cell) sarn@mwncmh.com (e--rnail) From: Seitz III, William J. [mailto:seitz@taftlaw.com] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:13 AM To: Sam Randazzo Subject: RE: Transparency Objective -- SB 58 Sam, has this been agreed to yet?is it on list for inclusion in sub bill? It looks good to me. Dispatch ed board wanted some more detail on Toledo Schools story: call jamie and get a copy of what she sent them today. Taft I William J. Seitz Ill I Of Counsel Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: 513.381.2838 •Fax: 513.381.0205 Direct: 513.357.9332 •Cell: 513.382.8281 www.taftlaw.com I seitz@taftlaw.com From: Sam Randazzo [mailto:sam@mwncmh.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 10:41 AM To: Seitz III, William J. Subject: Transparency Objective -- SB 58 188 Senator, below is the language I suggested to the balance of the Hatfields. I redistributed this language during the call yesterday. ,Sam f\anda7..z.o McNees Wallace f,.,, Nui-ick LLC. sam@mwncmh.com (61 +) ) .9 5-4·268 Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regu lations 1 advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Sam Randazzo Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 4:39 PM To: Denny Larr Cc: tpine@flrstenergycorp.com; Steven T Nourse; agrealy@firstenergycorp.com; Spiller, Amy B; burkj@flrstenergycorp.com; Christine D Wright; dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; Watts, Elizabeth H; jbiltz@firstenergycorp.com; John Keaton; Judi L Sobeck!; Barrett, Lee E; Mike Brello; mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com; Kevin Murray; Scott Elisar; Steve P. Lake; Duff, Tim; Tom Raga Subject: RE: For consideration on 9:00 a.m. call re: 5858 Here (below) is the language that I suggested on bill transparency - Sam l\.andazzo Mc:Nees Wallace fi,. Nurick LLC sam@mwncmh.com (61 +) 395-4-268 From: Sam Randazzo Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 6:30 AM To: Denny Larr Cc: tpine@firstenergycorp.com; Steven T Nourse; agrealy@firstenergycorp.com; Spiller, Amy B; burkj@firstenergycorp.com; Christine D Wright; dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; Watts, Elizabeth H; jbiltz@firstenergycorn.com; John Keaton; Judi L Sobecki; Barrett, Lee E; Mike Brello; mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com; Kevin Murray; Scott Elisar; Steve P. Lake; Duff, Tim; Tom Raga Subject: Re: For consideration on 9:00 a.m. call re: SB58 Alternative Suggestion - when the utilities are required advise consumers of the consequence of bill impacts caused by government mandates, consumers think it is the utilities that should be blamed. The approach below should also avoid some of the billing complications associated with a line item approach. Sec. 4828.6611 (C}(3}. At least once each calendar year, the commission shall publish a public report identifying the statewide cumulative total dollar cost of compliance for which it has authorized recovery from consumers in this state under Sections of the 189 Revised Code, the cumulative amount for each electric distribution utility and the cumulative typical bi/I effect of such authorization on the residential, commercial and industrial consumers of each electric distribution utility. The commission shall also require each electric distribution utility to advise consumers, through an annual electric bill insert or otherwise, of the commission's issuance of such report and how they may obtain a copy of such report. MiPad Sam Randazzo sam@mwncmh.com (614) 395-4268 (cell) ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 190 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Robert Brundrett Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:57 AM Lynch, Jamie RE: SB 58 sub bill Thanks Jamie! From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:59 AM To: Robert Brundrett Subject: RE: SB 58 sub bill I will be sure to add you to the list. At this point, I have no clue when we will have a final product, especially with the holiday next week. You will get it once it's ready to be distributed though! Thanks, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Robert Brundrett [mailto:rbrundrett@Ohiomfg.com] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:48 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: SB 58 sub bill Jamie, Nice quote the other day. You are famous! Not sure what the plans are with the new sub bill. Is it possible for me to get a copy of it when it comes back from LSC? Thanks I Don't worry Thanksgiving break is almost here! Rob Robert A. Brundrett Director, Public Policy Services The Ohio Manufacturers' Association Protecting and growing Ohio manufacturing www.ohiomfg.com 33 N. High Street Columbus, OH 43215 614.629.6814 Mobile: 614 .348.1233 Office: 197 195 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:59 AM 'Robert Brundrett' RE: SB 58 sub bill I will be sure to add you to the list. At this point, I have no clue when we will have a final product, especially with the holiday next week. You will get it once it's ready to be distributed though! Thanks, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Robert Brundrett [mailto:rbrundrett@Ohiomfg.com] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:48 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: SB 58 sub bill Jamie, Nice quote the other day. You are famous! Not sure what the plans are with the new sub bill. Is it possible for me to get a copy of it when it comes back from LSC? Thanks! Don't worry Thanksgiving break is almost here! Rob Robert A. Brundrett Director, Public Policy Services The Ohio Manufacturers• Association Protecting and growing Ohio manufacturing www.ohiomfg.com 33 N. High Street Columbus, OH 43215 Office: 614.629.6814 Mobile: 614.348.1233 rbrundrett@ohiomfg.com 199 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Robert Brundrett Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:48 AM Lynch, Jamie SB 58 sub bill Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Completed Jamie, Nice quote the other day. You are famous! Not sure what the plans are with the new sub bill. Is it possible for me to get a copy of it when it comes back from LSC? Thanks! Don't worry Thanksgiving break is almost here I Rob Robert A. Brundrett Director, Public Policy Services The Ohio Manufacturers' Association Protecting and growing Ohio manufacturing www.ohiomfq.com 33 N. High Street Columbus, OH 43215 Office: 614.629.6814 Mobile: 614.348.1233 rbrundrett@ohiomfq.com 203 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: David Boehm Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:49 PM Lynch, Jamie Chrisy Wright; Denny Larr; John Keaton; Michael Carey; Mike Brello; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Steve Lake; Tom Raga; Ty Pine Re: Amendment Talking Points OEG has no real objection,but this is mostly a utility issue Sent from my iPad On Nov 20, 2013, at 10:32 AM, "Lynch, Jamie" wrote: The Senator would like to know if you all have seen this and approve of the language. Please let me or him know. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: nick@thedangelogroup.com [mailto:nick@thedangelogroup.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:32 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Amendment Talking Points Hi Jamie, Attached is a talking-points doc on the amendment. I wanted to make Sen. Seitz and you had a copy; we will also distribute to members of the committee. Please let me know If I can provide any additional assistance. Thanks again, Nick Nicholas E. D'Angelo 614.403.7817 nick@thedangelogroup.com 204 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: tpine@firstenergycorp.com Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:20 PM Lynch, Jamie Sb58 Will you please send me a copy of Cheryl Roberto's testimony that she delivered last week ( I think). Sent from my iPhone The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. 205 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Tom Raga Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:40 PM Lynch, Jamie; Chrisy Wright; Dave Boehm; Denny Larr; John Keaton; Michael Carey; Mike Brello; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Steve P. Lake; Ty Pine RE: Amendment Talking Points Jamie: We are fine with this. Thanks, Tom From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 10:32 AM To: Chrisy Wright; Dave Boehm; Denny Larr; John Keaton; Michael Carey; Mike Brello; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Steve P. Lake; Tom Raga; Ty Pine Subject: FW: Amendment Talking Points The Senator would like to know if you all have seen this and approve of the language. Please let me or him know. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: nick@thedanqeloqroup.com [mailto:nick@thedanqelogroup.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:32 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Amendment Talking Points Hi Jamie, Attached is a talking-points doc on the amendment. I wanted to make Sen. Seitz and you had a copy; we will also distribute to members of the committee. Please let me know if I can provide any additional assistance. Thanks again, Nick Nicholas E. D'Angelo 614.403. 7817 nick@thedanqelogroup.com 206 This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-Mail, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender by return e-Mail and delete this e-Mail from your system. Unless explicitly and conspicuously stated in the subject matter of the above e-Mail, this e-Mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-Mail does not constitute consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties. 207 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us Wednesday, November 20, 2013 4:02 PM Lynch, Jamie SB 58 status Hi Jamie, Do you have an idea when I will receive instructions for the -8 version of SB 58? Just trying to plan ahead. Thanks, Kathy Kathleen Luikart Research Associate Legislative Service Commission 77 South High Street, 9th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-6136 (614) 466-4071 214 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Senator Seitz Wednesday, November 20, 2013 2:39 PM 'Matt S. White' RE: IGS SB 58 Language Matt, As previously stated, you have two options: 1.) Submit new language that addresses Duke's concerns, so we can evaluate it. 2.) Accept the amendment that grants you part of your wish, which is that utilities must observe the nondiscrimination principle when the regulated utility allows its unregulated affiliates to access the bill (this may be redundant of current law but we are willing to say it again, with emphasis). Sincerely, William J. Seitz ~-- ---- From: Matt S. White [mailto:mswhite@igsenergy.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:43 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: IGS SB 58 Language Jamie, I am just following up on IGS' issue with SB 58. John Keaton from Duke Energy did reach out to me yesterday afternoon and listed some of Duke's concerns with the language we are proposing in SB 58. We think all of Duke's concerns are addressable. We have not heard from any other utilities. I am sorry to bother you with this, but just asking for advice from you and the Chairman on next steps on the issue? We have dropped off a one page position paper at your office and to other Committee members explaining IGS' issue. Any advice or guidance you can give us is greatly appreciated. Matt White REGULATORY COUNSEi Direct (614) 659 5049 Mobile (614) 595 8523 Fax (614) 659 5310 IGS Energy :: 6100 Emerald Parkway :: Dublin, OH 43016 www .IGSenergy.com 215 Confidentiality Notice: The inforrniition contain('d in this email may be confidential nnd/or legnlly privileged. lt has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipicnt(s). If you arc not the intended redpient or authorized to receive information for the recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, distribution, copying, printing, or action taken in reliance on the contents of this e-mail is strktly prohibited. lfyou have- 1·eceived this communication in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To contact our email administrator directly, send to admin@igsenergy.com 216 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Seitz Ill, William J. Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:48 AM Lynch, Jamie FW: Talking Points Taft I William J. Seitz Ill I Of Counsel Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: 513.381.2838 • Fax: 513.381.0205 Direct: 513.357.9332 •Cell: 513.382.8281 www.taftlaw.com I seitz@taftlaw.com Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. ######### -----Original Message----From: Sam Randazzo [mailto:sam@mwncmh.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:41 PM To: Seitz Ill, William J. Subject: Talking Points FYI -- see note to Charlotte below Sam Randazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC sam@mwncmh.com (614) 395-4268 -----Original Message----From: Sam Randazzo Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:37 PM To: 'Charlotte Hickcox' Cc: Scott Elisar; Kevin Murray; Charles Willoughby - Gmail; Denny Larr 218 Subject: RE: Talking Points Charlotte, as far as I know, they have not released the full report (just a press release pimping an update to a prior report, the full version of which was also was not released). http://www.ohioadvancedenergy.org/index.cfm?objectid=DFAOF680-516D-11E3-B16E0050569A5318 . Senator Seitz previously asked to see the full report, work papers and documentation to the claims could be tested and they to offer up the details that they say support their position. Since they say it is an update to the prior report, we assume that it contains the same methodological defects that were identified in Dr. Lesser's testimony on their so-called report as that testimony was presented in the Senate and House. They have offered no rebuttal to Dr. Lesser's analysis or the testimony of the Alcoa witness who said that he had independent experts reviews the so-called reports and Dr. Lesser's testimony and they found that Dr. Lesser got it right. The claims about customers saving money are all tied to a bogus "price suppression" theory that assumes that if we compel more and more energy efficiency, that this will suppress prices in the wholesale electric market and that the asserted suppression in the wholesale market will somehow directly flow into Ohio retail prices on a dollar for dollar basis. The studies (or the summaries of the studies) themselves conclude that any price suppression effect in the wholesale market is temporary and that prices will return to the level that they would have achieved without the mandates. Also, any price suppression effect in the wholesale market would benefit the entire 13-state PJM region (the wholesale market footprint) while Ohio customers pick up the full tab for the mandates. Also, any price suppression effect cannot and will not cause retail prices (the prices set by the PUCO) to drop on a dollar for dollar basis. Indeed Ohio retail electric prices in much of Ohio have been going higher while wholesale prices dropped to the lowest level in 10 years. Finally, if the wholesale price suppression effect were real and true, the people making the claims would essentially be saying that the things that are being mandated are less expensive than the alternative non-mandated resources participating in the wholesale market and that the mandated things can effectively compete in the market without customer-funded subsidies. I hope this helps. Sam Sam Randazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC sam@mwncmh.com (614) 395-4268 -----Original Message----From: Charlotte Hickcox [mailto:chickcox@ohiochamber.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 7:15 PM To: Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar Subject: Talking Points Sam, I am assuming after our press release goes out tomorrow that the first thing the Dispatch will ask about is the newly released Advanced Energy report on the bill and expected rising costs. Would you mind shooting me a few talking points on it? Anything else you think would be helpful I would appreciate. Thanks II Charlotte B. Hickcox 614.537.4339 Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any typos. 219 220 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, November 19, 2013 3:00 PM mbrello@aep.com FW: AARP Testimony on SB 58 - November 14, 2013 imageOOl.png; image002.png Importance: High Mike-Bill asked me to send this to you and ask you to respond "immediately" to points 1-4 below. Thanks in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Harris, Denise [mailto:DHarris@aarp.org] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 12:00 PM Cc: Sundermeyer, William Subject: AARP Testimony on SB 58 - November 14, 2013 Importance: High This email is being sent on behalf of William Sundermeyer. Real Possibilities Testimony of AARP on Senate Bill 58 Before the Senate Public Utilities Committee Prepared in consultation with the National Office of AARP and Submitted by William Sundermeyer, Associate State Director, AARP Ohio November 14, 2013 226 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Senate Public Utilities Committee, AARP wishes to submit written testimony in opposition to SB 58. Over 1.6 million AARP members in Ohio rely upon affordable and reliable energy to heat and cool their homes. Substitute Senate Bill 58 (and its companion House Bill 302) would cause electric bills to rise and seriously threaten affordability, by making several unfair changes to the way in which electric rates are currently calculated by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). Some of our primary concerns with this legislation are: • Residential consumers would be denied most of the savings of energy efficiency programs, because the legislation would return a huge portion of those savings back to the utilities. The legislation includes a profit-enhancing provision for electric utilities, described as "shared savings incentives", which would allow "one-third of the after-tax benefits of approved energy efficiency programs" to be taken from consumers. 111 The Office of Ohio Consumers' Counsel (OCC) calculates that this provision would allow a utility to take back $33.3 million of every $100 million of net savings achieved by consumers. In addition, due to the phrase "after-tax", consumers would be forced to pay the utility's taxes on top of that enormous profit (an additional $20 million, per $100 million of "shared savings"). consumers would lose The foregone savings, plus the tax payments, would mean that most of the bill savings of their energy efficiency, by paying it as profit to the utilities. To our knowledge, a utility profit scheme that would deny consumers 53 percent of the energy efficiency savings would be the most generous allowed in the nation. This part of the legislation is unbalanced and unfair to consumers. By comparison, in current PUCO cases, the highest percentage profit that a utility has ever been allowed on energy efficiency programs in a PUCO case was a healthy 13 percent, after taxes, and that profit level is conditioned on that utility meeting certain energy efficiency benchmarks. • Utilities would no longer need to meet benchmarks before profiting through "shared shavings incentives". 227 Under that same subsection of Substitute Senate Bill 58, a utility would actually profit regardless of whether that utility meets the current statutory benchmarks. Thus, a utility would essentially be allowed to keep 53 percent of the savings, even if the benchmarks are not met. By eliminating the requirement to meet benchmarks, consumers cannot be assured that energy efficiency programs are actually working before allowing a utility is allowed to profit from those programs. This aspect of the bill weakens the incentive for energy efficiency savings, and fails to hold the utility accountable for achieving results. • The legislation would force the PUCO to use a method of calculating energy efficiency savings that is less favorable to consumers. For determining the utility profit described above, Senate Bill 58 would codify a method called the "Utility Cost Test" or UCT, which provides more utility profit from consumers than the more commonly used 'Total Resource Cost Test" or TRC. Most states have adopted some version of the TRC test. The TRC measures energy efficiency from the perspective of the total cost of any energy efficiency improvement, including the consumers' own expenditures in the calculation. For example, the TRC would measure any savings against the total cost of buying a new energy efficient refrigerator, while the UCT would calculate energy savings against only the amount of rebate that the utility provided for that refrigerator. The PUCO has already adopted the UCT method in many cases, but Senate Bill 58 would prevent the PUCO from considering energy savings in a way that takes into account a consumer's own investment in energy efficiency. • Consumers would also be held responsible for a utility's so-called "lost" revenues. The legislation would allow utilities to charge consumers for reductions in revenue due to lower usage, referred to as "lost, foregone, or eliminated" transmission and distribution revenues.[ 21 It is unfair to treat consumers as an insurance company for a certain level of utility revenues, regardless of what happens to energy usage, and the PUCO is right to begin moving away from such anticonsumer ratemaking methods. 228 The OCC estimates that the "lost revenues" provision of the legislation would cost Ohio consumers plenty. For example, a utility might be able to charge consumers as much as $22 in lost revenues for a compact florescent light bulb that is installed as part of an energy efficiency program, or $54 in lost revenues for a longer lasting LED bulb of similar wattage. The overall impact of this provision on consumers would be hundreds of millions of dollars. • The negative impact of this legislation is compounded by an expanded definition of energy efficiency, even allowing consumers to be charged for activities that were not financed by their utility. In yet another over-reach, Senate Bill 58 would expand how many things a utility may get credit for in the calculation of energy efficiency "savings", overriding current PUCO standards and regulatory decisions that protect consumers. 131 The definition of energy efficiency would grow to "count" savings from actions that are not even financed by their utility. Consumers could wind up paying for the savings from power plant upgrades retroactive to 2006, simply because those power plants are located in their electric company's territory, or because those power plants were previously owned by their utility, even if those power plants have since been sold to an unregulated affiliate. 141 If a power plant has been spun off to an affiliate, shareholders should be paying for its upgrades, not ratepayers. It is inappropriate to allow a utility to add the calculation of program costs designed to increase energy efficiencies for consumers together with power plant efficiencies, especially if the utility does not own those power plants. This part of Senate Bill 58 creates a windfall for shareholders, at the expense of consumers. And the list of included items under Senate Bill 58 grows ever larger. The definition of energy efficiency savings (which controls what electric consumers can be charged) is further expanded to include water and sewer consumption reductions151 • The definition would also expand to include resources that are bid into Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) capacity auctions. 161 It is inappropriate to include all these items together with the calculation of savings from programs 229 designed to achieve energy efficiency for consumers, and these definitional changes will only serve to raise electric bills. • Industrial customers could choose not to pay their fair share for the utilities' energy efficiency programs. The legislation provides a streamlined opt-out provision for certain industrial customers, making their participation in energy efficiency efforts optional. l7J This opt-out means that some industrial customers can choose to avoid paying for utility energy efficiency programs, leaving other customer classes pick up the tab. This is unfair because industrial customers can benefit from the energy efficiency impacts on wholesale energy and capacity markets which are paid for by residential customers. Whatever method is adopted for paying for energy efficiency programs, it should fairly allocate the costs and savings among all customer classes. Rather than increase costs to consumers, the legislature should be seeking ways to maximize the benefits that consumers already pay for energy efficiency. Senate Bill 58 does the exact opposite, transferring benefits from consumers back to the utility. Every month, millions of older consumers on fixed incomes pay their utility bills and try to make ends meet. They cannot afford the additional costs that they would have to bear under this proposed legislation. William Sundermeyer · -- -.....,.......... __ _____ __ ,, .. , 1 l J Sub. S.B. 58, Lines 1759-1776 [Sec. 4928.6611 (c)]. r21 Sub. S.B. 58, Lines 1623-1629 and 1756-1758. 3 l J Sub. S.B. 58, Lines 2008 to 2031. 4 l l Sub.S.B. 58, Lines 2043 to 2054 and 2065-2068. 5 l J Sub.S.B. 58, Lines 2039 to 2042. 230 ?51 531 Lines 2059 to 2064. "1 53. Lines 1910 to 1914. 231 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: John Funk Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:51 PM Lynch, Jamie RE: CANCELLED: Senate Public Utilities Committee 11.20.13 Jamie, Is Sen. Seitz giving interviews? Regards, John Funk John Funk Utility & Energy Reporter The Plain Dealer 1801 Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 216-999-4138 (direct) 1-800-688-4802 ext 4138 216-316-6949 (mobile) Follow me on Twitter: @johncfunk For complete energy coverage, go to: http://www.cleveland.com/ohio-utilities/ From: Lynch, Jamie [Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:48 PM To: Public Utilities Cc: Keeran, Vincent; Cramer, Stacy; Potts, Lauren; McClelland, John; Mumper, Ken; 'brad.young@ohiohouse.gov'; Estes, Wendy; 'kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us'; 'dheyman@lsc.state.oh.us'; 'rkeller@lsc.state.oh.us'; Strigari, Frank; Wright, Adam; Hydzik, Camilla Subject: CANCELLED: Senate Public Utilities Committee 11.20.13 AllThe Senate Public Utilities Committee scheduled for November 201h, 2013 has been cancelled. Best regards, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 232 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:49 PM Public Utilities Keeran, Vincent; Cramer, Stacy; Potts, Lauren; McClelland, John; Mumper, Ken; 'brad.young@ohiohouse.gov'; Estes, Wendy; 'kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us'; 'dheyman@lsc.state.oh.us'; 'rkeller@lsc.state.oh.us'; Strigari, Frank; Wright, Adam; Hydzik, Camilla CANCELLED: Senate Public Utilities Committee 11.20.13 Importance: High To: Cc: AllThe Senate Public Utilities Committee scheduled for November 20th, 2013 has been cancelled. Best regards, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 233 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:49 PM Public Utilities Keeran, Vincent; Cramer, Stacy; Potts, Lauren; McClelland, John; Mumper, Ken; 'brad.young@ohiohouse.gov'; Estes, Wendy; 'kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us'; 'dheyman@lsc.state.oh.us'; 'rkeller@lsc.state.oh.us'; Strigari, Frank; Wright, Adam; Hydzik, Camilla CANCELLED: Senate Public Utilities Committee 11.20.13 Importance: High To: Cc: AllThe Senate Public Utilities Committee scheduled for November 201h, 2013 has been cancelled. Best regards, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 234 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Tom Stacy Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:08 PM Lynch, Jamie Kevon Martis Questions concerning sub SB 58 amendments Hi Jamie. I have three brief questions: 1. What is the definition and context of the term "deliverable" in the proposed amendments as it pertains to renewable hydro power? We have fairly strong evidence that Canadian hydro is already practicably deliverable into Ohio via Michigan. Details upon request. 2. How can my network assist your efforts on behalf of sub SB 58 at this time? Please call me to discuss. 3. In the interest of continuing our network's understanding of Ohio renewable energy law, proposed changes thereto, and the forces at work which lever such changes, would it be possible for one or two of us to attend any/all meetings where amendments will be discussed/considered/negotiated/adopted? Thank you. Tom Stacy, Ohioan for Affordable Electricity (937) 407-6258 235 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:53 AM craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; Public Utilities; Senator Widener; Senator Faber; Senator Obhof FW: Commerce Clause & RPS All- Please see enclosed per Chairman Seitz's request. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Julie Johnson [mailto:juliejohnson@ctcn.net] Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 8:23 AM To: Senator Seitz; rep27@ohiohouse.gov Subject: Commerce Clause & RPS http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/19373 Federal J'udge: Michigan Renewable Energy Mandate Unconstitutional Court cases may deflate wind energy in Michigan By Jack Spencer I Nov. 16, 2013 Court battles over the Colorado and Minnesota renewable energy mandates could potentially mark the beginning of the end for similar laws in other states, including Michigan. In June, Judge Richard Posner of the U. S. Cornt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Court wrote that Michigan's in-state renewable energy mandate violates the Comm ere ' l11 use and is therefore unco1151itutio 1u~J Judge Posner's statement did not have the weight of law because the issue wasn't directly before h im. Nonetheless, many rece ived it as a wake-up call and possible harbinger of things to come. In 2008, the Michigan Legislature passed a law mandating that 10 percent of the state's energy be produced by in-state renewable energy sources by 2015. This law was supposedly enacted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, aspects of it appear inconsistent with that goal. 239 The law did not include monitoring requirements to test what effects, if any, the mandate actually has on emissions. Also, although there are several so-called renewable energy sources with wind energy the predominate source used to meet the mandate in Michigan. This has been so in spite of the fact that the federal government says Michigan .is n9t w.~..!1:.~mit~g_f~JI..Win4 . G.n9..r..g):'_QI.Pdu_g_~ion. If courts find that in-state renewable energy mandates violate the Commerce Clause, many think it would virtually kill wind energy in Michigan. Such a ruling would force Michigan's wind energy industry to compete on an open market. Wind energy cannot be produced efficiently in Michigan. As a result, without an in-state mandate, Michigan produced wind energy would simply lose out to cheaper energy produced from other sources or even by wind energy from some other states. At the U.S. District Court in Colorado, the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is arguing the same point Judge Posner made. At issue in the lawsuit, ATl v. Epel. is whether Colorado's 30 percent renewable energy mandate violates the Commerce Clause. "The case against Colorado demonstrates that nearly every state's renewable energy mandate violates the Constitution's Commerce Clause." said David W. Schnare, general counsel for E&E Legal and lead attorney on the case. "A state may not tell an electric company outside its borders how to make electricity or how to make renewable energy credits. "Once we prevail in Colorado, the first domino will have fallen and we expect to see state legislatures throughout the nation scrambling to find a Constitutional way to mandate renewables," he said. "They will not succeed, as the only way to do so and still remain within the Commerce Clause is to pass a federal mandate." Some believe the U.S. District Court in Minnesota could be the first to rule that in-state renewable mandates violate the Commerce Clause. Two years ago, North Dakota filed a lawsuit, I'h.r;.. Staf?..!.d..:Nor(]t,Qako{((..J!.,_,1Sl:J!.an,yQ!J, over Minnesota's 25 percent renewable energy mandate, which was signed into law in 2007. The Minnesota mandate law prohibits utilities serving Minnesota from importing energy from other states unless any additional carbon dioxide emissions are offset. North Dakota, which sits on the world's largest deposit of lignite coal, clearly has a great deal at stake in this case. Attorneys for North Dakota argue that the Minnesota mandate violates the Commerce Clause. According to media accounts, they also claim the Minnesota law is just a "symbolic gesture" against global warming. 240 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Matt S. White Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:43 AM Lynch, Jamie IGS SB 58 Language Jamie, I am just following up on IGS' issue with SB 58. John Keaton from Duke Energy did reach out to me yesterday afternoon and listed some of Duke's concerns with the language we are proposing in SB 58. We think all of Duke's concerns are addressable. We have not heard from any other utilities. I am sorry to bother you with this, but just asking for advice from you and the Chairman on next steps on the issue? We have dropped off a one page position paper at your office and to other Committee members explaining IGS' issue. Any advice or guidance you can give us is greatly appreciated. Matt White REGULA !'ORY COUNSEL Direct (614) 659 5049 Mobile (614) 595 8523 Fax (614) 659 53J 0 IGS Energy :: 6100 Emerald Parkway :: Dublin, OH 43016 www.IGSenergv.com Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email may he eonfidential n11d/or legnll privilegNJ. II has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). lf you are not the intended recipient or lltt horized to receive in formafion for the recipient, you arc hereby notified that any review, use; disclosure, distrib ution, ropying printing, or action taken in reliance on the contents of this <'-mail is strktly prohibited. lf you have 1·eceived tbis cnm muni ' Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:30 AM Lynch, Jamie Sub. SB 58 To: Subject: Hi Jamie, Will the Senator be sending out the latest version of the bill today? Scott Gerfen Public Affairs Liaison Ohio Consumers' Counsel Your Residential Utility Consumer Advocate office: 614-466-9581 cell: 614-668-3355 scott.gerfen@occ.ohio.gov www.pickocc.org Notice: This e-mail may contain privileged and/or confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender at the e-mail address and delete this e-mail from your system. 243 above Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Glover, George Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:49 AM Lynch, Jamie 58 Hospital imageOOljpg Thanks. Taft I George T. Glover I Managing Director Focused Capitol Solutions LLC 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: Cincinnati• Fax: 513.357.8740 Direct: 513.357.9486 • Cell: 513.607.9492 www.taftlaw.com I glover@focusedcapitolsolutions.com From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9: 17 AM To: Glover, George Subject: FW: 58 Hospital Please see enclosed. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Seitz III, William J. [mailto:seitz@t§ftlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:16 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: FW: 58 Hospital From: tpine@firstenergycorp.com [mailto:tpine@firstenergycorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:00 AM To: Seitz III, William J. Subject: 58 Hospital We can all agree to the following. 4928.11 Minimum service requirements for noncompetitive services. 246 (A) For the protection of consumers in this state, the public utilities commission shall adopt rules under division (A) of section 4928.06 of the Revised Code that specify minimum service quality, safety, and reliability requirements for noncompetitive retail electric services supplied by an electric utility in this state, to the extent such authority is not preempted by federal law. The rules shall include prescriptive standards for inspection, maintenance, repair, and replacement of the transmission and distribution systems of electric utilities; shall apply to each substantial type of transmission or distribution equipment or facility; shall establish uniform interconnection standards to ensure transmission and distribution system safety and reliability and shall otherwise provide for high quality, safe, and reliable electric service; shall include standards for operation, reliability, and safety during periods of emergency and disaster. A hospital will receive priority in the electric distribution utilityis service restoration plan. The rules regarding interconnection shall seek to prevent barriers to new technology and shaJI not make compliance unduly burdensome or expensive. When questions arise about specific equipment to meet interconnection standards, the commission shall initiate proceedings open to the public to solicit comments from aH interested parties. Additionally, rules under this division shall include nondiscriminatory metering standards. Ty Pine Director, State Affairs-Ohio 100 E. Broad St, STE 2225 Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-358-0153 (0) 614-257-8926 (C) ----------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. Taft I Wiiiiam J. Seitz Ill / Of Counsel Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: 513.381.2838 • Fax: 513.381.0205 Direct: 513.357.9332 •Cell: 513.382.8281 www.taftlaw.com I seitz@taftlaw.com Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disc losure: As provided for in Treasury reg ulation s, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not Intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. 247 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:25 AM 'Scott Elisar' RE: S.B. 58 Further Information imageOOljpg Thank you! Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Scott Elisar [mailto:selisar@mwncmh.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:22 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Cc: Kevin Murray Subject: RE: S.B. 58 Further Information --------- ----- - -- That is true - however if you refer to the Lesser study that was publicly presented in Committee - he accurately points out that we are substantially paying more for these improvements/mandates than we would if we were using the markets to meet these goals. And that this study falsely assumes that there is a one to one relationship between wholesale and retail electric prices A great case in point is the situation with Duke! - we have retail prices for Duke Energy Ohio that are above wholesale prices in part due to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio approving nonbypassable charges to offset in part lower wholesale electricity prices. Duke was authorized to collect 330 million dollars in nonbypassable charges over a three year period - they however - are not satisfied and are asking the commission to tack on another 700 million dollar more. The Commission has approved similar nonbypassable charges for AEP and DPL - these charges substantially DWARF anyone's estimates of savings from energy efficiency measures Attached are the Lesser studies. - If you don't want to cite Duke - you can say the $$ 250 million that consumers are paying annually throughout Ohio dwarf any savings from these energy efficiency mandates I hope this helps! Scott Scott E. Elisar McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC 21 E. State Street, 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 719-2850 (Direct Dial) (614) 395-3925 (Mobile) 248 (614) 469-4653 (Fax) selisar@mwncmh.com I Mc:Nees Wallace & Nurkk LLC The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230, unless we expressly state otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communications (including any attachments) was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matter(s) addressed herein. From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:54 AM To: Scott Elisar Subject: FW: S.B. 58 Further Information See question below. I was trying to not get into technicalities with her on this, but she seems to want a response on this particular section. What do you think an appropriate (brief) response would be? Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Thompson, Chrissie [mailto:cthompson@enguirer.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:45 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: RE: S.B. 58 Further Information Thanks much, Jamie. By the way, what do you make of the rest of the paragraph in the OAEE summary, after the part you highlighted? Seems they are saying the net result is savings to consumers ... Chrissie Thompson State capital reporter The Cincinnati Enquirer 513-368-2883 cthompson@enguirer.com http:Uwww.cincinnati.com http://ci nci n nati. co m/blogs/ po Iit ics/ Follow me on Twitter: @CThompsonENQ Follow me on Facebook 249 From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:41 PM To: Thompson, Chrissie Subject: S.B. 58 Further Information ChrissiePer my last email, attached you will find further information on the effects of EE programs for ratepayers. I have also attached the summary released by Ohio Advanced Energy Economy in response to Sub S.B. 58. You will see on page 2 (highlighted) that even their study concluded Ohio's renewable mandates increased costs to consumers in 2011 and 2012. Let me know if you have any questions or need any further info. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 250 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:25 AM 'Thompson, Chrissie' RE: S.B. 58 Further Information That is true - however if you look to the Lesser testimony that I sent to you - he accurately points out that we are substantially paying more for these improvements/mandates than we would if we were using the markets to meet these goals and that the OAEE study falsely assumes that there is a one to one relationship between wholesale and retail electric prices. The $250 million that consumers are paying annually throughout Ohio dwarf any savings from these energy efficiency mandates. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Thompson, Chrissie [mailto:cthompson@enquirer.com] November 19, 2013 8:45 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: RE: S.B. 58 Further Information Sent: Tuesday, Thanks much, Jamie. By the way, what do you make of the rest of the paragraph in the OAEE summary, after the part you highlighted? Seems they are saying the net result is savings to consumers ... Chrissie Thompson State capital reporter The Cincinnati Enquirer 513-368-2883 cthompson@enquirer.com http://www.cincinnati.com http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/ Follow me on Twitter: @CThompsonENQ Follow me on Facebook From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Monday, November 18, 2013 4:41 PM To: Thompson, Chrissie Subject: S.B. 58 Further Information Sent: Chrissie251 Per my last email, attached you will find further information on the effects of EE programs for ratepayers. I have also attached the summary released by Ohio Advanced Energy Economy in response to Sub S.B. 58. You will see on page 2 (highlighted) that even their study concluded Ohio's renewable mandates increased costs to consumers in 2011 and 2012. Let me know if you have any questions or need any further info. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 252 Nielson, Stephen Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:18 AM 'kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us' RE: Run-of-the-River From: Sent: To: Subject: Thank you! Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: klulkart@lsc.state.oh.us [mailto:kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:21 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Re: Run-of-the-River We will drop AM 675, from the list of stand alone amendments. From: "Lynch, Jamie" To: "kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us" Date: 11/19/2013 09:17 AM Subject; Run-of-the-River Kathy-the Chairman did want it drafted to the sub bill so it is correct as it stands. Sorry for the confusion. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 256 Nielson, Stephen kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:21 AM Lynch, Jamie Re: Run-of-the-River From: Sent: To: Subject: We will drop AM 675, from the list of stand alone amendments. From: To: Date: Subject: "Lynch, Jamie" "kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us" 11/19/2013 09:17 AM Run-of-the-River Kathy-the Chairman did want it drafted to the sub bill so it is correct as it stands. Sorry for the confusion. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 257 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:17 AM Glover, George (glover@focusedcapitolsolutions.com) FW: 58 Hospital imageOOljpg Please see enclosed. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Seitz III, William J. [mailto:seitz@taftlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:16 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: FW: 58 Hospital From: tpine@firstenergycorp.com [mailto:tplne@firstenergycorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:00 AM To: Seitz III, William J. Subject: 58 Hospital We can all agree to the following. 4928.11 Minimum service requirements for noncompetitive services. (A) For the protection of consumers in this state, the public utilities commission shall adopt rul.es under division (A) of section 4928.06 of the Revised Code that specify minimum service quality, safety, and reliability requirements for noncompetitive retail electric services supplied by an electric utility in this state, to the extent such authority is not preempted by federal law. The rules shall include prescriptive standards for inspection maintenance, repair, and replacement of the transmission and distribution systems of electric utilities; shall apply to each substantial type of transmission or distribution equipment or facility; shall establish uniform interconnection standards to ensure transmission and distribution system safety and reliability and shall otherwise provide for high quality, safe, and reliable electric service; shall include standards for operation, reliability, and safety during periods of emergency and disaster. A hospital will receive priority in the electric distTibution utility's service restoration plan. The rnles regarding interconnection shall seek to prevent barriers to new technology and shall not make compliance unduly burdensome or expensive. When questions arise about specific equipment to meet interconnection standards, the commission shall initiate proceedings open to the public to solicit comments from aU interested parties. Additionally, rules under this division shall include nondiscriminatory metering standards. Ty Pine Director, State Affairs-Ohio 258 100 E. Broad St, STE 2225 Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-358-0153 (0) 614-257-8926 (C) ----------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. Taft I William J. Seitz Ill I Of Counsel Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel : 513.381.2838 • Fax: 513.381.0205 Direct 513.357.9332 •Cell: 513.382 .8281 www.taftlaw.com I seitz@taftlaw.com Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein . This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. 259 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Seitz III, William J. Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:16 AM Lynch, Jamie FW: 58 Hospital imageOOljpg From: tpine@firstenergycorp.com [mailto:tpine@firstenergycorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:00 AM To: Seitz III, William J. Subject: 58 Hospital We can all agree to the following. 4928.11 Minimum service requirements for noncompetitive services. (A) For the protection of consumers in this state, the public utilities commission shall adopt rules under division (A) of section 4928.06 of the Revised Code that specify minimum service quality, safety, and reliability requirements for noncompetitive retail electric services supplied by an electric utility in this state, to the extent such authority is not preempted by federal law. The rules shall include prescriptive standards for inspection, maintenance, repair, and replacement of the transmission and distribution systems of electric utilities; shall apply to each substantial type of transmission or distribution equipment or facility; shall establish uniform interconnection standards to ensure transmission and distribution system safety and reliability and shall otherwise provide for high quality, safe, and reliable electric service; shall include standards for operation, reliability, and safety during periods of emergency and disaster. A hospital will receive priority in the electric distribution utility's service restoration plan. The rules regarding interconnection shall seek to prevent barriers to new technology and shall not make compliance unduly burdensome or expensive. When questions arise about specific equipment to meet interconnection standards, the commission shall initiate proceedings open to the public to solicit comments from all interested parties. Additionally, rules under this division shall include nondiscriminatory metering standards. Ty Pine Director, State Affairs-Ohio 100 E. Broad St, STE 2225 Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-358-0153 (0) 614-257-8926 (C) Fl~ ..... b •• ----------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. 260 Taft I William J. Seitz Ill / Of Counsel Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: 513.381 .2838 •Fax: 513.381 .0205 Direct: 513.357.9332 •Cell: 513.382.8281 www.taftlaw.com I seitz@taftlaw.com Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury reg ulations, advice (If any) relating to federal taxes that is contain ed in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. 261 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:14 AM kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us Run-of-the-River Kathy-the Chairman did want it drafted to the sub bill so it is correct as it stands. Sorry for the confusion. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 262 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:54 AM selisar@mwncmh.com FW: S.B. 58 Further Information See question below. I was trying to not get into technicalities with her on this, but she seems to want a response on this particular section. What do you think an appropriate (brief) response would be? Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Thompson, Chrissie [mailto:cthompson@enquirer.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:45 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: RE: S.B. 58 Further Information Thanks much, Jamie. By the way, what do you make of the rest of the paragraph in the OAEE summary, after the part you highlighted? Seems they are saying the net result is savings to consumers ... Chrissie Thompson State capital reporter The Cincinnati Enquirer 513-368-2883 cthompson@enguirer.com http:ljwww.cincinnati.com http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/ Follow me on Twitter: @CThompsonENQ Follow me on Facebook From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:41 PM To: Thompson, Chrissie Subject: S.B. 58 Further Information ChrissiePer my last email, attached you will find further information on the effects of EE programs for ratepayers. I have also attached the summary released by Ohio Advanced Energy Economy in response to Sub S.B. 58. You 264 will see on page 2 (highlighted) that even their study concluded Ohio's renewable mandates increased costs to consumers in 2011 and 2012. Let me know if you have any questions or need any further info. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 265 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Thompson, Chrissie Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:45 AM Lynch, Jamie RE: S.B. 58 Further Information Thanks much, Jamie. By the way, what do you make of the rest of the paragraph in the OAEE summary, after the part you highlighted? Seems they are saying the net result is savings to consumers ... Chrissie Thompson State capital reporter The Cincinnati Enquirer 513-368-2883 cthompson@enguirer.com http://www.cincinnati.com http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/ Follow me on Twitter: @CThompsonENQ Follow me on Facebook From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:41 PM To: Thompson, Chrissie Subject: S.B. 58 Further Information ChrissiePer my last email, attached you will find further information on the effects of EE programs for ratepayers. I have also attached the summary released by Ohio Advanced Energy Economy in response to Sub S.B. 58. You will see on page 2 (highlighted) that even their study concluded Ohio's renewable mandates increased costs to consumers in 2011 and 2012. Let me know if you have any questions or need any further info. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 266 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: Subject: Attachments: Denny Larr Monday, November 18, 2013 5:32 PM Lynch, Jamie; Chrisy Wright; Dave Boehm; John Keaton; Michael Carey; Mike Brello; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Steve Lake; Tom Raga; Ty Pine IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ AND RESPOND imageOOl.jpg Importance: High To: I just received a phone call from Ernie Davis, Chief of Staff to the Senate Democrat Caucus, inviting us (proponents of SB 58} to address the Senate D's at 12:30 p.m. tomorrow (11/19). The opponents have already addressed the Senate D's and that is the reason I submitted the request in the first place. Ernie apologized for the short notice but did not think the bill was slated for a vote this week but now realizes the possibility exists. Ty is checking with the three union groups supporting the bill and I am trying to identify who will be participating from our group - ideally, a representative from each company/organization. Please let me know. Thank you and again I apologize for the very short notice . DENISE M. LARR IC. l ~ . 09.663~/F:61·\ ,8 267 • 0 6 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: nick@thedangelogroup.com Monday, November 18, 2013 5:20 PM Lynch, Jamie Tom Pappas RE: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status Ok, thanks Jamie. In reference to figuring it out in the House, do you mean just this portion or RPS 1 year/3 year choice language too? Nick -------- Original Message -------Subject: RE: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status From: "Lynch, Jamie" Date: Mon, November 18, 2013 5:02 pm To: "'nlck@thedangelogroup.com"' Thanks, Nick. The Senator is taking a look at your response. He wanted me to pass along that if we cannot get this figured out soon, you may have to get this fixed in the House. I will keep you updated, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: nick@thedangelogroup.com [mallto:nick@thedangelogroup.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4: 19 PM To: Lynch, Jamie; tom@tompappas.com Subject: RE: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status Thanks Jamie, sorry the delay - I had to run this up the flag pole: As a result of the fact that utilities operate within individual service territories and suppliers operate in multiple utility service territories we think the language you forwarded would subject suppliers to a statewide average when calculating generation dollar supply dollar amount; this would be difficult to deduce. Our original intent was to calculate the average in each individual utility service territory We would suggest making the change below under 2(a)(ii): 268 (Ii) With respect to an electric services company. a weighted average of the cost of electricity supply for delivery during that compliance year. ftet--&F Including distribution losses within~ company's service area: each utility's service territory. Please let me know if you need any additional info. Thanks again, Nick Nicholas E. D'Angelo 614.403.7817 nick@thedangelogroup.com -------- Original Message -------Subject: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status From: "Lynch, Jamie" Date: Mon, November 18, 2013 3:02 pm To: "tom@tompappas.com" , "Nick D'Angelo (nick@thedangelogroup.com)" Please see the email below from LSC. Does this suggestion look okay to you? I need to know as soon as possible for drafting purposes. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: lgengo@lsc.state.oh.us [mailto:lgengo@lsc.state.oh.us] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:59 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Fw: Sub. S.B. 58 status Hi Jamie, I'm working on the attached Direct Energy amendment and have attempted to simplify the definition of "generation supply dollar amount" in R.C. 4928.644(8)(2) while incorporating Direct Energy's proposed changes. Below is my suggestion. Please let me know if this accurately captures the intended changes. (2)(a) "Generation supply dollar amount" means the reasonably expected dollar amount per megawatt hour for the generation supply available to consumers ptusuant to section 4928.141 of the Revised Gede during the applicable compliance year, which consists of the following: (i) With respect to an electric distribution utility, a weighted average of the cost of the standard service offer supply pursuant to section 4928.141 of the Revised Code for delivery during that compliance year, net-ef including distribution losses within the utility's service territory: 269 (ii) With respect to an electric services company, a weighted average of the cost of electricity supply for delivery during that compliance year,~ including distribution losses within the company's service area: With Fespeet to an eleetFie seFvices company, geneFation supply dollar amount means the aveFage weighted east of geneFation supply of the relevant eleetFie distFibution utility. (b) The PUCO shall calculate and publicly post the generation supply dollar amount calculated under division (B)(2)(a) of this section not later than February of the app.licab le compliance year. Thank you, Laura Genga LSC Research Associate 6-3976 -----Forwarded by Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US on 11/18/2013 10:33 AM----From: "Lynch, Jamie" To: "klujkart@lsc.state.oh.us" Date: 11/18/201310:21 AM Subject: Sub. S.B. 58 KathyThe Chairman would like the 3 enclosed amendments to be drafted as stand-alone amendments to the new -7 version of Sub. S.B. 58. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 270 Nielson, Stephen klu i ka rt@lsc.state.oh.us Monday, November 18, 2013 5:15 PM Lynch, Jamie Re: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 From: Sent: To: Subject: Thank you Jamie. Kathy From: "Lynch, Jamie" "kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us" 11/18/2013 05:10 PM FW: Sub. S.B. 58 To: Date: Subject: KathyPer your request, we furnished a list of amendments that the Chairman plans on accepting in Wednesday's Committee (see below). Let me know if you have any questions. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone:(614)466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:55 PM To: Chrisy Wright; Dave Boehm; Denny Larr; John Keaton; Michael Carey; Mike Brello; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Steve Lake; Tom Raga; Ty Pine Subject: Sub. S.B. 58 All- Please see enclosed for the new substitute version of S.B. 58. Meeting everyone's approval, we will be releasing this tomorrow but the Senator wanted to make sure that we have it right. Also, the Senator wanted me to make a note of the stand-alone amendments that he plans on accepting in Wednesday's Committee and they are listed below and attached. As always, do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. AM1057X2 Senator Patton 271 AM0889 Senator Patton Direct Energy Language (still waiting final approval for language) Greater Cincinnati Health Council Language (still waiting on final approval from Hatfields) IGS Language (still waiting on final language) AM 1019 Senator Jones AM0987 Senator Jones AM0675 Senator Coley (still waiting on final language) Rural Electric Co-Op Language (still waiting on final language from LSC) Bill Transparency Language (still waiting on final language from LSC) Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614)466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov [attachment "AM0675.pdf" deleted by Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US] [attachment "AM0889.pdf" deleted by Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US] [attachment "AM0987.pdf" deleted by Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US] [attachment "AM1019.pdf" deleted by Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US] [attachment "AM1057X2.pdf" deleted by Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US] [attachment "Direct Energy Language.pdf" deleted by Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US] [attachment "GCHC Amendments to SB 58 10-24-13.docx" deleted by Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US] [attachment "130_LB_0592_7.pdf" deleted by Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US] [attachment "Legislation 2013 November SB 58 electric cooperative municipal electric amendment 11-15-13.doc" deleted by Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US] -----on Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:31:21 -0500 ".Seitz Ill, William J" Message from----- "Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov" :To 58 FW: Transparency Objective -- SB :Subject I Taft Of Counsel I William J. Seitz Ill Hollister LLP & Taft Stettinius Walnut Street, Suite 1800 425 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: 513.381.2838 •Fax: 513.381.0205 Direct: 513.357.9332 •Cell : 513.382 .8281 seitz@taftlaw.comIwww.taftlaw.com [mailto:sam@mwncmh.com] Sam Randazzo :From Monday, November 18, 2013 10:41 AM :Sent .Seitz III, William J :To Transparency Objective -- SB 58 :Subject 272 language during the call I redistributed this .I suggested to the balance of the Hatfields Senator, below is the language .yesterday LLC Nurick & McNees Wallace +268-?!95 (614') sam@mwncmh.com regulations, advice (if any) relating to Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury to be used, and in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written federal taxes th at is contained under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or cannot be used, for the purpose of (1} avoiding penalties .to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein recommending attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If ,This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged this transmission in recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received you are not an intended .delete the message and any attachments error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and Sam Randazzo :From Sunday, November 17, 2013 4:39 PM :Sent Denny Larr :To ;Spiller, Amy B ;agrealy@firstenerqycorp.com ;Steven T Nourse ;tpine@flrstenerqycorp.com :Cc ;Watts, Elizabeth H ;dboehm@bkllawflrm.cQm ;Christine D Wright ;burkj@firstenergycorp.com ;mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com ;John Keaton; Judi L Sobecki; Barrett, Lee E; Mike Brello ;jbiltz@flrstenergycorp.com Kevin Murray; Scott Elisar; Steve P. Lake; Duff, Tim; Tom Raga RE: For consideration on 9:00 a.m. call re: SB58 :Subject - that I suggested on bill transparency Here (below) is the language Sa m Ra11 d azzo LLC Nurick & McNees Wallace 4268-),95 (614') sam@mwncmh.com Sam Randazzo :From Friday, November 08, 2013 6:30 AM :Sent Denny Larr :To ;Spiller, Amy B ;agrealy@firstenergycorp.com ;Steven T Nourse ;tpine@firstenergycorp.com :Cc 273 ;Watts, Elizabeth H ;dboehm@bkllawfirm.com ;Christine D Wright ;burkj@firstenergycorp.com ;mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com ;John Keaton; Judi L Sobecki; Barrett, Lee E; Mike Brello ;jbiltz@firstenergycorp.com Kevin Murray; Scott Elisar; Steve P. Lake; Duff, Tim; Tom Raga Re: For consideration on 9:00 a.m. call re: SB58 :Subject by are required advise consumers of the consequence of bill impacts caused Alternative Suggestion - when the utilities The approach below should also avoid .be blamed government mandates, consumers think it is the utilities that should .complications associated with a line item approach some of the billing least once each calendar year, the commission shall publish a public At .{C}(3)4828.6611 .Sec which it has identifying the statewide cumulative total dollar cost of compliance for report of the Revised Code, authorized recovery from consumers in this state under Sections utility and the cumulative typical bill effect of the cumulative amount for each electric distribution the residential, commercial and industrial consumers of each electric such authorization on utility to advise The commission shall also require each electric distribution .utility distribution otherwise, of the commission's issuance of consumers, through an annual electric bill insert or .obtain a copy of such report such report and how they may Mi Pad Sam Randazzo sam@mwncmh.com (cell) 4268-395 (614) 274 Nielson, Stephen lgengo@lsc.state.oh.us Monday, November 18, 2013 5:09 PM Lynch, Jamie RE: Sub. S.B. 58 status From: Sent: To: Subject: Ok thanks. From: To: Date: Subject: "Lynch, Jamie" "'lgengo@lsc.state.oh.us"' 11 /18/2013 05:06 PM RE: Sub. S.8. 58 status Laura-sorry for the delay in responding. We are still looking into this. I will be sure to keep you updated. Thank you for your patience, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: J amie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: lgengo@lsc.state.oh.us [mailto:lgengo@lsc.state.oh.us] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:59 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Fw: Sub. S.B. 58 status Hi Jamie, I'm working on the attached Direct Energy amendment and have attempted to simplify the definition of "generation supply dollar amount" in R.C. 4928.644(8)(2) while incorporating Direct Energy's proposed changes. Below is my suggestion. Please let me know if this accurately captures the intended changes. (2)(a) "Generation supply dollar amount" means the reasonably expected dollar amount per megawatt hour for the generation supply available to consumers purs1:1aRt te seetieR 4928.141 ef the Revisea Ceae during the applicable compliance year, which consists of the following: (i) With respect to an electric distribution utility. a weighted average of the cost of the standard service offer supply pursuant to section 4928.141 of the Revised Code for delivery during that compliance year, Ret-ef including distribution losses within the utility's seryice territory; (ii) Wi th respect to an electric services company, a weighted average of th e cost of e.lectricity supply for delivery duri ng that compliance year, ·A ek# includ ing d istribution loss s with in the company 's service area: 275 Nith respect to an ekctric servkes company, generation supply dollar amount means the a~,rerage 'N'eighted cost of generation supply of the rele ;ant electric distribution utility. 1 1 (b) The PUCO shall calculate and publicly post the generation supply dollar amount calculated under division (B)(2)(a) of this section not later than February of the applicable compliance year. Thank you, Laura Gengo LSC Research Associate 6-3976 ----- Forwarded by Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohlo_Leglslature/US on 1111812013 10:33 AM----From: To : Date: Subject: "Lynch, Jamie" "kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us" 11118/2013 10:21 AM Sub. S.B. 58 KathyThe Chairman would like the 3 enclosed amendments to be drafted as stand-alone amendments to the new -7 version of Sub. S.B. 58. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone:(614)466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 276 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Monday, November 18, 2013 5:03 PM 'lgengo@lsc.state.oh.us' RE: Sub. S.B. 58 status Laura-sorry for the delay in responding. We are still looking into this. I will be sure to keep you updated. Thank you for your patience, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: lgengo@lsc.state.oh.us [mailto:lgengo@lsc.state.oh. us] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:59 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Fw: Sub. S.B. 58 status Hi Jamie, I'm working on the attached Direct Energy amendment and have attempted to simplify the definition of "generation supply dollar amount" in R.C. 4928.644(8)(2) while incorporating Direct Energy's proposed changes. Below is my suggestion. Please let me know if this accurately captures the intended changes. (2)(a) "Generation supply dollar amount" means the reasonably expected dollar amount per megawatt hour for the generation supply available to consumers pursuant to section 4928.141 of th.e Re¥ised Code during the applicable compliance year, which consists of the following: (i) With respect to an electric distribution utility, a weighted average of the cost of the standard service offer supply pursuant to section 4928.141 of the Revised Code for delivery during that compliance year, net-ffi including distribution losses within the utility's service territory: With respect to an electric services company. a weighted ave.rage of the cost of electricity supply for delivery during that complianc year, nef-ei .including distribution losses with.in the comP-any's service area; (ii) With respect l:o an electric senrices company, generation supply dollar amount mean£ the a11erage 'Neightcd cost of generation supply of th.e rele¥ant electric distribution utility~ (b) The PUCO shall calculate and publicly post the generation supply dollar amount cakuJated under division CB)(2)(a) of this section not later than February of the applicable compliance year. Thank you, Laura Gengo LSC Research Associate 279 6-3976 ----- Forwarded by Kathy LuikarULSC/Ohlo_LegJslature/US on 11118/2013 10:33 AM - From: "Lynch, Jamie" To: "klulkart@lsc.state.oh.us" Date: 11/18/201310:21 AM Subject: Sub. S.B. 58 KathyThe Chairman would like the 3 enclosed amendments to be drafted as stand-alone amendments to the new -7 version of Sub. S.B. 58. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate Distri~t 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.goy 280 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Monday, November 18, 2013 5:02 PM 'nick@thedangelogroup.com' RE: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status Thanks, Nick. The Senator is taking a look at your response. He wanted me to pass along that if we cannot get this figured out soon, you may have to get this fixed in the House. I will keep you updated, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: nick@thedangelogroup.com [mailto:nick@thedangelogroup.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4: 19 PM To: Lynch, Jamie; tom@tompappas.com Subject: RE: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status Thanks Jamie, sorry the delay - I had to run this up the flag pole: As a result of the fact that utilities operate within individual service territories and suppliers operate in multiple utility service territories we think the language you forwarded would subject suppliers to a statewide average when calculating generation dollar supply dollar amount; this would be difficult to deduce. Our original intent was to calculate the average in each individual utility service territory We would suggest making the change below under 2(a)(ii): (ii) With respect to an electric services company, a weighted average of the cost of electricity supply for delivery during that comp liance year. ftet-ef including distribution losses within--#J.e eefflpany's servlte area: each utility's service territory. Please let me know if you need any additional info. Thanks again, Nick Nicholas E. D'Angelo 614.403.7817 nick@thedanqeloqroup.com -------- Original Message -------Subject: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status 281 From: "Lynch, Jamie" Date: Mon, November 18, 2013 3:02 pm To: "tom@tompappas.com" , "Nick D'Angelo (nick@thedangelogroup.com)" Please see the email below from LSC. Does this suggestion look okay to you? I need to know as soon as possible for drafting purposes. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: lgengo@lsc.state.oh.us [mailto:lgengo@lsc.state.oh.us] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:59 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Fw: Sub. S.B. 58 status Hi Jamie, I'm working on the attached Direct Energy amendment and have attempted to simplify the definition of "generation supply dollar amount'' In R.C. 4928.644(8)(2) while incorporating Direct Energy's proposed changes. Below is my suggestion. Please let me know if this accurately captures the intended changes. (2)(a.) "Generation supp ly doUar amount" means the reasonably expected dollar amount per megawatt hour for the generation supply available to consumers pursuant to section 492:8.141 of the Rev4scd Code dLIIing the applicable compliance y ar, which consists of the following: {i) With respect to an electric distribution utility, a weighted average of the cost of the standard service offer supply ~ursua.nt to section 4928.141 of the Revised Code for delivery during that compliance year, net-<* including distribution losses within the utility's s rvice territory; (i.i) With respect to an electric servic s company. a weighted average o[ the cost of electricity supp ly for deLivery dudng that compliance year, ·Rek>f including distribution losses within the company's service area; With respect to an elecb·ie services company, generation supp.ly doHa.r amount means the ave£age Vleighted cost of genaration supply of the relevant electric distribution utility. (b) The PUCO shall calcu late and publicly post the generation supply dollar amount calculated under division (B)(2)(a) of this section not later than February of the applicable compliance year. Thank you, Laura Genga LSC Research Associate 6-3976 ----- Forwarded by Kathy LuikarVLSC/Ohlo_Legislature/US on 1111812013 10:33 AM ----· From: "Lynch, Jamie" To: "kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us" Date: 1111812013 10:21 AM Subject: Sub. S.B. 56 282 KathyThe Chairman would like the 3 enclosed amendments to be drafted as standalone amendments to the new -7 version of Sub. S.B. 58. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohjosenate.gov 283 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Monday, November 18, 2013 5:01 PM Chrisy Wright; Dave Boehm; Denny Larr; John Keaton; Michael Carey; Mike Brello; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Steve Lake; Tom Raga; Ty Pine FW: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status Chairman Seitz requested that I run the dialogue below by all of you. Please provide thoughts/comments. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: nick@thedangelogroup.com [mallto: nick@thedangelogroup.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:19 PM To: Lynch, Jamie; tom@tompappas.com Subject: RE: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status Thanks Jamie, sorry the delay - I had to run this up the flag pole: As a result of the fact that utilities operate within individual service territories and suppliers operate in multiple utility service territories we think the language you forwarded would subject suppliers to a statewide average when calculating generation dollar supply dollar amount; this would be difficult to deduce. Our original intent was to calculate the average in each individual utility service territory We would suggest making the change below under 2(a)(ii): (ii) With respect to an electric services company. a weig hted average of the cost of electricity supply for delivery during that compliance year. fteH7f Including distribution losses within-t-fle e&fflililffl's serv+ee area+-each utility's service territory. Please let me know if you need any additional Info. Thanks again, Nick Nicholas E. D'Angelo 614.403.7817 nick@thedangelogrou p. com -------- Original Message -------Subject: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status 284 From: "Lynch, Jamie" Date: Mon, November 18, 2013 3:02 pm To: "tom@tompappas.com" , "Nick D'Angelo (nick@thedangelogroup.com)" Please see the email below from LSC. Does this suggestion look okay to you? I need to know as soon as possible for drafting purposes. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: lgengo@lsc.state.oh.us [mailto:lgengo@lsc.state.oh.us] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:59 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Fw: Sub. S.B. 58 status Hi Jamie, I'm working on the attached Direct Energy amendment and have attempted to simplify the definition of "generation supply dollar amount" in R.C. 4926.644(8)(2) while incorporating Direct Energy's proposed changes. Below is my suggestion. Please let me know if this accurately captures the lntehded changes. (2)(a) "Generation supply dollar amount" means the reasonably expected dollar amount per megawatt hour for the generation supply available to consumers pursuant to section 4928.141 of the Revised Code during the applicable compliance year, which consists of the following: (i) With respect to an electric distribution utility, a weighted average of the cost of the standard service offer supply pursuant to section 4928.141 of the Revised Code for delivery during that compliance year, net-ef including distribution losses within the utility's service territory: (ii) With r spect to an elecb:ic services company, a weighted ave1·age of the cost of electricity supply for delivery during that compliance year, .Ret-fil including distribution losses within the company's service area: With respect to a:A electric sef'1ices company, genCl'ation supply dolJCU' amount n:ieans the average '••veighted east ef generatien supply ef the relevant electric distributi0:11 utility. (b) The PUCO shall calculate and,publicly post the generation supply dollar amount calculated under division (B)(2)(a) of this section not later than February of the applicable compliance year. Thank you, Laura Gengo LSC Research Associate 6-3976 -----Forwarded by Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US on 11/18/2013 10:33 AM---From: "Lynch, Jamie" To: "kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us" Date: 11/18/201310:21 AM Subject: Sub. S.B. 58 285 KathyThe Chairman would like the 3 enclosed amendments to be drafted as standalone amendments to the new -7 version of Sub. S.B. 58. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lyncb@obiosenate.gov 286 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Seitz III, William J. Monday, November 18, 2013 5:01 PM Lynch, Jamie Re: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status Run it by the hatfields and if we can't get a prompt answer tell nick he may have to fix it in the house. Taft I Wiiiiam J. Seitz Ill / Of Counsel Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel : 513.381 .2838 •Fax: 513.381.0205 Direct: 513.357.9332 •Cell: 513.382.8281 www.taftlaw.com I seitz@taftlaw.com From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 04:53 PM To: Seitz III, William J. Subject: FW: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is co ntained in this commu nication (Including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: nick@thedangelogroup.com [mailto: nick@thedangelogroup.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4: 19 PM To: Lynch, Jamie; tom@tompappas.com Subject: RE: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status Thanks Jamie, sorry the delay - I had to run this up the flag pole: As a result of the fact that utilities operate within individual service territories and suppliers operate in multiple utility service territories we think the language you forwarded would subject suppliers to a 287 statewide average when calculating generation dollar supply dollar amount; this would be difficult to deduce. Our original intent was to calculate the average in each individual utility service territory We would suggest making the change below under 2(a)(il): (ii) With respect to an electric services company, a weighted average of the cost of electricity supply for delivery during that compliance year. net:--e.f including distribution losses withfn ~ compa ny's service area+--each utility's service territory. Please let me know if you need any additional info. Thanks again, Nick Nicholas E. D'Angelo 614.403.7817 nick@thedangeloqroup.com -------- Original Message-------Subject: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status From: "Lynch, Jamie" Date: Mon, November 18, 2013 3:02 pm To: "tom@tompappas.com" , "Nick D'Angelo (nick@thedangelogroup.com)" Please see the email below from LSC. Does this suggestion look okay to you? I need to know as soon as possible for drafting purposes. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: lgengo@lsc.state.oh.us [mailto:lqengo@lsc.state.oh.us] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:59 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Fw: Sub. S.B. 58 status Hi Jamie, I'm working on the attached Direct Energy amendment and have attempted to simplify the definition of "generation supply dollar amount" in R.C. 4928.644(8)(2) while incorporating Direct Energy's proposed changes. Below is my suggestion. Please let me know if this accurately captures the intended changes. (2)(a) "Generation supply dollar amount" means the reasonably expected dollar amount per megawatt hour for the generation supply available to consumers puFsuant to seetion 4928.141 of the Revised Code during the applicable compliance year, which consists of the following: 288 (i) With respect to an electric distribution utility. a weighted average of the cost of the standard service offer supply pursuant to section 4928.141 of the Revised Code for delivery during that compliance year, Ret-ef including distribution losses within the utility's service territory: (ii) With respect to an electric services company. a we.ighted average of the cost of electricity supply for delivery dming that compliance year. aet-ef including distribution losses within the company's service area; With respect to an electric ser'lices company, generation supply doUar amount means the a11erage weighted cost of generation supply of the J·elevant electric distribution util-ity: (b) The PUCO shall calculate and publicly post the generation supply dollar amount calculated under division (B)(2)(a) of this section not Later than February of the applicable compliance year. Thank you, Laura Genge LSC Research Associate 6-3976 ---- Forwarded by Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US on 11/18/2013 10:33 AM ----From: "Lynch, Jamie" To: "kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us" Date: 11/18/201310:21 AM Subject: Sub. S.B. 58 KathyThe Chairman would like the 3 enclosed amendments to be drafted as standalone amendments to the new -7 version of Sub. S.B. 58. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 289 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Senator Seitz Monday, November 18, 2013 5:00 PM seitz@taftlaw.com FW: IGS SB 58 Language Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Keaton, John A [mailto:John.Keaton@duke-energy.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:57 PM To: Senator Seitz; 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'dboehm@bkllawfirm.com'; 'dlarr@larrpc.com'; 'mcarey@coalsource.com'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'sam@mwncmh.com'; 'selisar@mwncmh.com'; 'steve.lake@dplinc.com'; 'tom.raga@dplinc.com'; 'tpine@firstenergycorp.com' Subject: Re: IGS SB 58 Language Earlier today I spoke to Matt at IGS. We had a very cordial dialogue. He made his case and I made him aware of Duke Energy's specific concerns. They include: 1) Partial payment application; 2) Commission waivers for that partial payment process; 3) Social program conflicts such as with PIPP customers; 4) Added complexity of being a combination utility; 5) Expense of changing billing and IT systems; 6) Difficulty capturing ongoing logistical and administrative costs that would be incurred by us on their behalf; 7) The fact that the billing function and relationships are presently being discussed in the retail market workshops at the PUCO; and, 8) Current law contains protections against unreasonably preferential treatment. The proposed amendment is thus both unnecessary and inviting of a conflict as to which provision controls. From our perspective, it would seem too big a lift to alleviate all the concerns listed above in SB 58. In my conversation with Matt, I suggested his issue would be better vetted in other legislation, perhaps standalone so as to adequately consider our and others' concerns. Though he seemed sympathetic, he was unmoved. We believe that we understand their proposal and that their amendment falls far short of addressing all the potential pitfalls it may create. For that and the reasons stated above, we see it as a proposal on which we (Duke Energy Ohio) will have to agree to disagree with IGS. Regards, John John Keaton State Government & Regulatory Affairs Director 290 Duke Energy 155 East Broad St - 21st Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Office: (614) 222-1330 From: Senator Seitz [mailto:Seitz@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 03:10 PM To: Chrisy Wright ; Dave Boehm ; Denny Larr ; Keaton, John A; Michael Carey ; Mike Brello ; Sam Randazzo ; Scott Elisar ; Steve Lake ; Tom Raga ; Ty Pine Subject: FW: IGS SB 58 Language You folks were supposed to talk to IGS and doesn't look like that has happened. From: Matt S. White [mailto:mswhite@igsenergy.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 3:04 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Cc: Scott White Subject: IGS SB 58 Language Jamie, Please see the below message from IGS for Chairman Seitz regarding SB 58. Matt Dear Chairman Seitz; I just wanted to follow-up on IGS' proposed utility billing language. We are open to constructive feedback on our proposed language; however, we have not heard from any of the utilities regarding their concerns. We do think though that any language should make clear that if an electric utility is billing a non-electric service, either for an affiliated company or for a non-affiliated company (excluding governmental entities), than the utility must also make available billing to other companies that wish to offer that product or service to utility customers. Currently, there are two general scenarios that occur: either A) the utility provides billing services for its affiliated company but not other companies requesting this service or B) the utility will enter into a exclusive billing agreement with a 3rd party company that will allow that 3rd party to bill its charges on the utility bill and market its product under the utility name. We think language in SB 58 should account for both scenarios, and we would be opposed to any additional language that would allow the EDU to circumvent the equal access billing requirement by simply entering into an exclusive billing agreement with a 3rd party. For example, currently, FirstEnergy has contracted with a company called HomeServe that sells utility line and HVAC systems insurance products. HomeServe has the exclusive right to use the FirstEnergy EDU bill and market its products under the FirstEnergy name. The problem with this practice is that FirstEnergy, the EDU is leveraging the regulated utility bill, which is paid for by all electric ratepayers, to benefit just one company in a non-regulated industry. IGS is not asking for is unfettered access to the utility bill. If the utility does not bill for a particular product or service already we would not be allowed to add additional products to the bill. We are also not asking for free billing service. We would pay for billing services under the same terms and conditions that the utility is offering its affiliate or a 3rd party entity. Finally, we are not asking to be able to use the utility name; our products would be marketed under our own name. 291 We believe that there are anti-trust issues with the electric utility using the regulated utility bill to bill exclusively for a non-regulated product or service. Electric distribution utilities are state sanctioned monopolies, and the billing services they provide are a monopoly service. As part of their state sanctioned monopoly, EDU's get full cost recovery for billing. By exclusively allowing access to the monopoly utility bill, one company is receiving an anti-competitive advantage in the market place, that ultimately leads to higher prices for consumers. We believe that the addition of IGS' language will eliminate the need for costly litigation at the PUCO or other court systems, and also be a great benefit for consumers. Again, thank you for working with us on this issue. Regards, Matt White REGULATORY COUNSEL Direct (614) 659 5049 Mobile (614) 595 8523 Fax (614) 659 5310 IGS Energy :: 6100 Emerald Parkway :: Dublin, OH 43016 www.IGSenergy.com Confidentiality Notice: The inl"orrn11Hon contained in lhi-; cm»ll m11y he conlidcntial anll/or lef!all~,. privilcf!Cd. H has been sent for the sole u .~e of the intended recipient(). lryo11 1u·e not the intended recipient or aulhori.ted to 1·ecclv information for the recipient, you arc hereby notified U111l 1:1ny rc·view, use, di · cto~ urc, tlistribu1ion, copying, printing. or action rnlrnn in reliance on the con ten ts of this e-mail is LricUy prohibited. tr you have rccch•ed this romm unication in error. pie» c ·on tact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To contact our email administrator directly. scud to ad m in@igsenergy.com 292 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Monday, November 18, 2013 4:54 PM seitz@taftlaw.com FW: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: nick@thedangelogroup.com [mailto:nick@thedangelogroup.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:19 PM To: Lynch, Jamie; tom@tompappas.com Subject: RE: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status Thanks Jamie, sorry the delay - I had to run this up the flag pole: As a result of the fact that utilities operate within individual service territories and suppliers operate in multiple utility service territories we think the language you forwarded would subject suppliers to a statewide average when calculating generation dollar supply dollar amount; this would be difficult to deduce. Our original intent was to calculate the average in each individual utility service territory We would suggest making the change below under 2(a)(ii): (ii) With respect to an electric services company. a weighted average of the cost of electricity su pply for delivery during that compliance year. ft0t-ef including distribution losses wi th in-tfle .company!s=seAffee erea+-each utility's service territory. Please let me know if you need any additional info, Thanks again, Nick Nicholas E. D'Angelo 614.403.7817 nick@thedangelogroup.com -------- Original Message -------Subject: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status From: "Lynch, Jamie" Date: Mon, November 18, 2013 3:02 pm 294 To: "tom@tompappas.com" , "Nick D'Angelo (nick@thedangefogroup.com)" Please see the email below from LSC. Does this suggestion look okay to you? I need to know as soon as possible for dra~ing purposes. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614)466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: lgengo@lsc.state.oh.us [mailto:lgengo@lsc.state.oh.us] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:59 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Fw: Sub. S.B. 58 status Hi Jamie, I'm working on the attached Direct Energy amendment and have attempted to simplify the definition of "generation supply dollar amount" in R.C. 4928.644(8)(2) while incorporating Direct Energy's proposed changes. Below is my suggestion. Please let me know if this accurately captures the intended changes. (2)(a) "Generation supply dollar amount" means the reasonably expected dollar amount per megawatt hour for the generation supply available to consumers pursuant to section 4928.141 of the Revised Code during the applicable compliance year, which consists of the following: (i) With respect to an electric distribution utility, a weighted average of the cost of the standard service offer supply pursuant to section 4928.141 of the Revised Code for delivery during that compliance year, net-ef including distribution losses within the utility's service territory: (ii) With respect to an electric services company. a weighted average cif the cost of electricity supply for delivery during that compliance year. f.'let-e.f, including distribution losses within the company's service area; With: J'CSpect to aR electric services company, generation supply dollar amount means the average ·,y:e:i,ghted cost of generation supply of the refovar.t electric distribution utility. (b) The PUCO shall calculate and pubUcly post the generation supply dollar amount calculated under division (B)(2)(a) of this section not later than February of the applicable compliance year. Thank you, Laura Genga LSC Research Associate 6-3976 ----- Forwarded by Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US on 11/18/2013 10:33 AM ---From: "Lynch, Jamie" To: "kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us" Date: 11/18/201310:21 AM Subject: Sub. S.B. 58 295 KathyThe Chairman would like the 3 enclosed amendments to be drafted as standalone amendments to the new -7 version of Sub. S.B. 58. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohlosenate.gov 296 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Lynch, Jamie Monday, November 18, 2013 4:42 PM 'Scott Elisar' Sam Randazzo; Kevin Murray RE: OMA ACEEE Study debunked by Dr. Lesser testimony in Senate imageOOlJpg Thank you all for chipping in and getting me this information as quickly as you did. Hopefully she puts this info to good use in her column. Thanks again, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Scott Elisar [mailto:selisar@mwncmh.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4: 18 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Cc: Sam Randazzo; Kevin Murray Subject: OMA ACEEE Study debunked by Dr. Lesser testimony in Senate Jamie: One more piece of information - Please share the attached with the Enquirer as well regarding the OMA ACEEE Study (highllg'hte(P.:@lPW) , attached and listed below are the conclusions from Dr. Jonathan Lesser's testimony that he provided in support of Sub. SB 58 in the Ohio Senate. Dr. Lesser's testimony show's that the "perpetual motion" or "free lunch" theories used by the reform opponents are fundamentally defective, both in theory and in the real world. His testimony also observes that if the reform opponents' claims wene correct - if the technologies and strategies which Ohio law is compelling consumers to fund through surcharges on their electric bills are really lower cost options - then there is no need for the government to compel consumers to subsidize their entry into the market. Below is a summary of Dr. Lesser's conclusions: •When prices in competitive electric markets decrease as a result of government mandates that force willing buyers and sellers to deviate from their preferences, those prices are not being "suppressed" by the workings of a competitive market. •In market-based economies, it is often unlawful for a market participant to suppress prices because this type of conduct is anti-competitive and works to unreasonably deprive consumers of the benefits of competition, resulting in higher prices for products and services. 297 •The type of price suppression asserted by the reform opponents is not the result of market forces but is an artificially induced consequence like the short-term results that may be observed when government imposes price controls on goods or services. •If Ohio's mandates actually were able to reduce prices in the competitive market, then mandated resources would compete successfully without a need for any mandates. In our economic system, private capital (as opposed to captive customers) would happily invest in these resources and reap the rewards of providing better service and lower prices to consumers. •Energy efficiency and "renewables" do not face market barriers, just like very expensive Rolls-Royce cars do not face market barriers . A consumer's failure to purchase something because it is more expensive or because the consumer has other uses for available funds is not a market barrier. •Any artificial price suppression effects are temporary as acknowledged by the so-called studies referenced by the reform opponents. For example, The American Coundl for an Energy-Efficient Economy ("ACEEE") study cited by the OMA acknowledges the transitory nature of artificial price suppression, stating: "Suppliers participating in these wholesale markets will likely respond to reductions in market prices by taking actions that will, over time, offset the reduction and eventually cause the market price to move toward the level it would have been in the reference case." •Moreover, in the long run, electric prices will be higher than they would have been but for the subsidies and mandates. •If we have learned anything from our history, we have learned that states and nations cannot mandate and subsidize their way to greater economic growth. •In Europe, for example, consumers in countries like Britain, Germany, and Spain, which have heavily subsidized renewable energy investments, pay very high prices for electricity. Those high electricity prices are crippling economic growth and harming the most vulnerable consumers. Now, these countries are attempting to unwind their portfolio mandates. •The so-called studies assume there is a one-to-one relationship between wholesale prices and retail electric prices. Thus, if wholesale energy prices decrease by one cent, they assume that the electric prices paid by Ohio's retail customers decrease by the same amount. This assumption is fundamentally defective based on actual, observable, retail pricing outcomes in Ohio. (For example, the PUCO has approved substantial generation supply price increases for AEP-Ohio and DP&L and has made some of the increases non-bypassable at a time when wholesale electric prices have been declining and are at relatively low levels). •The so-called studies ignore all of the participant costs in calculating the savings from energy efficiency mandates. In other words, they fail to include the costs incurred by consumers on top of the direct mandate costs, focusing solely on the costs incurred by utilities where any costs are considered. In some cases, no costs are considered. •Despite acknowledging that existing generators will exit the market due to the artificial price suppression, the analysis for the years 2012 - 2020 fails to account for the effects from those unsubsidized suppliers exiting the market. Moreover, the analysis fails to consider the effects of 298 reduced supplies from potential unsubsidized market entrants who will be less likely to develop new resources if there are subsidies. •The so-called studies purport to "prove" that Ohio can gain something for nothing; that by manipulating energy markets through portfolio mandates, Ohio can, in essence, print money. The more stringent the mandates; the more money Ohio can print. •Because there are fundamental problems with all of the theories embedded in the so-called studies, it is unnecessary to drill deeper into their inner workings before concluding that the claims that depend on these so-called studies are unfit for their intended purpose. •Because of these fundamental problems, members of the General Assembly should not rely on the reform opponents' claims that depend on the validity of any of these studies as they consider proposals to reform Ohio's portfolio mandates. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you need anything else! Thank you, Scott Elisar Scott E. Elisar McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC 21 E. State Street, 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 719-2850 (Direct Dial) (614) 395-3925 (Mobile) (614) 469-4653 (Fax) selisar@mwncmh.com Mc Nees Wallace & Nurkk uc The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230, unless we expressly state otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communications (including any attachments) was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matter(s) addressed herein. **This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 299 Nielson, Stephen From: To: Lynch, Jamie Monday, November 18, 2013 4:34 PM 'Seitz III, William J.' Subject: RE: RE: Sent: So is the "IGS language" our amendment that we already got drafted where the topic is "Electric distribution utility billing"? When you use names instead of amendment numbers it gets confusing. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Seitz III, William J. [mailto:seitz@taftlaw.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:28 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: RE: different Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited . If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:27 PM To: Seitz III, William J. Subject: Is the "IGS language" the same as the "bill transparency" language or is that two separate sets of language? Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: J amie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 300 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Monday, November 18, 2013 4:31 PM 'Seitz III, William J.' RE: RE: And you want me to get that drafted? Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Seitz III, William J. [mallto:seitz@taftlaw.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:30 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: RE: Get from marisa sams email from 1041 am today on bill transparency issue asap Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:27 PM · To: Seitz III, William J. Subject: Is the "IGS language" the same as the "bill transparency" language or is that two separate sets oflanguage? Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 301 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Lynch, Jamie Monday, November 18, 2013 4:28 PM seitz@taftlaw.com Also-do I need to get the co-op language and GCHC language drafted from LSC? Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 302 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Lynch, Jamie Monday, November 18, 2013 4:27 PM seitz@taftlaw.com Is the "IGS language" the same as the "bill transparency" language or is that two separate sets of language? Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 303 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: Subject: nick@thedangelogroup.com Monday, November 18, 2013 4:19 PM Lynch, Jamie; tom@tompappas.com RE: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Completed To: Thanks Jamie, sorry the delay - I had to run this up the flag pole: As a result of the fact that utilities operate within individual service territories and suppliers operate in multiple utility service territories we think the language you forwarded would subject suppliers to a statewide average when calculating generation dollar supply dollar amount; this would be difficult to deduce. Our original intent was to calculate the average in each individual utility service territory We would suggest making the change below under 2(a)(ii): {ill With respect to an electric services company. a weighted average of the cost of electricity supply for delivery during that compliance year. ftet-ef including distribution losses withln--tft€ eeffiJNAft-set'ti-ee erea+-each utility's service territory. Please let me know if you need any additional info. Thanks again, Nick Nicholas E. D'Angelo 614.403. 7817 nick@thedangelogroup.com -------- Original Message -------Subject: FW: Sub. S.B. 58 status From: "Lynch, Jamie" Date: Mon, November 18, 2013 3:02 pm To: "tom@tompappas.com" , "Nick D'Angelo (nick@thedangelogroup.com)" Please see the email below from LSC. Does this suggestion look okay to you? I need to know as soon as possible for drafting purposes. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 304 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: lgengo@lsc.state.Qh.us [mailto:lgengo@lsc.s@te.oh.us] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:59 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Fw: Sub. S.B. 58 status Hi Jamie, I'm working on the attached Direct Energy amendment and have attempted to simplify the definition of "generation supply dollar amount" in R.C. 4928.644(8)(2) while incorporating Direct Energy's proposed changes. Below is my suggestion. Please let me know if this accurately captures the intended changes. (2)(a) "Generation supply dollar amount" means the reasonably expected dollar amount per megawatt hour for the generation supply available to consumers pursuaRt to seetioR 49:28.141 of the Re11isea Coae during the applicable compliance year, which consists of the following: (i) With respect to an electric distribution utility. a weighted average of the cost of the standard service offer supply pursuant to section 4928.141 of the Revised Code for delivery during that compliance year, Ret-ef including distribution losses within the utility's service territory: (ii) With respect to a n electric services company. a weighted average ol th cost of electricity supply for delivery d uril1g that comp Uance year. net-sf incl uding d istribution losses within the company's service area: With respect to an elee.trk servi ces company, generation supply do lla:r amount means the average weighted cost of generation supply of the relevant electric distribution utility. (b) The PUCO sh all calculate and pu bli.cly post the generation supply dollar amount calcu lated under d ivision (B)(2)(a) of this secti on not la ter th an Febr uary of the applicable compliance year. Thank you, Laura Gengo LSC Research Associate 6-3976 -----Forwarded by Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohlo_Legislature/US on 1111812013 10:33 AM----From : "Lynch, Jamie" To: "kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us" Date: 111181201310:21 AM Subject: Sub. S.B. 58 KathyThe Chairman would like the 3 enclosed amendments to be drafted as standalone amendments to the new -7 version of Sub. S.B. 58. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz 305 Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 306 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Monday, November 18, 2013 3:30 PM 'Sam Randazzo' RE: Request Thank you! Have a safe flight! Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Sam Randazzo [mailto:sam@mwncmh.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 3:28 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Cc: Home - Senator Seitz Subject: RE: Request Jamie - I am on a plane - I passed the not on to others in Columbus. We are on it. Sam l\anda1.zo McNees Wallace [7 Nu1-ick LLC sam@rnwncrnh.com (61 +) ) 95-+268 From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 3:00 PM To: Sam Randazzo Subject: FW: Request Sam-please see below. Beyond what Senator Seitz suggested, can you think of any other studies I can send to the Enquirer? Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Seitz III, William J. [mailto:seitz@taftlaw.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:59 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: RE: Request 307 Dr lesser and the reports furnished by ciarlone from alcoa last week and call sam to get any others. Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited . If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.goy] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:54 PM To: Seitz III, William J. Subject: Request Chrissy Thompson called from the Enquirer and wants to know if there is a specific study that you reference when you say that EE programs are costing ratepayers money. She is writing a story about it and knows that that is one of your arguments and wants to reference a study in her article. I know we have more studies than we know what to do with and wasn't sure if there was a specific one you had in mind that you want me to send her. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov **This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 308 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: Subject: Sam Randazzo Monday, November 18, 2013 3:27 PM Kevin Murray; Scott Elisar; Charles Willoughby - Gmail Lynch, Jamie FW: Request Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Completed To: Cc: There are lost of studies - please get after this request. They don't have to be specific to Ohio. The ACEEE crap submitted by OMA says that the renewable stuff raised rates in 2011 and 2012, and as Dr. Lesser explained, also says that any short term reduction is temporary. Sam l\.andazzo McNees Wallace & Nurlck LLC (61-1·)? 9 5-4-2.6 8 sam@mwncmh.com From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamle.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 3:00 PM To: Sam Randazzo Subject: FW: Request Sam-please see below. Beyond what Senator Seitz suggested, can you think of any other studies I can send to the Enquirer? Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Seitz III, William J. [mailto:seitz@taftlaw.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:59 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: RE: Request - _,,__. --~- Dr lesser and the reports furnished by ciarlone from alcoa last week and call sam to get any others. Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. 312 This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:54 PM To: Seitz III, William J. Subject: Request Chrissy Thompson called from the Enquirer and wants to know if there is a specific study that you reference when you say that EE programs are costing ratepayers money. She is writing a story about it and knows that that is one of your arguments and wants to reference a study in her article. I know we have more studies than we know what to do with and wasn't sure ifthere was a specific one you had in mind that you want me to send her. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SP AM & VIRUS FIRE\VALL and verified virus free ** 313 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Monday, November 18, 2013 3:29 PM 'Seitz ill, William J.' RE: SB 58 Amendment If they are, do you want me to get it drafted to the -7 as a stand-alone amendment? We got the -7 back a few moments ago. I am waiting for it to be sent electronically. Do you want it sent to you via email now or do you want to wait to take a look tomorrow in hard copy? Should I send it around to the Hatfields as soon as I get it electronically? Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Seitz III, William J. [mailto:seltz@taftlaw.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 3:25 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Re: SB 58 Amendment They are ok with it I think. Confirm with ty. Taft I William J. Seitz Ill / Of Counsel Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: 513 .381 .2838 •Fax: 513.381.0205 Direct: 513.357 .9332 •Cell: 513.382 .8281 www.taftlaw.com I seitz@taftlaw.com From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 03:23 PM To: Seitz III, William J. Subject: FW: SB 58 Amendment Last I heard, we sent the co-op language around to the Hatfields and they were supposed to provide comments. Marc called today wanting an update. Have you heard anything? Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 314 Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used , for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein . This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Marc Armstrong [mailto:marmstrong@buckeyepower.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 3:23 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Cc: Mike Beirne Subject: SB 58 Amendment Jamie, As we discuss, attached is suggested language for inclusion in SB 58 with slight modifications. Sorry for sending a marked up version. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Marc A. Armstrong Director, Government Affairs Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives, Inc. 614.430.7864 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected from disclosure by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. 315 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Nielson, Stephen Monday, December 02, 2013 8:34 AM Lynch, Jamie FW: December 4th Public Utilities Committee Notice From: Tom Stacy [mailto:tfstacy@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 1:38 PM To: Nielson, Stephen Cc: Sam Randazzo Subject: Re: December 4th Public Utilities Committee Notice Thanks Stephen. FYI I will be in DC on December 3rd and 4th testifying in a congressional briefing regarding the alleged unconstitutionality of the in-state requirement in the Ohio renewables mandate and the fact that SB 58 hearings recognize the problem but the amended bill fails to timely dispense with it. I thought this might be worth sharing with Senator Seitz ... Happy Thanksgiving to all of you! On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Nielson, Stephen wrote: All- Please see enclosed for the Senate Public Utilities Committee notice for the hearing being held December 4th, 2013. As always, do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Best regards, Stephen Nielson Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 1 Fax: 161414664259 Email: StephenNielsonf?lohiosenate. gov Tom Stacy Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Nielson, Stephen Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:22 AM Lynch, Jamie Adam Hewit Said the Ohio Iron Workers Assn. came out in support of SB 58 and is working on getting more supporters for us. Stephen Nielson Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Stephen.Nielson@ohiosenate.gov 1 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Ewing, Steve Friday, October 18, 2013 9:50 AM Lynch, Jamie; Nielson, Stephen FW: GoToTraining Confirmation - Ohio's Energy Efficiency & Renewable Mandates: Costly Government Intervention or Bottom Line Benefit for Your Business Jamie and Stephen, The Chamber of Commerce is having a web conference to discuss SB 58 at 10:00. Details are below. I registered and was going to listen in but forgot I have a conflicting meeting. Feel free to use my log-in information. I think it'd be valuable to hear what the business community is saying. Steve Ewing Ohio Senate Majority Caucus (614) 466-8174 steve.ewing@ohiosenate.gov From: Michelle Donovan [mailto:customercare@gototraining.com] Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:19 AM To: Ewing, Steve Subject: GoToTraining Confirmation - Ohio's Energy Efficiency & Renewable Mandates: Costly Government Intervention or Bottom Line Benefit for Your Business Dear Steve, Thank you for registering for "Ohio's Energy Efficiency & Renewable Mandates: Costly Government Intervention or Bottom Line Benefit for Your Business". Please send your questions, comments and feedback to: mdonovan@ohiochamber.com Before The Training 1. Please review the following materials: https://student.gototraining.com/3179c/materials/3039930101901853696/2026015454739644928 How To Join The Training • Friday, October 18, 2013 10:00 AM - 11:30 AM EDT Add to Calendar 1. Click and join at the specified time and date: https://wwwl.gototralning.com/join/trainlng/3039930101901853696/107708122 Note: This link should not be shared with others; it is unique to you. 2. Choose one of the following audio options: 1 TO USE YOUR COMPUTER'S AUDIO: You must select "Use Mic & Speakers" after joining the training. A headset is recommended. --OR-TO USE YOUR TELEPHONE: United States Toll: +1 (215) 383-1020 Access Code: 659-614-477 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the training Training ID: 844-343-636 View System Requirements To Cancel this Registration If you can't attend this training, you may cancel your registration at any time. • You are receiving t:his email becr.'iuse you registered for this training. You can also QQ1:.Qy!; from receiving further emails from this training's organizers. • Brought to you by GoToTraining® • Online Training Made Easy'M • View t11e ~QJQTr;,'tinJng_E!:iY.'3.G'i. P.gJJ!;y:. • (¢) 2013 Citrlx Online, LLC. All rights reserved. Cltrix, GoToAssist, GoToMeeting, GoToMyPC, GoToTraining, GoToWebinar, Podio and Sha refile are trademarks of Citrix Systems, Inc., or a subsidiary thereof, and are or may be registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and other countries. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. I ·7414 Hollister Avenue I Goleta, • Citrix Online • 1 800 263 6317 (U.S. and Canada, toll·free) CA 93117 2 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Friday, October 04, 2013 12:41 PM 'Kenny.Street@ohiohouse.gov' Nielson, Stephen RE: S.B. 58 Information I believe that my boss had proposed doing dinner next Tuesday night with a few folks instead of a meeting. Stephen in our office is working on getting that set up so I will have him get back to you on that. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Kenny.Street@ohiohouse.gov [mailto: Kenny.Street@ohiohouse.gov] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:37 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: RE: S.B. 58 Information - - ------ - - - - - Is there a time next Tuesday or Wednesday that works best for Sen. Seitz? Rep. Hill can do anytime before 2pm on Tuesday (preferably closest 1:30) or after 4. Also, around noon on Wednesday is fairly open for us. Let me know what works for your office and we'll go with that. Thanks, Kenny Street Legislative Aide Office of Representative Brian Hill - District 97 6.14-644-6D.l4 Kenny.Street@ohiohouse.gov From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:30 AM To: Street, Kenny Subject: S.B. 58 Information KennyEnclosed you will find several documents that will provide some good background reading in preparation for next week's meeting between the Representative and Senator Seitz. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Jamie Lynch 6 Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 7 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Stout, Bryan Thursday, October 03, 2013 8:43 AM Lynch, Jamie RE: SB 58 Summary Okay, thanks. I'll let Senator Widener know. From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 7:30 PM To: Stout, Bryan Cc: Nielson, Stephen Subject: RE: SB 58 Summary BryanThank you for the email. We do not have a summary of the changes. Like you, we are waiting on the LSC analysis. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Stout, Bryan Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5:15 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Cc: Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Summary Dear Jamie and Stephen, Senator Widener is looking for a summary of the sub-bill to SB 58. I contacted LSC and requested that they provide an updated bill analysis when possible, but in the interim, if you could provide me with any type of summary or summary of changes, I would appreciate it. Sincerely, Bryan Stout ~~~!,out Legislative Aide Office of Senator Chris Widener 614-466-3 780 8 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Wednesday, October 02, 2013 7:30 PM Stout, Bryan Nielson, Stephen RE: SB 58 Summary BryanThank you for the email. We do not have a summary of the changes. Like you, we are waiting on the LSC analysis. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Stout, Bryan Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5: 15 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Cc: Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Summary Dear Jamie and Stephen, Senator Widener is looking for a summary of the sub-bill to SB 58. I contacted LSC and requested that they provide an updated bill analysis when possible, but in the interim, if you could provide me with any type of summary or summary of changes, I would appreciate it. Sincerely, Bryan Stout @r~(l/«mt Legislative Aide Office of Senator Chris Widener 614-466-3780 9 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Stout, Bryan Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5:15 PM lynch, Jamie Nielson, Stephen SB 58 Summary Dear Jamie and Stephen, Senator Widener is looking for a summary of the sub-bill to SB 58. I contacted LSC and requested that they provide an updated bill analysis when possible, but in the interim, if you could provide me with any type of summary or summary of changes, I would appreciate it. Sincerely, Bryan Stout @81~~at Legislative Aide Office of Senator Chris Widener 614-466-3780 10 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Collins, Christopher Tuesday, October 01, 2013 3:38 PM Lynch, Jamie RE: SBS8 Testimony for Review and Comment image001Jpg Thanks, Jamie. Christopher Collins Office of Senator Cliff Hite Ohio's 1st Senate District Chris.collins@O hiosena te. gov Office: ( 614 )466-8150 From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 3:37 PM To: Collins, Christopher Subject: RE: SB58 Testimony for Review and Comment Will do. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Collins, Christopher Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 3:34 PM To: Lynch, Jamie; Nielson, Stephen Subject: FW: SB58 Testimony for Review and Comment Hey guys, Per our conversation, if you could add Jeremy to the list for tomorrow Senator Hite would greatly appreciate it. Thank you! Christopher Collins Office of Senator Cliff Hite Ohio's 1st Senate District Chris.collins@Ohiosenate.gov Office: ( 614 )466-8150 From: Jereme Kent [mailto:jeremekent@oneenergyllc.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 1:20 PM 41 To: Collins, Christopher Cc: chlte@woh.rr.com Subject: SBSS Testimony for Review and Comment Chris, This is the current working draft of my testimony on SB58 for tomorrow. Any feedback or suggestions that you (or the senator) can provide are appreciated. Respectfully, Jereme Kent General Manager jei:emekent@oneenergyllc.com WIN1' FOR: INDUSTRY Office: 877-298-5853 I Mobile: 419-905-5274 15630 East State Route 12, Suite 6 I Findlay, OH 45840 I www.oneenergywind.com 42 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, October 01, 2013 3:37 PM Collins, Christopher RE: SB58 Testimony for Review and Comment imageOOljpg Will do. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Collins, Christopher Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 3:34 PM To: Lynch, Jamie; Nielson, Stephen Subject: FW: 5658 Testimony for Review and Comment Hey guys, Per our conversation, if you could add Jeremy to the list for tomorrow Senator Hite would greatly appreciate it. Thank you! Christopher Collins Office of Senator Cliff Hite Ohio's 1st Senate District Chris.collins@Ohiosenate.gov Office: ( 614 )466~8150 From: Jereme Kent [mailto:jeremekent@oneenergyllc.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 1:20 PM To: Collins, Christopher Cc: chite@woh.rr.com Subject: 5658 Testimony for Review and Comment Chris, This is the current working draft of my testimony on SB58 for tomorrow. Any feedback or suggestions that you (or the senator) can provide are appreciated. Respectfully, Jereme Kent General Manager jeremekent@.oneenergyllc.com 43 ~iONE ENERGY WIND FOR INDUSTRY Office: 877-298-5853 I Mobile: 419-905-5274 15630 East State Route 12, Suite 6 I Findlay, OH 45840 I www.oneenergywind.com 44 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Ali Mock Tuesday, October 01, 2013 10:49 AM Lynch, Jamie RE: Testimony Okay thanks! Alexandria Mock Government Edge, Inc. Executive Assistant and Government Affairs Director 21 W. Broad Street, 8th Floor Colmnbus, OH 4 3215 614.228.6722 Office 740.408.3057 Cell 614.228.6711 Fax This electronic message and its attachements (if any) do not contain any state or federal tax advice, and is not intended to to be used, and cannot be used to avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or to support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice (Circular 230). From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 10:48 AM To: Ali Mock Subject: RE: Testimony You can just bring the hard copies right to committee, we don't need those ahead of time. I make copies for the Members' folders from the electronic version you send me and the hard copies are just for the public so no need to get them to us early. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Ali Mock [mailto:ali@qovernmentedqe.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 10:46 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: RE: Testimony Okay- we are doing our best to get the electronic version of testimony to you by COB- we had a client just become available to fly in. Do you want hard copies ahead of time or is a few minutes before committee ok? Alexandria Mock Government Edge, Inc. 46 Executive Assistant and Government Affairs Director 21 W. Broad Street, 8th Floor Columbus, OH 4 321.5 614.228.6722 Office 740.408.3057 Cell 614.228.6711 Fax This electronic message and its attachements (if any) do not contain any state or federal tax advice, and is not intended to to be used, and cannot be used to avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or to support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice (Circular 230). From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 10:44 AM To: Ali Mock Cc: Dayna Baird Payne; Nielson, Stephen Subject: RE: Testimony We need an electronic version by close of business today and additional hard copies for Committee tomorrow. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Ali Mock [mailto:ali@governmentedge.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 10:40 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Cc: Dayna Baird Payne; Nielson, Stephen Subject: Testimony Hi Jamie, I wanted to check in with you to see what the exact policy was for Public Utilities testimony. Are you using the iPads and need electronic versions to load, or do you need the 30-40 hard copies for committee? Thanks! Alexandria Mock Government Edge, Inc. Executive Assistant and Government Affairs Director 21 W. Broad Street, 8th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.228.6722 Office 740.408.3057 CeU 614.228.6711 Fax This electronic message and its attachements (if any) do not contain any state or federal tax advice, and is not intended to to be used, and cannot be used to avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or to support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice (Circular 230). 47 48 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, October 01, 2013 10:48 AM 'Ali Mock' RE: Testimony You can just bring the hard copies right to committee, we don't need those ahead of time. I make copies for the Members' folders from the electronic version you send me and the hard copies are just for the public so no need to get them to us early. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Ali Mock [mailto:ali@governmentedge.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 10:46 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: RE: Testimony Okay- we are doing our best to get the electronic version of testimony to you by COB- we had a client just become available to fly in. Do you want hard copies ahead of time or is a few minutes before committee ok? Alexandria Mock Government Edge, Inc. Executive Assistant and Government Affairs Director 21 W. Broad Street, 8th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.228.6722 Office 740.408.3057 Cell 614.228.6711 Fax This electronic message and its attachements (if any) do not contain any state or federal tax advice, and is not intended to to be used, and cannot be used to avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or to support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with ll.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice (Circular 230). -- - - - - From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 10:44 AM To: Ali Mock Cc: Dayna Baird Payne; Nielson, Stephen Subject: RE: Testimony We need an electronic version by close of business today and additional hard copies for Committee tomorrow. Jamie Lynch 49 Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Ali Mock [mailto:ali@governmentedge.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 10:40 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Cc: Dayna Baird Payne; Nielson, Stephen Subject: Testimony Hi Jamie, I wanted to check in with you to see what the exact policy was for Public Utilities testimony. Are you using the iPads and need electronic versions to load, or do you need the 30-40 hard copies for committee? Thanks! Alexandri.a Mock Government Edge, Inc. Executive Assistant and Government Affairs Director 21 W. Broad Street, 8th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.228.6722 Office 740.408.3057 Cell 614 .228.6711 Fax This electronic message and its attachements (if any) do not contain any state or federal tax advice, and is not intended to to be used, and cannot be used to avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or to support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice (Circular 230). 50 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Ali Mock Tuesday, October 01, 2013 10:46 AM Lynch, Jamie RE: Testimony Okay- we are doing our best to get the electronic version of testimony to you by COB- we had a client just become available to fly in. Do you want hard copies ahead oftime or is a few minutes before committee ok? Alexandria Mock Government Edge, Inc. Executive Assistant and Government Affairs Di.rector 21 W. Broad Street, 8th Floor Columbus, OH 4 3215 614.228.6722 Office 740.408.3057 Cell 614.228.6711 Fax This electronic message and its attacbernents (if any) do not contain any state or federal tax advice, and is not intended to to be used, and cannot be used to avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or to support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice (Circular 230). From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 10:44 AM To: Ali Mock Cc: Dayna Baird Payne; Nielson, Stephen Subject: RE: Testimony We need an electronic version by close of business today and additional hard copies for Committee tomorrow. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov -------From: Ali Mock [mailto:ali@governmentedge.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 10:40 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Cc: Dayna Baird Payne; Nielson, Stephen Subject: Testimony Hi Jamie, I wanted to check in with you to see what the exact policy was for Public Utilities testimony. Are you using the iPads and need electronic versions to load, or do you need the 30-40 hard copies for committee? Thanks! 51 Alexandria Mock Government Edge, Inc. Executive Assistant and Government Affairs Director 21 W. Broad Street, 8th Floor Columbus, OH 4 321.5 614.228.6722 Office 740.408.30.57 Cell 614.228.6711 Fax This electronic message and its attachements (if any) do not contain any state or federal tax advice, and is not intended to to be used, and cannot be used to avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or to support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice (Circular 230). 52 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, October 01, 2013 10:44 AM 'Ali Mock' Dayna Baird Payne; Nielson, Stephen RE: Testimony We need an electronic version by close of business today and additional hard copies for Committee tomorrow. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Ali Mock [mailto:ali@governmentedge.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 10:40 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Cc: Dayna Baird Payne; Nielson, Stephen Subject: Testimony Hi Jamie, I wanted to check in with you to see what the exact policy was for Public Utilities testimony. Are you using the iPads and need electronic versions to load, or do you need the 30-40 hard copies for committee? Thanks! Alexandria Mock Government Edge, Inc. Executive Assistant and Government Affairs Director 21 W. Broad Street, 8th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.228.6722 Office 740.408.3057 Cell 614.228.6711 Fax This electronic message and its attachements (if any) do not contain any state or federal tax advice, and is not intended to to be used, and cannot be used to avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or to support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice (Circular 230). 53 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ali Mock Tuesday, October 01, 2013 10:40 AM Lynch, Jamie Dayna Baird Payne; Nielson, Stephen Testimony Hi Jamie, I wanted to check in with you to see what the exact policy was for Public Utilities testimony. Are you using the iPads and need electronic versions to load, or do you need the 30-40 hard copies for committee? Thanks I Alexandria Mock Government Edge, Inc. Executive Assistant and Government Affairs Director 21 W. Broad Street, 8th Floor Columbus, OH 4 3215 614.228.6722 Office 740.408.3057 Ce1J 614.228.6711 Fax This electronic message and its attachements (if any) do not contain any state or federal tax advice, and is not intended to to be used, and cannot be used to avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or to support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice (Circular 230). 54 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Nielson, Stephen Thursday, September 26, 2013 9:34 AM Lynch, Jamie SB 58 Distribution list Scott Esterly of BOMA Greater Cleveland would like to be added to the distribution list for SB 58. sesterly@bomacleveland.org Stephen Nielson Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Stephen.Nielson@ohiosenate.gov 55 Nielson, Stephen From: Lynch, Jamie Thursday, September 26, 2013 9:19 AM 'Scott Esterly' RE: SB 58 - Interested Party Sent: To: Subject: Mr. Esterly-I will be sure to add you to the list. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Scott Esterly [mailto:sesterly@bomacleveland.org] Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 9:17 AM To: Senator Seitz Cc: Lynch, Jamie; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 - Interested Party Hello. I would like to added to any SB 58 distribution list for Interested Parties. Thank you. BOMA (Building Owners and Managers Association) Greater Cleveland represents 40 million square feet of commercial office space in the Greater Cleveland area. BOMA Greater Cleveland was incorporated in 1914 and we represent one of six local associations in the State of Ohio and one of 105 throughout the world. BOMA International, our umbrella organization, is headquartered in Washington DC. Scott Scott Esterly • Director of Governmental & Community Affairs BOMA Greater Cleveland • 200 Public Square, 209 • Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Office: (216) 575-0305 • Mobile: (440) 864-2951 • Fax: (216) 575-0233 E-Mail: sesterly@bomacleveland.org • WWW.BOMACLEVEL(\ND.QRG Think Green/ Consider the environment before you print this emoll. 56 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Keaton, John A Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:17 AM Lynch, Jamie RE: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting Call-In Information Thanks, Jamie. From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:36 AM To: 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'Tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; Keaton, John A; 'tom.raga@dplinc.com'; 'dboehm@bkllawfirm.com'; 'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)'; 'sam@mwncmh.com'; 'selisar@mwncmh.com'; 'steve.lake@dplinc.com'; Strigarl, Frank; Ewing, Steve; 'craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov'; 'jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov'; Senator LaRose; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Balderson Cc: Regula, Emilie; Dunlap, Dana; Huebner, Victoria; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting Call-In Information AllPlease see below for the call-in information if you plan on participating in tomorrow's meeting by phone. 1-877-820-7831 Passcode: 266267 Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 57 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:36 AM 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'Tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; ~ohn.keaton@duke-energy.com'; 'tom.raga@dplinc.com'; 'dboehm@bkllawfirm.com'; 'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)'; 'sam@mwncmh.com'; 'selisar@mwncmh.com'; 'steve.lake@dplinc.com'; Strigari, Frank; Ewing, Steve; 'craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov'; ~immy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov'; Senator LaRose; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Balderson Regula, Emilie; Dunlap, Dana; Huebner, Victoria; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Sub SB 58 IP Meeting Call-In Information AllPlease see below for the call-in information if you plan on participating in tomorrow's meeting by phone. 1-877-820-7831 Passcode: 266267 Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 58 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Ewing, Steve Tuesday, September 17, 2013 9:31 AM Nielson, Stephen; Lynch, Jamie Please forward LSC bill draft to me when it's available Steve Ewing Ohio Senate Majority Caucus (614) 466-8174 steve .ewi ng@o hiosenate .gov 59 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Tom Raga Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:48 AM Lynch, Jamie RE: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting Jamie: Judi Sobecki and I will be attending on behalf of DP&L. Thanks, Tom From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:06 PM To: 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'Tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; 'john.keaton@duke-energy.com'; Tom Raga; 'dboehm@bkllawfirm.com'; 'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)'; 'sam@mwncmh.com'; 'selisar@mwncmh.com'; Steve P. Lake; Strigari, Frank; Ewing, Steve; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov; Senator LaRose; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Balderson Cc: Regula, Emilie; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting AllChairman Seitz would like to invite you to an IP meeting regarding Sub S.B. 58 on Wednesday, September 18th at 2:00PM at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister. The purpose of this meeting will be to go over the sub bill, which I plan on distributing next Tuesday afternoon immediately after receiving it from LSC. The Chairman would like for you to review the bill and come to the meeting prepared to discuss. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you will require a conference call to be setup if you are unable to attend in person. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-Mail, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender by return e-Mail and delete this e-Mail from your system. Unless explicitly and conspicuously stated in the subject matter of the above e-Mail, this e-Mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or 60 an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-Mail does not constitute consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties. 61 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Nielson, Stephen Monday, September 16, 2013 2:01 PM Lynch, Jamie SB 58 Distribution List Bret Wiseman wants to be added to the list. His new email is Bret@ohioadvancedenergy.org Stephen Nielson Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Stephen.Nielson@ohiosenate.gov 62 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Keaton, John A Monday, September 16, 2013 10:07 AM Lynch, Jamie RE: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting Thanks, much. -----Original Message----From: Lynch, Jamie [Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:00 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Keaton, John A Subject: RE: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting Will do. I will get the call-in information sent out today. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Keaton, John A [mailto:John.Keaton@duke-energy.com] 2013 9:33 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Re: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting Sent: Monday, September 16, Jamie, Lee Barrett and I have a meeting in Cincinnati Wednesday that should end around Noon. We will try to make the meeting start time in person but can we please set up a conference line in case we can't get up the highway on time? Thanks. John From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie. Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] 11, 2013 03:05 PM To: 'cdwright@aep.com' ; 'mbrello@aep.com' ; 'Tpine@firstenergycorp.com' ; Keaton, John A; 'tom.raga@dplinc.com' ; 'dboehm@bkllawfirm.com' ; 'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)' ; 'sam@mwncmh.com' ; 'selisar@mwncmh.com' ; steve.lake@dplinc.com Sent: Wednesday, September 63 ; Strigari, Frank ; Ewing, Steve ; craig. w. butler@governor.oh lo.gov ; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov ; Senator La Rose ; Senator Jones ; Senator Eklund ; Senator Balderson Cc: Regula, Emilie ; Dunlap, Dana ; Lust, Elizabeth ; Bennett, Greg ; Nielson, Stephen Subject: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting AllChairman Seitz would like to invite you to an IP meeting regarding Sub S.B. 58 on Wednesday, September 18th at 2:00PM at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister. The purpose of this meeting will be to go over the sub bill, which I plan on distributing next Tuesday afternoon immediately after receiving it from LSC. The Chairman would like for you to review the bill and come to the meeting prepared to discuss. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you will require a conference call to be setup if you are unable to attend in person. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 64 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Monday, September 16, 2013 10:00 AM 'Keaton, John A' RE: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting Will do. I will get the call-in information sent out today. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Keaton, John A [mailto:John.Keaton@duke-energy.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 9:33 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Re: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting Jamie, Lee Barrett and I have a meeting in Cincinnati Wednesday that should end around Noon. We will try to make the meeting start time in person but can we please set up a conference line in case we can't get up the highway on time? Thanks. John From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 03:05 PM To: 'cdwright@aep.com' ; 'mbrello@aep.com' ; 'Tpine@firstenergycorp.com' ; Keaton, John A; 'tom.raga@dplinc.com' ; 'dboehm@bkllawfirm.com' ; 'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)' ; 'sam@mwncmh.com' ; 'selisar@mwncmh.com' ; steve.lake@dplinc.com ; Strigari, Frank ; Ewing, Steve ; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov ; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov ; Senator La Rose ; Senator Jones ; Senator Eklund ; Senator Balderson Cc: Regula, Emilie ; Dunlap, Dana ; Lust, Elizabeth ; Bennett, Greg ; Nielson, Stephen Subject: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting AllChairman Seitz would like to invite you to an IP meeting regarding Sub S.B. 58 on Wednesday, September 18th at 2:00PM at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister. 65 The purpose of this meeting will be to go over the sub bill, which I plan on distributing next Tuesday afternoon immediately after receiving it from LSC. The Chairman would like for you to review the bill and come to the meeting prepared to discuss. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you will require a conference call to be setup if you are unable to attend in person. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 66 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Keaton, John A Monday, September 16, 2013 9:33 AM Lynch, Jamie Re: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting Jamie, Lee Barrett and I have a meeting in Cincinnati Wednesday that should end around Noon. We will try to make the meeting start time in person but can we please set up a conference line in case we can't get up the highway on time? Thanks. John From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 03:05 PM To: 'cdwright@aep.com' ; 'mbrello@aep.com' ; 'Tpine@firstenergycorp.com' ; Keaton, John A; 'tom.raga@dplinc.com' ; 'dboehm@bkllawfirm.com' i 'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)' ; 'sam@mwncmh.com' ; 'selisar@mwncmh.com' ; steve.lake@dplinc.com ; Strigari, Frank ; Ewing, Steve ; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov ; jimmy .sheppard@governor.ohio.gov ; Senator La Rose ; Senator Jones ; Senator Eklund ; Senator Balderson Cc: Regula, Emilie ; Dunlap, Dana ; Lust, Elizabeth ; Bennett, Greg ; Nielson, Stephen Subject: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting All- Chairman Seitz would like to invite you to an IP meeting regarding Sub S.B. 58 on Wednesday, September at 2:00PM at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister. 18th The purpose of this meeting will be to go over the sub bill, which I plan on distributing next Tuesday afternoon immediately after receiving it from LSC. The Chairman would like for you to review the bill and come to the meeting prepared to discuss. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you will require a conference call to be setup if you are unable to attend in person. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 67 Email: 68 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Ewing, Steve Thursday, September 12, 2013 8:53 AM Lynch, Jamie RE: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting Good morning, Jamie, I'll come to the meeting. Thanks, Steve Ewing Ohio Senate Majority Caucus (614) 466-8174 steve.ewing@ohiosenate.gov From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:06 PM To: 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'Tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; 'john. keaton@duke-energy.com'; 'tom.raga@dplinc.com'; 'dboehm@bkllawfirm.com'; 'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)'; 'sam@mwncmh.com'; 'selisar@mwncmh.com'; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Strigari, Frank; Ewing, Steve; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov; Senator LaRose; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Balderson Cc: Regula, Emilie; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting AllChairman Seitz would like to invite you to an IP meeting regarding Sub S.B. 58 on Wednesday, September 181h at 2:00PM at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister. The purpose of this meeting will be to go over the sub bill, which I plan on distributing next Tuesday afternoon immediately after receiving it from LSC. The Chairman would like for you to review the bill and come to the meeting prepared to discuss. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you will require a conference call to be setup if you are unable to attend in person. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 69 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sam Randazzo Wednesday, September 11, 2013 5:57 PM Lynch, Jamie Kevin Murray; Scott Elisar; Debbie Ryan RE: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting Jamie, we (Kevin Murray, Scott Elisar and myself) be there. Best regards, Sam Sam Randazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC sam@mwncmh.com (6 I -4·) ) 9 5-+l6 8 From: Lynch, Jamie [mallto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:06 PM To: 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'Tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; 'john.keaton@duke-energy.com'; 'tom.raga@dplinc.com'; 'dboehm@bkllawfirm.com'; 'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)'; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Strigari, Frank; Ewing, Steve; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov; Senator LaRose; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Balderson Cc: Regula, Emilie; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting All- Chairman Seitz would like to invite you to an IP meeting regarding Sub S.B. 58 on Wednesday, September 18th at 2:00PM at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister. The purpose of this meeting will be to go over the sub bill, which I plan on distributing next Tuesday afternoon immediately after receiving it from LSC. The Chairman would like for you to review the bill and come to the meeting prepared to discuss. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you will require a conference call to be setup if you are unable to attend in person. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 70 ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 71 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: David Boehm Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:48 PM Lynch, Jamie; 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'Tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; 'john.keaton@duke-energy.com'; 'tom.raga@dplinc.com'; 'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)'; 'sam@mwncmh.com'; 'selisar@mwncmh.com'; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Strigari, Frank; Ewing, Steve; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov; Senator LaRose; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Balderson Regula, Emilie; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen RE: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting Thank you for the invitation. Dave Boehm and Denny Larr will attend. David F. Boehm, Esq. BOEHM, KURTZ & LOWRY 36 E. Seventh St., Suite 1510 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Ph: 513.421.2255 Fax: 513.421.2764 E-mail: DBoehm@BKLlawfirm.com From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:06 PM To; 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'Tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; 'john.keaton@duke-energy.com'; 'tom.raga@dplinc.com'; David Boehm; 'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)'; 'sam@mwncmh.com'; 'selisar@mwncmh.com'; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Strigari, Frank; Ewing, Steve; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov; Senator LaRose; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Balderson Cc: Regula, Emilie; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting AllChairman Seitz would like to invite you to an IP meeting regarding Sub S.B. 58 on Wednesday, September 181h at 2:00PM at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister. The purpose of this meeting will be to go over the sub bill, which I plan on distributing next Tuesday afternoon immediately after receiving it from LSC. The Chairman would like for you to review the bill and come to the meeting prepared to discuss. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you will require a conference call to be setup if you are unable to attend in person. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 72 Email: TF3 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Huebner, Victoria Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:46 PM Lynch, Jamie RE: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting Thanks Jamie! I will let the Senator know © From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:06 PM To: 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'Tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; 'john.keaton@duke-energy.com'; 'tom.raga@dplinc.com'; 'dboehm@bkllawfirm.com'; 'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)'; 'sam@mwncmh.com'; 'selisar@mwncmh.com'; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Strigari, Frank; Ewing, Steve; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov; Senator LaRose; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Balderson Cc: Regula, Emilie; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting AllChairman Seitz would like to invite you to an IP meeting regarding Sub S.B. 58 on Wednesday, September 18th at 2:00PM at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister. The purpose of this meeting will be to go over the sub bill, which I plan on distributing next Tuesday afternoon immediately after receiving it from LSC. The Chairman would like for you to review the bill and come to the meeting prepared to discuss. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you will require a conference call to be setup if you are unable to attend in person. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 74 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Christine D Wright Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:42 PM Lynch, Jamie RE: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting Jamie- I will be there. Thank you for the invite . Hope you are well!! Take care, Chrisy From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohlosenate.gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:06 PM To: Christine D Wright; Mike Brello; 'Tplne@firstenergycorp.com'; 'john.keaton@duke-energy.com'; 'tom.raga@dplinc.com'; 'dboehm@bkllawfirm.com'; 'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)'; 'sam@mwncmh.com'; 'selisar@mwncmh.com'; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Strigari, Frank; Ewing, Steve; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov; Senator LaRose; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Balderson Cc: Regula, Emilie; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting This is an EXTERNAL email. STOP. THINK before you CLICK links or OPEN attachments. AllChairman Seitz would like to invite you to an IP meeting regarding Sub S.B. 58 on Wednesday, September at 2:00PM at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister. 18th The purpose of this meeting will be to go over the sub bill, which I plan on distributing next Tuesday afternoon immediately after receiving it from LSC. The Chairman would like for you to review the bill and come to the meeting prepared to discuss. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you will require a conference call to be setup if you are unable to attend in person. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J, Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 75 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: tpine@firstenergycorp.com Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:19 PM Lynch, Jamie 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'dboehm@bkllawfirm.com'; 'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)'; ~ohn.keaton@duke-energy.com'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'sam@mwncmh.com'; 'selisar@mwncmh.com '; steve.lake@dplinc.com; 'tom.raga@dplinc.com' Re: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting ATTOOOOljpg We will attend the meeting. Thanks, Jamie. Ty Pine Director, State Affairs-Ohio 100 E. Broad St, STE 2225 Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-358-0153 (0) 614-257-8926 (C) From: "Lynch, Jamie" To: "'cdwright@aep.com"' , "'mbrello@aep.com'" , "'Tpine@firstenergycorp.com"' , "John.keaton@duke-energy.com"' , "'tom.raga@dpllnc.com"' , "'dboehm@bkllawflrm.com"' , "'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)"' , "'sam@mwncmh.com"' , "'sellsar@mwncmh.com'" . "steve.lake@dpllnc.com" , "Strigari, Frank" , "Ewing, Steve" , "cralg.w.butler@goyernor.ohio .gov" , '11mmy.sheppard@govemor.ohlo.gov" , Senator LaRose , Senator Jones , Senator Eklund , Senator Balderson Cc: "Regula, Emllfe'' , "Dunlap, Dana" , "Lust, Elizabeth" , "Bennett, Greg" , "Nielson, Stephen" Date: 09/11/2013 03:05 PM Subject: Sub SB 58 IP Meeting AllChairman Seitz would like to invite you to an IP meeting regarding Sub S.B. 58 on Wednesday, September 181h at 2:00PM at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister. · The purpose of this meeting will be to go over the sub bill, which I plan on distributing next Tuesday afternoon immediately after receiving it from LSC. The Chairman would like for you to review the bill and come to the meeting prepared to discuss. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you will require a conference call to be setup if you are unable to attend in person. 76 Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614)466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: J amie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov ----------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. 77 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:06 PM 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'Tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; 'john.keaton@duke-energy.com'; 'tom.raga@dplinc.com'; 'dboehm@bkllawfirm.com'; 'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)'; 'sam@mwncmh.com'; 'selisar@mwncmh.com'; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Strigari, Frank; Ewing, Steve; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov; Senator LaRose; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Balderson Regula, Emilie; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Sub SB 58 IP Meeting AllChairman Seitz would like to invite you to an IP meeting regarding Sub S.B. 58 on Wednesday, September 18th at 2:00PM at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister. The purpose of this meeting will be to go over the sub bill, which I plan on distributing next Tuesday afternoon immediately after receiving it from LSC. The Chairman would like for you to review the bill and come to the meeting prepared to discuss. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you will require a conference call to be setup if you are unable to attend in person. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 78 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Haberman, Maria Friday, September 06, 2013 9:13 AM Nielson, Stephen Lynch, Jamie SB 58 Good morningWould it be possible to get a list of the individuals/organizations involved with IP meetings for SB 58? Senator Gentile spoke to Senator Seitz a few weeks ago and I wanted to follow-up to see if we could get that information. Thank you and have a nice weekend! Maria Haberman Legislative Aide Office of State Senator Lou Gentile. Senate District 30 Ohio Statehouse, Room 050 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614.466.6508 Fax: 614.728.5013 79 Nielson, Stephen Sam Randazzo Thursday, September OS, 2013 9:17 AM Lynch, Jamie RE: SB 58 Draft From: Sent: To: Subject: Jamie: Thanks for the note. I have not seen the sub bill but will check just as soon as I do. The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. 5am J\.andazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (founded 21 19) 5) L.· State Street, 17th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 4)215 (614) 7 I 9-2840 (o~tice), (6 14) -4·6 9-46 5) (~ax) (614) ) 95-+26 8 (cell) sam@mwncmh.com (e-mail) From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Thursday, September OS, 2013 8:45 AM To: Sam Randazzo Subject: RE: SB 58 Draft Sam-the Senator asked that I confirm that language similar to what you asked for here is in the sub bill. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Sam Randazzo [mailto:sam@mwncmh.com] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 1:19 PM To: Home - Senator Seitz Cc: Lynch, Jamie; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Draft Senator: 80 Attached for your consideration is the utilities draft language for Section 2(0) with suggested changes shown in legislative format (additions in all caps and deletions in strikethrough format). As you may know, I have also suggested language for an uncodified section of any reform bill to address the litigation risk that has arisen from the conflicts between decisions issued by the PUCO since SB 221 was enacted. For example, environmental groups have taken an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court challenging the PUCO's vote in favor of the "as found" method of counting energy efficiency, a vote that came after the PUCO voted against using the "as found" method. The appeal is based on the conflict between the PUCO's determinations with the rejection of the as-found method occurring in the PUCO's rulemaking process. The specific language I have suggested is below. Litigation Risk Language (uncodified) Section 1 To the extent that the commission may have, prior to the effective date of this Section, adopted different or inconsistent methods to measure compliance with requirements in Sections 4928.64 and 4928.66 Revised Code where such difference or inconsistency is between rules adopted by the commission and determinations made in other commission proceedings, such difference or inconsistency shall, for purposes of addressing all cases or controversies, be resolved by the commission and the Ohio Supreme Court in favor of the measurement method that maximizes the amount of achieved compliance. In view of the PUCO's decision second guessing FirstEnergy's 2010 REC purchase decision and the related $43 million disallowance, policy makers may also see a need to intervene. An example of how such intervention might look if done in uncodified language in SB 58 is inserted below. Safe Harbor Language (uncodified) Section 2 For purposes of finally resolving any existing contested claim that an electric distribution utility acted impudently or otherwise incurred excessive compliance costs associated with the requirements in Sections 4928.64 or 4928.66, Revised Code, the commission shall not disallow recovery of any such compliance costs through a retrospective review process provided that the costs have been fully recovered, were incurred while applications for rehearing having to do with rules related to compliance with Sections 4928.64 or 4928.66, Revised Code, were pending before the commission and the costs were incurred based on prices that were at or below prevailing market prices at the time incurred. The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it Thank you Sam Randazzo 81 McNees Wallace & Nunck LLC (founded 1975) 2J E.. State Street, I 7th floor, Columbus, Ohio 4-)2 l 5 (614) 719-28+0 (office), (61+) +69-+65) (fax) (61 +) )95-4268 (cell) sam@mwncmh.com (e-mail) ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 82 Nielson, Stephen From: Lynch, Jamie Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:06 AM 'kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us' RE: SB 58 questions Sent: To: Subject: Thank you! Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us [mailto:kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us] Sent: Thursday, September OS, 2013 8:55 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Fw: SB 58 questions Jamie, Here is the email and the list of questions that we sent to Ty Pine. Kathy -----Forwarded by Kathy Luikart/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US on 09/05/2013 08:52 AM----From: Kathy Lulkart/LSC/Ohlo_Leglslature/US To: tplne@firstenergycorp.com Cc: Ralph Clark/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US@Ohlo_Leglslature, stephen.nlelson@ohiosenate.gov Date: 08/22/2013 10:13 PM Subject: SB 58 questions Dear Mr. Pine, I have been reviewing the language changes you submitted for S.B. 58, but before I can complete the next draft, I have many questions about the changes. Would you please review the questions listed in the attached document? I will be out of the office from August 23 until September 3. So, if you are able to respond to these questions on Friday, August 23, or during the week of August 26, please direct your response to my supervisor Ralph Clark. Ralph is available at 614-466-5988 or rclark@lsc.state.oh .us. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Kathleen Luikart Research Associate Legislative Service Commission 77 South High Street, 9th Floor 83 Columbus, OH 43215-6136 (614} 46640?! 34 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Thursday, September 05, 2013 8:45 AM 'Sam Randazzo' RE: SB 58 Draft Sam-the Senator asked that I confirm that language similar to what you asked for here is in the sub bill. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Sam Randazzo [mailto:sam@mwncmh.com] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 1:19 PM To: Home - Senator Seitz Cc: Lynch, Jamie; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Draft Senator: Attached for your consideration is the utilities draft language for Section 2(0) with suggested changes shown in legislative format (additions in all caps and deletions in strikethrough format). As you may know, I have also suggested language for an uncodified section of any reform bill to address the litigation risk that has arisen from the conflicts between decisions issued by the PUCO since SB 221 was enacted. For example, environmental groups have taken an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court challenging the PUCO's vote in favor of the "as found" method of counting energy efficiency, a vote that came after the PUCO voted against using the "as found" method. The appeal is based on the conflict between the PUCO's determinations with the rejection of the as-found method occurring in the PUCO's rulemaking process. The specific language I have suggested is below. Litigation Risk Language (uncodified) Section 1 To the extent that the commission may have, prior to the effective date of this Section, adopted different or inconsistent methods to measure compliance with requirements in Sections 4928.64 and 4928.66 Revised Code where such difference or inconsistency is between rules adopted by the commission and determinations made in other commission proceedings, such difference or inconsistency shall, for purposes of addressing all cases or controversies, be resolved by the commission and the Ohio Supreme Court in favor of the measurement method that maximizes the amount of achieved compliance. 86 In view of the PUCO's decision second guessing FirstEnergy's 2010 REC purchase decision and the related $43 million disallowance, policy makers may also see a need to intervene. An example of how such intervention might look if done in uncodified language in SB 58 is inserted below. Safe Harbor Language (uncodified) Section 2 For purposes of finally resolving any existing contested claim that an electric distribution utility acted impudently or otherwise incurred excessive compliance costs associated with the requirements in Sections 4928.64 or 4928.66, Revised Code, the commission shall not disallow recovery of any such compliance costs through a retrospective review process provided that the costs have been fully recovered, were incurred while applications for rehearing having to do with rules related to compliance with Sections 4928.64 or 4928.66, Revised Code, were pending before the commission and the costs were incurred based on prices that were at or below prevailing market prices at the time incurred. The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you . Sam Randazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (Founded 19) 5) 2 J E_. State Street, J 7th r=loor, Columbus, Ohio +?21 :5 (61 +) 71 9-28+0 (office), (614·) 46 9-4·6 :5? (fax) (614) ) 9 :5--4·26 8 (cell) sam@mwncmh.com (e-mail) ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 87 Nielson. Stephen From: rclark@lsc.state.oh.us Monday, August 26, 2013 4:47 PM Sam Randazzo 'kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us'; Nielson, Stephen Re: Responses to SB 58 Questions (Section 4928.64) Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Thanks Sam. I will review your responses and see if we have any more questions. From: Sam Randazzo To: "'kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us"' , "rclark@lsc.state.oh.us" Cc: "stephen.nielson@ohiosenate.gov" Date: Subject: 08/26/2013 09:08 AM Responses to SB 58 Questions (Section 4928.64) Good morning: The attached MS Word file contains responses to the questions transmitted to me via the e-mail below. I hope these responses are helpful. We would be happy to discuss the responses or any additional questions you may have. (I will be traveling to/from Youngstown today but available by mobile phone at 614.395.4268.) Best regards, Sam The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. 88 Sam Randazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (founded 1935) 21 E. State Street, 17th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 719-2840 (office), (614) 469-4653 (fax) (614) 395-4268 (cell) sam@mwncmh.com (e-mail) From: kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us [mailto:kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:33 PM To: Sam Randazzo Cc: rclark@lsc.state.oh.us; stephen.nielson@ohiosenate.gov Subject: SB 58 questions Dear Mr. Randazzo, I am the LSC staff person assigned to draft a substitute version of S.B. 58, and Senator Seitz's aide, Stephen Nielson, authorized me to contact you. I have been reviewing the language changes you forwarded for the bill, but before I can complete the draft, I have several questions about the changes. Would you please review the questions listed in the attached document? I will be out of the office from August 23 until September 3. So, if you are able to respond to these questions on Friday, August 23, or during the week of August 26, please direct your response to my supervisor Ralph Clark. Ralph is available at 614-466-5988 or rclark@lsc.state.oh.us. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Kathleen Luikart Research Associate Legislative Service Commission 77 South High Street, 9th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-6136 (614) 466-4071 **This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** -- [attachment "Final Responses to LSC Questions on 4928.64 Proposed Language (C41431-2).DOCX" deleted by Ralph Clark/LSC/Ohio_Legislature/US] 89 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Nielson, Stephen Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11:59 AM 'Seitz ill, William J.' SB 58 August 30, 2013 Daedline Bill, Kathy Luikart just called and said that they are going to have trouble meeting the August 30th deadline for draft 2. Her supervisor gave us two options. 1. 2. Either they can make assumptions on the new language from Sam Randazzo and meet the deadline. They can work with the IP's (which will take more time) and go a little past the deadline. Stephen Nielson Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Stephen.Nielson@ohiosenate.gov 98 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Tom Raga Monday, August 19, 2013 1:56 PM Nielson, Stephen FW: SB 58 Draft FYI - DP&L comments. From: Tom Raga Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:42 PM To: 'Lynch, Jamie'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; tpine@firstenergycorp.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com Cc: Judi L Sobecki; Steve P. Lake Subject: RE: SB 58 Draft Jamie: Regarding the two submissions from IEU and OEG: Section (d) -we have general concern that the new language limits flexibility as opposed to the original submission. Particularly, since the current draft will be presented as the "as introduced" version, the new language, if needed would be more appropriate for later in the process. Section (g)- we are good with the clarification "schedule of rates on file with the commission". However, we have significant concerns regarding the four other suggestions. We would oppose the inclusion of "now or in the future"; "at or"; "each account for which the customer has payment responsibility" and finally "Accounts". Specifically, "load center" is a superior designation because an "account" does not have a physical location. If needed, we are available to discuss either in more detail. Tom From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 4:07 PM To: 'Sam Randazzo'; 'stnourse@aep.com'; 'burkj@firstenergycorp.com'; 'bbingaman@firstenergycorp.com'; 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'Watts, Elizabeth H'; 'eyeboah@firstenergycorp.com'; 'Keaton, John A'; Judi L Sobecki; 'Barrett, Lee E'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'mlkkelsene@firstenergycorp.com'; Steve P. Lake; 'tlfroehle@aep.com'; 'wrridmann@flrstenergycorp.com'; Tom Raga; 'agrealy@firstenergycorp.com'; 'jbiltz@firstenergycorp.com'; 'tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; Scott Elisar; 'dlarr@larrpc.com'; 'David Boehm'; Kevin Murray; Frank Darr Cc: Nielson, Stephen Subject: RE: SB 58 Draft AllAfter discussing it with the Chairman, and taking into account that we are making this request at the end of the day on a Friday, we need your responses by 2 P.M. Monday afternoon opposed to Monday morning. We hope this gives you all the opportunity to review the suggested changes and provide feedback. Let me know if you have any questions. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 103 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov --- -~----- From: Sam Randazzo [mailto:sam@mwncmh.com] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 3:53 PM To: 'stnourse@aep.com'; 'burkj@firstenergycorp.com'; 'bbingaman@firstenergycorp.com'; 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'Watts, Elizabeth H'; 'eyeboah@firstenergycorp.com'; 'Keaton, John A'; 'Judi L Sobecki'; 'Barrett, Lee E'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com'; 'Steve P. Lake'; 'tlfroehle@aep.com'; 'wrridmann@firstenergycorp.com'; 'tom.raga@aes.com'; 'agrealy@firstenergycorp.com'; 'jbiltz@firstenergycorp.com'; 'tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; Scott Elisar; 'dlarr@larrpc.com'; 'David Boehm'; Kevin Murray; Frank Darr Cc: Lynch, Jamie; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Draft Good afternoon: I have been asked to distribute the attached suggested changes to the utilities' draft 2(0) language to which both the Ohio Energy Group and IEU-Ohio expressed some concerns. The font color differences are color differences in the utilities' draft. Our suggested changes to the utilities/ draft are shown in legislative format - additions in all caps and deletions in strikethrough format. The suggested modifications are being distributed to representatives of the Ohio Energy Group at the same time they are being distributed to utility representatives. The suggested modifications are designed to provide the context that better conveys what we understand to be the intended meaning the language in the utilities draft. I have also been asked to let you know that any objections to our suggested modifications to draft division 2(0) should be conveyed to Senator Seitz by the morning of August 19, 2013 (Monday). Thanks, Sam The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. Sam l\.andazzo McNecs Wallace & Nurick LLC (founded 19) 5) 21 r..:_. State Street, 17th r=1oor-, C.olumbus, Ohio 1·)21 5 (6 I+) 7 I 9-284·0 (off.ice), (6 l +) +6 9-+6 5) (~ax) (6 1"'!-) ) 9 5-+26 8 (cell) sam@mwncmh.com (e-n1ail) **This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 104 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Keaton, John A Monday, August 19, 2013 1:53 PM Senator Seitz; 'stnourse@aep.com'; 'burkj@firstenergycorp.com'; 'bbingaman@firstenergycorp.com'; 'cdwright@aep.com'; Watts, Elizabeth H; 'eyeboah@firstenergycorp.com'; Keaton, John A; 'Judi L Sobecki'; Barrett, Lee E; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com'; 'Steve P. Lake'; 'tlfroehle@aep.com'; 'wrridmann@firstenergycorp.com'; 'tom.raga@aes.com'; 'agrealy@firstenergycorp.com'; 'jbiltz@firstenergycorp.com'; 'tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; Scott Elisar; 'dlarr@larrpc.com'; 'David Boehm'; Kevin Murray; Frank Darr; Duff, Tim Lynch, Jamie; Nielson, Stephen Clarifications in re Energy Efficiency Law Changes Sen. Seitz, et al., Thank you for the opportunity to offer additional input into the energy efficiency law changes you are considering to introduce in Sub. S.B. 58. Below are our attempts to offer needed clarifications in content and explain our objections to some proposals by other stakeholders. We hope to continue the IP process as the language continues to evolve. Please let us know your thoughts and questions. 1) Cost-per-kWh Cap Language -We offer additional language to address concerns of ambiguity with respect to how the cap proposed by Duke Energy would be calculated. RC 4928.66(A){2)(f) would read: "(f) Each electric utility shall have a one-time irrevocable option to be exercised solely at the discretion of that electric utility to meet compliance with the benchmarks found in division (A)(1)(a) and (b) of this section, with compliance to be capped by one of the following two methods: (1) the electric utility's costs for compliance shall not exceed the cost per kilowatt hour of energy efficiency savings that was paid by its customers in calendar year 2013. The cost per kilowatt hour cap is to be calculated by dividing the utility's total earned revenue requirement to recovered from customers through its commission approved EE Rider, excluding any lost distribution revenues by the actual kilowatt hour savings achieved through its approved portfolio plan in 2013. Revenue requirement is defined as the amount the company is eligible to collect from customers through its approved energy efficiency rider excluding any recognition of lost distribution revenues. The revenue requirement consists of all costs associated with the Company's delivery of its energy efficiency and demand response programs, including but not limited to those related to evaluation, measurement, and verification, and any utility incentive earned under the utility's approved portfolio plan. (2) For calendar years 2014 and following, the total annualized rate impact of program costs and shared savings incentives associated with an electric distribution utility's compliance with the benchmarks found in divisions (A)(1)(a) and (b) of this section shall not exceed the program costs approved for that electric distribution utility for the calendar year 2013. Once either program cost cap is met, an electric distribution utility is relieved by operation of law of: 1) making further expenditures to meet the benchmarks for the remainder of the calendar year, and 2) achieving the benchmarks set forth in divisions (A)(1)(a) and (b) of this section for the calendar year, such that the electric distribution utility is deemed to have met the benchmarks for that calendar year. The commission shall neither impose a penalty nor require any shortfall be carried forward to a future compliance year arising from noncompliance or undercompliance resulting from the application of this section. Recognizing that suspending 105 existing programs and unwinding existing contract obligations at the time the cost cap is triggered may result in some level of under-compliance or over-compliance above or below the level of compliance that exists at that time, any excess compliance achieved at the time the cost cap is triggered may be banked for future use. The effects of lost revenue recovery or revenue decoupling are not included in the program cost cap under this division. Nothing in this division shall prevent the timely recovery of compliance costs and incentives incurred by an electric distribution utility prior to the effective date of this section and costs or compensation under a lost revenue or revenue decoupling mechanism or other approved incentive mechanism as provided for in division (A)(2)(c) of this section." 2) Aggregation of accounts -This could be a concern for all utilities but allowing aggregation to be included in the streamlined opt-out process will be very challenging from an administrative standpoint. These customers have the ability to opt-out today under the commission's existing mercantile exemption program. The ability to allow a single customer account to achieve savings that would qualify all of that customers accounts for stream lined opt-out would make it very challenging to monitor and potentially promote customers with multiple accounts to game the streamlined opt-out process. 3) Determination of eligible customers for streamlined opt-out- "Above primary voltage" was the utility groups agreed upon threshold for streamlined opt-out. Much debate was conducted to ensure consistency across the different EDU territories. Additionally, if the requirement is set "at or above primary voltage" the situation is created where you have automatically opted out a very significant part of the load, which was not consistent with the intent to stream line the process for the very large energy savvy customers from the program and Rider. 4) Length of opt-out -The Company files its required compliance plans every three years (though the utilities have proposed the possibility of longer-term plans for the future). Shortening the opt-out window would make it difficult to put together a portfolio plan without knowing which and how many customers will be eligible to participate. Additionally, with large customers, there is the opportunity to take an incentive (large due to the their relative size) and then opt out so as to get more incentive from the rider than they have paid in. Three years is a reasonable period of time for them to decide whether or not they want to participate in the Company's programs and pay the rider. 5) Compliance plan continuation -While we would might consider the possibility of instituting the streamlined opt-out process for above primary voltage customers, while continuing to execute plans contemplated under requirements of the current law, the application of other changes proposed during this process would defeat the purpose of continuing portfolio plans negotiated in good faith and upon which utilities have made business decisions. Regards, John Keaton Government & Regulatory Affairs Duke Energy 106 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Tom Raga Monday, August 19, 2013 1:42 PM Lynch, Jamie; 'mbrello@aep.com'; tpine@firstenergycorp.com; john.keaton@dukeenergy.com Judi L Sobecki; Steve P. Lake RE: SB 58 Draft Jamie: Regarding the two submissions from IEU and OEG: Section (d) -we have general concern that the new language limits flexibility as opposed to the original submission. Particularly, since the current draft will be presented as the "as introduced" version, the new language, if needed would be more appropriate for later in the process. Section (g)- we are good with the clarification "schedule of rates on file with the commission". However, we have significant concerns regarding the four other suggestions. We would oppose the inclusion of "now or in the future"; "at or"; "each account for which the customer has payment responsibility" and finally "Accounts". Specifically, "load center" is a superior designation because an "account" does not have a physical location. If needed, we are available to discuss either in more detail. Tom From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 4:07 PM To: 'Sam Randazzo'; 'stnourse@aep.com'; 'burkj@firstenergycorp.com'; 'bbingaman@firstenergycorp.com'; 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'Watts, Elizabeth H'; 'eyeboah@firstenergycorp.com'; 'Keaton, John A'; Judi L Sobecki; 'Barrett, Lee E'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com'; Steve P. Lake; 'tlfroehle@aep.com'; 'wrridmann@firstenergycorp.com'; Tom Raga; 'agrealy@firstenergycorp.com'; 'jbiltz@firstenergycorp.com'; 'tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; Scott Elisar; 'dlarr@larrpc.com'; 'David Boehm'; Kevin Murray; Frank Darr Cc: Nielson, Stephen Subject: RE: SB 58 Draft AllAfter discussing it with the Chairman, and taking into account that we are making this request at the end of the day on a Friday, we need your responses by 2 P .M. Monday afternoon opposed to Monday morning. We hope this gives you all the opportunity to review the suggested changes and provide feedback. Let me know if you have any questions. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Sam Randazzo [mailto:sam@mwncmh.com] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 3:53 PM 107 To: 'stnourse@aep.com'; 'burkj@firstenergycorp.com'; 'bbingaman@firstenergycorp.com '; 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'Watts, Elizabeth H'; 'eyeboah@firstenergycorp.com'; 'Keaton, John A'; 'Judi L Sobecki'; 'Barrett, Lee E'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com'; 'Steve P. Lake'; 'tlfroehle@aep.com'; 'wrridmann@firstenergycorp.com'; 'tom.raga@aes.com'; 'agrealy@firstenergycorp.com'; 'jbiltz@firstenergycorp.com'; 'tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; Scott Elisar; 'dlarr@larrpc.com'; 'David Boehm'; Kevin Murray; Frank Darr Cc: Lynch, Jamie; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Draft Good afternoon: I have been asked to distribute the attached suggested changes to the utilities' draft 2(0) language to which both the Ohio Energy Group and IEU-Ohio expressed some concerns. The font color differences are color differences in the utilities' draft. Our suggested changes to the utilities/ draft are shown in legislative format - additions in all caps and deletions in strikethrough format. The suggested modifications are being distributed to representatives of the Ohio Energy Group at the same time they are being distributed to utility representatives. The suggested modifications are designed to provide the context that better conveys what we understand to be the intended meaning the language in the utilities draft. I have also been asked to let you know that any objections to our suggested modifications to draft division 2(0) should be conveyed to Senator Seitz by the morning of August 19, 2013 (Monday). Thanks, Sam The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you . Sam l\.andazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (fo1mded 19~5) 2 1 E_. 5tak 5ti·eet, 17th floor, Columbus, Ohio+) 2 15 (6 1"'1·) 71 9-284·0 (office), (6 1+)1·6 9-4·6 5) (bx) (614) ) 9 5-1·26 8 (cell) sam@mwncmh.com (e-mail) ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 108 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Friday, August 16, 2013 4:07 PM 'Sam Randazzo'; 'stnourse@aep.com'; 'burkj@firstenergycorp.com'; 'bbingaman@firstenergycorp.com'; 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'Watts, Elizabeth H'; 'eyeboah@firstenergycorp.com'; 'Keaton, John A'; 'Judi L Sobecki'; 'Barrett, Lee E'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com'; 'Steve P. Lake'; 'tlfroehfe@aep.com'; 'wrridmann@firstenergycorp.com'; 'tom.raga@aes.com'; 'agrealy@firstenergycorp.com'; 'jbiltz@firstenergycorp.com'; 'tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; Scott Elisar; 'dlarr@larrpc.com'; 'David Boehm'; Kevin Murray; Frank Darr Nielson, Stephen RE: SB 58 Draft AllAfter discussing it with the Chairman, and taking into account that we are making this request at the end of the day on a Friday, we need your responses by 2 P.M. Monday afternoon opposed to Monday morning. We hope this gives you all the opportunity to review the suggested changes and provide feedback. Let me know if you have any questions. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone:(614)466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Sam Randazzo [mailto:sam@mwncmh.com] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 3:53 PM To: 'stnourse@aep.com'; 'burkj@firstenergycorp.com'; 'bbingaman@firstenergycorp.com'; 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'Watts, Elizabeth H'; 'eyeboah@firstenergycorp.com'; 'Keaton, John A'; 'Judi L Sobecki'; 'Barrett, Lee E'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com'; 'Steve P. Lake'; 'tlfroehle@aep.com'; 'wrridmann@firstenergycorp.com'; 'tom.raga@aes.com'; 'ag realy@firstenergycorp.com'; 'jbiltz@firstenergycorp.com'; 'tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; Scott Elisar; 'dlarr@farrpc.com'; 'David Boehm'; Kevin Murray; Frank Darr Cc: Lynch, Jamie; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Draft Good afternoon : I have been asked to distribute the attached suggested changes to the utilities' draft 2(0) language to which both the Ohio Energy Group and IEU-Ohio expressed some concerns. The font color differences are color differences in the utilities' draft. Our suggested changes to the utilities/ draft are shown in legislative format - additions in all caps and deletions in strikethrough format. The suggested modifications are being distributed to representatives of the Ohio Energy Group at the same time they are being distributed to utility repre sentatives. 1 109 The suggested modifications are designed to provide the context that better conveys what we understand to be the intended meaning the language in the utilities draft. I have also been asked to let you know that any objections to our suggested modifications to draft division 2(0) should be conveyed to Senator Seitz by the morning of August 19, 2013 (Monday). Thanks, Sam The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you . Sam Randazzo McNees Wallace fl,- Nurick LLC (founded r 9'55) 21 E... State Street, I 7th floor, Columbus, ()hio 4-) 2 15 (614) 719-2840 (offic.e), (614·) 469....+65; (fax) (614)) 95 -~l-268 (cell) sarn@mwncrnh.com (e-mail) ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 110 Nielson, Stephen Sam Randazzo Friday, August 16, 2013 12:13 PM 'stnourse@aep.com'; 'burkj@firstenergycorp.com'; 'bbingaman@firstenergycorp.com'; 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'Watts, Elizabeth H'; 'eyeboah@firstenergycorp.com'; 'Keaton, John A'; 'Judi L Sobecki'; 'Barrett, Lee E'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com'; 'Steve P. Lake'; 'tlfroehle@aep.com'; 'wrridmann@firstenergycorp.com'; 'tom.raga@aes.com'; 'agrealy@firstenergycorp.com'; 'jbiltz@firstenergycorp.com'; 'tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; Scott Elisar; 'dlarr@larrpc.com'; 'David Boehm'; Kevin Murray; Frank Darr Lynch, Jamie; Nielson, Stephen RE: SB 58 Draft From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Good afternoon: I have been asked to advise you that our suggested changes to the utilities' draft language regarding the streamlined opt-out provision may be the language tran smitted to LSC absent objections conveyed to Senator Seitz by the morning of August 19, 2013 (Monday) . Our suggested changes to this language were sent to your previously on August 13, 2013 in the e-mail below. If you do have objections, we would also like to see them so that we can consider your views. Thanks, Sam The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you . 5am l\.andazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (founded I 9~ 5) 2 I E... State 5trc:et, 17th floo1-, Columbus, ()hio 1-)215 (614) 719-28·1-0 (of+ice), (614) +69 ..465? (bx) (614)) 95-4268 (cell) sarn@mwncmh.com (e-mail) From: Sam Randazzo Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:01 AM To: 'seitz@taftlaw.com' Cc: stnourse@aep.com; burkj@firstenergycorp.com; 'bbingaman@ffrstenergycorp.com'; 'cdwright@aep.com'; Watts, Elizabeth H; 'eyeboah@firstenergycorp.com'; Keaton, John A; Judi L Sobecki; Barrett, Lee E; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com'; Steve P. Lake; 'tlfroehle@aep.com'; 'wrridmann@firstenergycorp.com'; tom.raga@aes.com; agrealy@firstenergycorp.com; jbiltz@firstenergycorp.com; 'tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; Scott Elisar; dlarr@larrpc.com; 'David Boehm'; Kevin Murray; Frank Darr; Lynch, Jamie (Jamie.Lynch@ohlosenate.gov) Subject: SB 58 Draft 115 Omissions in Utilities' Streamline Opt-Out Language The utility draft of the streamlined opt-out mechanism (inserted below) conflicts with results we have been willing to accept as a measure of compromis;e and excludes language we want and need. I have inserted our suggestions in ALL CAPS OR strikethrough format. The utilities' language is problematic because it works to diminish the value of the streamlined opt-out provision. I would also suggest that the three-years-out and three-years-in language in this draft is not something we want or need and I think it will open any proposed legislation up to encouraging flip flopping. The three-yearsout and three-years-in language in this draft also is inconsistent with other language indicating that the opt-out customer is giving up the opportunity to obtain direct benefits from the utility's plan of compliance. We think the three-years-out and three-years-in language in this draft is a bad substantive and political choice for the content of an as-introduced version of substantive legislation. (g) Any retail customer that, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE, receives service AT OR above the primary voltage level as determined by the APPLICABILITY PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE electric distribution utility's SCHEDULE OF RATES ON FILE WITH THE COMMISSION tariff classifications, may, FOR EACH ACCOUNT FOR WHICH THE CUSTOMER HAS PAYMENT RESPONSIBILITY, opt-out of both the opportunity and ability to obtain direct benefits from an electric distribution utility's plan of compliance with the requirements in this section provided that: (i) such customer may subsequently opt-in only after being exempt for three consecutive calendar years and giving twelve months advance notice of its intent to opt-in, (ii) such customer must maintain its opt-in status for three consecutive calendar years before being eligible to subsequently exercising its right to opt-out after giving the utility twelve months advance notice, and (iii) such customer is not eligible to participate in a mercantile customer agreement under division (A)(2)(c) of this section during any period when it has an opt-out status. Any retail customer electing to opt-out under this provision shall do so by providing a notice of intent to opt-out to the utility and submitting a notice of opt-out with the commission. The notice provided to the utility shall indicate it is a notice to opt-out, the effective date, customer account numbers, and physical location of the ACCOUNTS load center. The notice submitted to the commission shall be a verified written notification of such election provided that such election also affirms that the customer has adopted an ongoing energy management system that allows for identification and, in the customer's sole discretion, implementation of options to reasonably and cost effectively reduce the energy intensity of the organization and that such energy management system calls for independent measurement and verification or includes measurement and verification protocols that meet or exceed measurement and verification protocols that are generally accepted within the customer's business sector. In the event of such an opt-out, each account identified in the customer's verified notification shall not thereafter be subject to the cost recovery mechanisms established pursuant to this Section or eligible to participate in programs arisjng from electric distribution utility compliance plans approved by the commission. In the event the customer's energy management system does not call for independent measurement and verification, the commission may request information from a customer making such election for the limited purpose of determining ifthe customer's measurement and verification protocols are reasonable in light of the protocols generally accepted within the customer's sector. In the event the commission determines that such measurement and verification protocols do not meet protocols generally accepted within the customer's sector, the commission shall provide the customer with measurement and verification protocols that do meet protocols generally accepted within the customer's sector. In no event shall the commission have any authority to supervise or regulate the customer's energy management system or the customer's process for measurement and verification. I hope this is useful. Sam 116 The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you . Sam Randazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (founded 19)5) E._. 5tate 5treet, 17th floor-, Columbus, Ohio 4<721 5 (61 +) 71 9-281-0 (oltice), (61 +)-4·69-4·65) (~ax) (614)) 95-+268 (cell) sam@mwncmh.com (e-mail) 2I From: David Boehm [mailto:DBoehm@bkllawfirm.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 10:20 AM To: 'seitz@taftlaw.com' Cc: stnourse@aep.com; burkj@firstenergycorp.com; 'bbingaman@firstenergycorp.com'; 'cdwright@aep.com'; Watts, Elizabeth H; 'eyeboah@firstenergycorp.com'; Keaton, John A; Judi L Sobecki; Barrett, Lee E; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com'; Steve P. Lake; 'tlfroehle@aep.com'; 'wrridmann@firstenergycorp.com'; tom .raga@aes.com; agrealy@firstenergycorp.com; jbiltz@firstenergycorp.com; 'tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; dlarr@larrpc.com Subject: SB 58 Draft Dear Senator Seitz: We have reviewed the draft that Ty Pine sent us of the utilities' version of the bill and are particularly concerned with a provision in A(2}(d) which seems to allow the utility to "opt-out" of the cost-cap on energy efficiency. The relevant provision states as follows: "the electric distribution utility shall notify the Commission: {1} if it elects not to be subject to division A{2}{f) of this section under such energy efficiency plan;" Since the cost-cap is designed to protect the customers who are ultimately required to pay the bill for these energy efficiency programs, we think it is inappropriate that the utility company should have the discretion as to whether the customers have the protection of a cap. OEG would like to see this changed. David F. Boehm, Esq. BOEHM, KURTZ & LOWRY 36 E. Seventh St., Suite 1510 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Ph: 513.421.2255 Fax: 513.421.2764 dboehm@BKLlawfirm.com 117 ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 118 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sam Randazzo Friday, August 16, 2013 12:05 PM Home - Senator Seitz Lynch, Jamie; Nielson, Stephen RE: SB 58 Draft Got itI will so advise the "Hatfields". I will take a crack at clarifying language and send it along (hopefully before 2:00 when I plan to call you at 513.357.9332 per your office's request). The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you . Sam f\andazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (founded 19)5) 21 E.. State ...Street, 17th rloor, Columbus, Ohio 1·7215 (6 1-4·) 71 9-28"1·0 (oHice), (61+)-4·69-+6 5) (bx) (61 +) ) 9 5--4·26 8 (cell) sam@mwncmh.c.om (e-mail) From: Seitz III, William J. [mailto:seitz@taftlaw.com] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 11:56 AM To: Sam Randazzo Cc: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov; Stephen.Nielson@ohiosenate.gov Subject: RE: SB 58 Draft Sam, Please tell the other Hatfields that unless I hear specific objections to your strikethrough and all cap changes on the streamlined, opt-out language by Monday morning, August 19, I will instruct LSC to make these changes as outlined in your August 13 e-mail to me at 11:01 a.m. As to the "cost cap needs to protect customers" issue, I need clarifying language as per the e-mails between you, Dave Boehm, and Steve Nourse on August 13. The language stays, but should be clarified to ensure the new standard is not applied retroactively and does not extend beyond the end of the currently approved compliance plans. Taft I William J. Seitz Ill / Of Counsel Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 119 Tel: 513.381.2838 • Fax: 513.381.0205 Direct: 513.357.9332 •Cell: 513.382.8281 www.taftlaw.com I seitz@taftlaw.com From: Sam Randazzo [mailto:sam@mwncmh.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:01 AM To: Seitz III, William J. Cc: stnourse@aep.com; burkj@firstenergycorp.com; 'bbingaman@firstenergycorp.com'; 'cdwright@aep.com'; Watts, Elizabeth H; 'eyeboah@firstenergycorp.com'; Keaton, John A; Judi L Sobecki; Barrett, Lee E; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com'; Steve P. Lake; 'tlfroehle@aep.com'; 'wrridmann@firstenergycorp.com'; tom.raga@aes ..com; agrealy@firstenergycoro.com; jbiltz@firstenerqycorp.com; 'tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; Scott Elisar; dlarr@larrpc.com; 'David Boehm'; Kevin Murray; Frank Darr; Lynch, Jamie (Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov) Subject: SB 58 Draft Like the Ohio Energy Group, we received the utilities' draft language around 6:00 PM yesterday in PDF format (which makes it harder to suggest changes) after repeated requests to see the utilities' draft went unanswered. So, we are doing the best we can to try to review, understand and provide constructive comments on the utilities' draft in a context that is challenging from a work load perspective and frustrating from a professional perspective. As we can, we will pass on comments and suggestions regarding the utilities' draft. Given the circumstances, the comments and suggestions will be provided in installments with attention first paid to the areas (in no particular order) that are most important to the members of IEU-Ohio. Cost Cap Needs to Protect Customers Mr. Boehm and I discussed the concern he has communicated with regard to the language in Section 4928.66(A)(2)(d). We agree with the comment made by Mr. Boehm. Omissions in Utilities' Streamline Opt-Out Language The utility draft of the streamlined opt-out mechanism (inserted below) conflicts with results we have been willing to accept as a measure of compromise and excludes language we want and need. I have inserted our suggestion s in ALL CAPS OR strikethrough format. The utilities' language is problematic because it works to diminish th e value of the streamlined opt-out provision . I would also suggest that the three-years-out and three-years-in language in this draft is not something we want or need and I think it will open any proposed legislation up to encouraging flip flopping. The three-yearsout and three-years-in language in this draft also is inconsistent with other language indicating that the opt-out customer is giving up the opportunity to obtain direct benefits from the utility's plan of compliance. We think the three-years-out and three-years-in language in this draft is a bad substantive and political choice for the content of an as-introduced version of substantive legislation. (g) Any retail customer that, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE, receives service AT OR above the primary voltage level as determined by the APPLICABILITY PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE electric distribution utility' s SCHEDULE OF RATES ON FILE WITH THE COMMISSION tariff classifications, may, FOR EACH ACCOUNT FOR WHICH THE CUSTOMER HAS PAYMENT RESPONSIBILITY, opt-out of both the opportunity and ability to obtain direct benefits from an electric distribution utility's plan of compliance with the requirements in this section provided that: (i) such customer may subsequently opt-in only after being exempt for three consecutive calendar years and giving twelve months advance notice of its intent to opt-in, (ii) such customer must maintain its opt-in status for three consecutive calendar years before being eligible to subsequently exercising its right to opt-out after gi ving the utility twelve months advance notice, and (iii) such customer is not eligible to participate in a mercantile customer agreement under division (A)(2)(c) of this section during any period when it has an opt-out status. Any retail custom.er eJecti ng to opt-out under this 120 provision shall do so by providing a notice of intent to opt-out to the utility and submitting a notice of opt-out with the commission. The notice provided to the utility shall indicate it is a notice to opt-out, the effective date, customer account numbers, and physical location of the ACCOUNTS load eeffier. The notice submitted to the commission shall be a verified written notification of such election provided that such election also affirms that the customer has adopted an ongoing energy management system that allows for identification and, in the customer's sole discretion, implementation of options to reasonably and cost effectively reduce the energy intensity of the organization and that such energy management system calls for independent measurement and verification or includes measurement and verification protocols that meet or exceed measurement and verification protocols that are generally accepted within the customer's business sector. In the event of such an opt-out, each account identified in the customer's verified notification shall not thereafter be subject to the cost recovery mechanisms established pursuant to this Section or eligible to participate in programs arising from electric distribution utility compliance plans approved by the commission. In the event the customer's energy management system does not call for independent measurement and verification, the commission may request information from a customer making such election for the limited purpose of determining if the customer's measurement and verification protocols are reasonable in light of the protocols generally accepted within the customer's sector. In the event the commission determines that such measurement and verification protocols do not meet protocols generally accepted within the customer's sector, the commission shall provide the customer with measurement and verification protocols that do meet protocols generally accepted within the customer's sector. In no event shall the commission have any authority to supervise or regulate the customer's energy management system or the customer's process for measurement and verification. We distributed (to the entire working group) our suggestions on Section 4928.64 reforms and draft uncodified language to address the litigation risks related to the many conflicts in the PUCO's decisions on how to measure/count compliance. To this point, we have received no responsive comments or suggestions. I hope this is useful. Sam The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you . ,Sam Kandazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (Founded 19;5) 21 E._. State Street, 1 Ji:h Floor, Columbus, Ohio +)21 5 (6 I 4-) 7 I 9--281-0 (office), (61 +) +69-+65) (tax) (61 +) ) 9 5-+26 8 (cell) sam@mwncmh.com (e-mail) Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations , advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting , marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein . This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged , attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited . If you received this transmission in 121 error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: David Boehm [mailto:DBoehm@bkllawfirm.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 10:20 AM To: 'seitz@taftlaw.com' Cc: stnourse@aep.com; burkj@firstenergycorp.com; 'bbingaman@firstenergycorp.com'; 'cdwright@aep.com'; Watts, Elizabeth H; 'eyeboah@firstenergycorp.com'; Keaton, John A; Judi L Sobecki; Barrett, Lee E; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com'; Steve P. Lake; 'tlfroehle@aep.com'; 'wrridmann@firstenergycorp.com'; tom.raqa@aes.com; agrealy@firstenergycorp.com; jbiltz@firstenergycorp.com; 'tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; dlarr@larrpc.com Subject: SB 58 Draft Dear Senator Seitz: We have reviewed the draft that Ty Pine sent us of the utilities' version of the bill and are particularly concerned with a provision in A(2)(d} which seems to allow the utility to "opt-out" of the cost-cap on energy efficiency. The relevant provision states as follows: "the electric distribution utility shall notify the Commission: (1) if it elects not to be subject to division A(2}{f) of this section under such energy efficiency plan;" Since the cost-cap is designed to protect the customers who are ultimately required to pay the bill for these energy efficiency programs, we think it is inappropriate that the utility company should have the discretion as to whether the customers have the protection of a cap. OEG would like to see this changed. David F. Boehm, Esq. BOEHM, KURTZ & LOWRY 36 E. Seventh St., Suite 1510 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Ph: 513.421.2255 Fax: 513.421.2764 dboehm@BKLlawfirm.com ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 122 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Seitz III, William J. Friday, August 16, 2013 11:56 AM sam@mwncmh.com Lynch, Jamie; Nielson, Stephen RE: SB 58 Draft Sam, Please tell the other Ha:tfields that unless I hear specific objections to your strikethrough and all cap changes on the streamlined., opt-out language by Monday morning, August 19, I will instruct LSC to make these changes as outlined in your August 13 e-mail to me at 11 :01 a.m. As to the "cost cap needs to protect customers" issue, I need clarifying language as per the e-mails between you, Dave Boehm, and Steve Nourse on August 13. The language stays, but should be clarified to ensure the new standard is not applied retroactively and does not extend beyond the end of the currently approved compliance plans. Taft I William J. Seitz Ill / Of Counsel Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: 513 .381 .2838 •Fax: 513.381 .0205 Direct 513.357.9332 ·Cell: 513.382 .8281 www.taftlaw.com I seitz@taftlaw.com From: Sam Randazzo [rnailto:sam@mwncmh.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:01 AM To: Seitz III, William J. Cc: stnourse@aep.com; burkj@firstenergycorp.com; 'bbingaman@firstenergycorp.com'; 'cdwright@aep.com'; Watts, Elizabeth H; 'eyeboah@firstenergycorp.com'; Keaton, John A; Judi L Sobecki; Barrett, Lee E; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com'; Steve P. Lake; 'tlfroehle@aep.com'; 'wrridmann@firstenergycorp.com'; tom.raga@aes.com; aqrealy@firstenergycorp.com: jbiltz@flrstenergycorp.com; 'tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; Scott Elisar; dlarr@larrpc.com; 'David Boehm'; Kevin Murray; Frank Darr; Lynch, Jamie (Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov) Subject: SB 58 Draft Like the Ohio Energy Group, we received the utilities' draft language around 6:00 PM yesterday in PDF format (which makes it harder to suggest changes) after repeated requests to see the utilities' draft went unanswered. So, we are doing the best we can to try to review, understand and provide constructive comments on the utilities' draft in a context that is challenging from a work load perspective and frustrating from a professional perspective. As we can, we will pass on comments and suggestions regarding the utilities' draft. Given the circumstances, the comments and suggestions will be provided in installments with attention first paid to the areas (in no particular order) that are most important to the members of IEU-Ohio. Cost Cap Needs to Protect Customers Mr. Boehm and I discussed the concern he has communicated with regard to the language in Section 4928.66(A)(2)(d). We agree with the comment made by Mr. Boehm. 123 Omissions in Utilities' Streamline Opt-Out Language The utility draft of the streamlined opt-out mechanism (inserted below) conflicts with results we have been willing to accept as a measure of compromise and excludes language we want and need. I have inserted our suggestions in ALL CAPS OR strikethrough format. The utilities' language is problematic because it works to diminish the value of the streamlined opt-out provision. I would also suggest that the three-years-out and three-years-in language in this draft is not something we want or need and I think it will open any proposed legislation up to encouraging flip flopping. The three-yearsout and three-years-in language in this draft also is inconsistent with other language indicating that the opt-out customer is giving up the opportunity to obtain direct benefits from the utility's plan of compliance. We think the three-years-out and three-years-in language in this draft is a bad substantive and political choice for the content of an as-introduced version of substantive legislation. (g) Any retail customer that, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE, receives service AT OR above the primary voltage level as determined by the APPLICABILITY PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE electric distribution utility's SCHEDULE OF RATES ON FILE WITH THE COMMISSION tariff classifications, may, FOR EACH ACCOUNT FOR WHICH THE CUSTOMER HAS PAYMENT RESPONSIBILITY, opt-out of both the opportunity and ability to obtain direct benefits from an electric distribution utility's plan of compliance with the requirements in this section provided that: (i) such customer may subsequently opt-in only after being exempt for three consecutive calendar years and giving twelve months advance notice of its intent to opt-in, (ii) such customer must maintain its opt-in status for three consecutive calendar years before being eligible to subsequently exercising its right to opt-out after giving the utility twelve months advance notice, and (iii) such customer is not eligible to participate in a mercantile customer agreement under division (A)(2)(c) of this section during any period when it has an opt-out status. Any retail customer electing to opt-out under this provision shall do so by providing a notice of intent to opt-out to the utility and submitting a notice of opt-out with the commission. The notice provided to the utility shall indicate it is a notice to opt-out, the effective date, customer account numbers, and physical location of the ACCOUNTS load center. The notice submitted to the commission shall be a verified written notification of such election provided that such election also affirms that the customer has adopted an ongoing energy management system that allows for identification and, in the customer's sole discretion, implementation of options to reasonably and cost effectively reduce the energy intensity of the organization and that such energy management system calls for independent measurement and verification or includes measurement and verification protocols that meet or exceed measurement and verification protocols that are generally accepted within the customer's business sector. In the event of such an opt-out, each account identified in the customer's verified notification shall not thereafter be subject to the cost recovery mechanisms established pursuant to this Section or eligible to participate in programs arising from electric distribution utility compliance plans approved by the commission. In the event the customer's energy management system does not call for independent measurement and verification, the commission may request information from a customer making such election for the limited purpose of determining ifthe customer's measurement and verification protocols are reasonable in light of the protocols generally accepted within the customer's sector. In the event the commission determines that such measurement and verification protocols do not meet protocols generally accepted within the customer's sector, the commission shall provide the customer with measurement and verification protocols that do meet protocols generally accepted within the customer's sector. In no event shall the commission have any authority to supervise or regulate the customer's energy management system or the customer's process for measurement and verification. We distributed (to the entire working group) our suggestions on Section 4928.64 reforms and draft uncodified language to address the litigation risks related to the many conflicts in the PUCO's decisions on how to measure/count compliance. To this point, we have received no responsive comments or suggestions. 124 I hope this is useful. Sam The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you . 5am R.anda?..zo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (founded 19) 5) 21 E_. State Street, 17th f=loo1-, Columbus, Ohio 4)215 (614) 71 9-28+0 (o~~ice), (614-) 469-465? (fax) (6 14) :? 9 5--1·268 (cell) sam@mwncmh.com (e-mail) Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: David Boehm [mailto:DBoehm@bkllawfirm.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 10:20 AM To: 'seitz@taftlaw.com' Cc: stnourse@aep.com; burkj@firstenergycorp.com; 'bbingaman@firstenergycorp.com'; 'cdwright@aep.com'; Watts, Elizabeth H; 'eyeboah@firstenergycorp.com'; Keaton, John A; Judi L Sobecki; Barrett, Lee E; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'mlkkelsene@firstenergycorp.com'; Steve P. Lake; 'tlfroehle@aep.com'; 'wrridmann@firstenergycorp.com'; tom.raga@aes.com; agrealy@firstenergycorp.com; jbiltz@firstenerq)lcorp.com; 'tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; dlarr@larrpc.com. Subject: SB 58 Draft Dear Senator Seitz: We have reviewed the draft that Ty Pine sent us of the utilities' version of the bill and are particularly concerned with a provision in A(2)(d) which seems to allow the utility to "opt-out" of the cost-cap on energy efficiency. The relevant provision states as follows: "the electric distribution utility shall notify the Commission: (1) if it elects not to be subject to division A{2)(f) of this section under such energy efficiency plan;N Since the cost-cap is designed to protect the customers who are ultimately required to pay the bill for these energy efficiency programs, we think it is 125 inappropriate that the utility company should have the discretion as to whether the customers have the protection of a cap. OEG would like to see this changed. David F. Boehm, Esq. BOEHM, KURTZ & LOWRY 36 E. Seventh St., Suite 1510 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Ph: 513.421.2255 Fax: 513.421 .2764 dboehm@BKLlawfirm.com ** This message has been scaruied by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 126 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Seitz III, William J. Tuesday, August 13, 2013 3:52 PM Lynch, Jamie Re: Statement Yes. Taft I William J. Seitz Ill / Of Counsel Taft Stettin ius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: 513 .381 .2838 •Fax: 513.381 .0205 Direct: 513.357 .9332 •Cell: 513.382.8281 www.taftlaw.com I seitz@taftlaw.com From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 03:43 PM To: Seitz III, William J. Subject: RE: Statement If Pine doesn't call me back by 4 do you just want me to submit what we have? Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Seitz III, William J. [mailto:seitz@taftlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 2:51 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Re: Statement I like what caucus drahed. On sb 58 call pine and see if he is amenable to any of boehm randazzo changes. Then submit what we have so far. Taft I William J. Seitz Ill / Of Counsel Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: 513.381.2838 • Fax: 513.381.0205 Direct: 513.357.9332 • Cell: 513 .382.8281 www.taftlaw.com I seitz@taftlaw.com 127 From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 01:52 PM To: Seitz III, William J. Subject: FW: Statement Below is the sample text that the Caucus sent out to use when responding to those IQ emails. Do you prefer what I had drafted up or this one? Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov Internal Revenue SeNice Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations. advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attact1ments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Nielson, Stephen Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:51 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: FW: Statement From: Eck, Joshua Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 11:05 AM To: Nielson, Stephen Subject: Statement "I would like to apologize for the delay in responding to your message. The Ohio Senate recently adopted new software to manage communications submitted through the online form on our website. This system inadvertently redirected many emails intended for me and several other legislators. I assure you that I highly value the input I receive from my constituents, and I have worked with my Senate staff to ensure that this issue has been resolved." JOSHUA ECK Press Secretary Ohio Senate I Majority Caucus 0: 614.466.9009 I C: 440.396.3 739 128 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Seitz ill, William J. Tuesday, August 13, 2013 2:51 PM Lynch, Jamie Re: Statement I like what caucus drafted. On sb 58 call pine and see if he is amenable to any of boehm randazzo changes. Then submit what we have so far. Taft I William J. Seitz Ill / Of Counsel Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: 513.381.2838 •Fax: 513.381 .0205 Direct: 513.357.9332 •Cell : 513.382.8281 www.taftlaw.com I seitz@taftlaw.com From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 01:52 PM To: Seitz III, William J. Subject: FW: Statement Below is the sample text that the Caucus sent out to use when responding to those IQ emails. Do you prefer what I had drafted up or this one? Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Nielson, Stephen Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:51 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: FW: Statement 129 From: Eck, Joshua Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 11:05 AM To: Nielson, Stephen Subject: Statement "I would like to apologize for the delay in responding to your message. The Ohio Senate recently adopted new software to manage communications submitted through the online form on our website. This system inadvertently redirected many emails intended for me and several other legislators. I assure you that I highly value the input I receive from my constituents, and I have worked with my Senate staff to ensure that this issue has been resolved." JOSHUA ECK Press Secretary Ohio Senate I Majority Caucus 0: 614.466.90091 C: 440.396.3739 130 Nielson, Stephen From: Sam Randazzo Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:16 AM Lynch, Jamie Scott Elisar RE: An Example of What "Mercantile Customers" Have Experienced on the Implementation Side of the SB 221 Portfolio Mandates. Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Thanks again (also to you and the Senator). The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you . ...Sam Randazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (founded I 9? 5) E_. 5tak Street, 17th floor, Columbus, Ohio+) 2 15 (61 +) 71 9-28""1·0 (off.Ice), (61 +) "'1·69-4·65) (bx) (611)) 95-1·268 (cell) sam@mwncmh.com (e-ma il) 21 From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:09 AM To: Sam Randazzo Subject: RE: An Example of What "Mercantile Customers" Have Experienced on the Implementation Side of the SB 221 Portfolio Mandates. Sam-he also wanted me to thank you for this email. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Sam Randazzo [mailto:sam@mwncmh.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 4:00 PM To: Lynch, Jamie; Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; Scott Elisar; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: An Example of What "Mercantile Customers" Have Experienced on the Implementation Side of the SB 221 Portfolio Mandates. 131 Good afternoon: In our last meeting, we briefly referenced the frustration experienced on the implementation side of SB 221 's portfolio mandates with regard to the "mercantile customer" opt-out opportunity that is a part of current law. As you may recall, this opt-out opportunity is contained in Section 4928.66 and current law requires the PUCO to apply the mercantile customer provisions of current law to facilitate " ... efforts by a mercantile customer or group of those customers to offer customer-sited demandresponse, energy efficiency, including waste energy recovery and combined heat and power, or peak demand reduction capabilities to the electric distribution utility as part of a reasonable arrangement submitted to the commission pursuant to section 4905.31 of the Revised Code" for purposes of helping electric distribution utilities meet their compliance obligations. In exchange for this "in kind" compliance contribution, a mercantile customer is allowed to seek an exemption from the compliance cost recovery mechanism and obtain such an exemption if and when the PUCO approves the requested exemption. On December 12, 2009, Appleton Papers Inc. ("API"), [a mercantile customer which, at the time, operated a manufacturing facility employing over 300 people in West Carrollton, Ohio] and The Dayton Power and Light Company ("DP&L") filed a joint application with the PUCO pursuant to Section 4905 .31, Revised Code, to facilitate DP&L's reliance on APl's demand reduction capabilities for purposes of complying with the mandates in Section 4928.66, Revised Code. The joint application also asked that the PUCO approve, for API, an exemption from the compliance cost recovery mechanism in exchange for APl's contribution towards DP&L's compliance with the 4928.66 mandates (energy efficiency and peak demand reduction). The joint application then awaited the PUCO's response with API continuing to pay the compliance cost recovery charge while the application was pending at the PUCO. For various reasons and while the joint application was still pending at the PUCO, API announced (in early 2012) that it would discontinue operations at the West Carrollton manufacturing facility and reduce employment by some 335 people (the ultimate "demand response"). On September 20 , 2012, the PUCO Staff issued a report on the December 12, 2009 joint application. The report essentially recommended that the December 12, 2009 joint application, including the requested exemption from the compliance cost recovery mechanism, be approved by the Commission. Today, August 7, 2013, the PUCO approved the December 12, 2009 joint application filed by DP&L and API. The PUCO's order is attached. Since API had to pay the compliance cost recover rider while the joint application was pending and since API had already ceased its papermaking operations at the West Carrollton facility, the PUCO's order approving the December 12, 2009 joint application permits DP&L to refund the compliance cost that API sought to avoid in the joint application. The PUCO's August 7, 2013 order approving the December 12, 2009 application also states, however, that the approval remains under the PUCO's " ... supervision and regulation, and is subject to change, alteration, or modification by the Commission." More detailed information about the APl/DP&L joint application is available http://dis.puc.state.oh.us/CaseRecord .aspx?CaseNo:09-1701&x:O&y: O . via the PUCO's website at We have previously communicated our concerns about the effect of these SB 221 implementation challenges to the attention of the PUCO as well as members of the General Assembly. Should your much appreciated SB 58 efforts result in improvements to current law and its implementation, I regret 132 that the improvements will not be of use to API or the 335 people formerly employed at the West Carrollton facility. I hope this information is useful. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this particular situation or the other similar cases. Best regards, Sam The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. Sam Randazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (founded 19; 5) 21 r._. State Street, 17th flocw, Columbus, Ohio •f?2 15 (61 +) 719-28-4·0 (oFFice), (614}'1·69-+65? (tax) (61+)?95-4268 (cell) sam@mwncmh.com (e-mail) ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 133 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:09 AM 'Sam Randazzo' RE: An Example of What "Mercantile Customers" Have Experienced on the Implementation Side of the SB 221 Portfolio Mandates. Sam-he also wanted me to thank you for this email. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Sam Randazzo [mailto:sam@mwncmh.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 4:00 PM To: Lynch, Jamie; Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; Scott Elisar; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: An Example of What "Mercantile Customers" Have Experienced on the Implementation Side of the SB 221 Portfolio Mandates. Good afternoon: In our last meeting, we briefly referenced the frustration experienced on the implementation side of SB 221 's portfolio mandates with regard to the "mercantile customer" opt-out opportunity that is a part of current law. As you may recall, this opt-out opportunity is contained in Section 4928.66 and current law requires the PUCO to apply the mercantile customer provisions of current law to facilitate "... efforts by a mercantile customer or group of those customers to offer customer-sited demandresponse, energy efficiency, including waste energy recovery and combined heat and power, or peak demand reduction capabilities to the electric distribution utility as part of a reasonable arrangement submitted to the commission pursuant to section 4905.31 of the Revised Code" for purposes of helping electric distribution utilities meet their compliance obligations. In exchange for this "in kind" compliance contribution, a mercantile customer is allowed to seek an exemption from the compliance cost recovery mechanism and obtain such an exemption if and when the PUCO approves the requested exemption. On December 12, 2009, Appleton Papers Inc. ("API"), [a mercantile customer which, at the time, operated a manufacturing facility employing over 300 people in West Carrollton, Ohio] and The Dayton Power and Light Company ("DP&L") filed a joint application with the PUCO pursuant to Section 4905.31, Revised Code, to facilitate DP&L's reliance on APl's demand reduction capabilities for purposes of complying with the mandates in Section 4928 .66, Revised Code. The joint application also asked that the PUCO approve, for API, an exemption from the compliance cost recovery mechanism in exchange for APl's contribution towards DP&L's compliance with the 4928.66 mandates (energy efficiency and peak demand reduction). The joint application then awaited the 137 PUCO's response with API continuing to pay the compliance cost recovery charge while the application was pending at the PUCO. For various reasons and while the joint application was still pending at the PUCO, API announced (in early 2012) that it would discontinue operations at the West Carrollton manufacturing facility and reduce employment by some 335 people (the ultimate "demand response"). On September 20, 2012, the PUCO Staff issued a report on the December 12, 2009 joint application. The report essentially recommended that the December 12, 2009 joint application, including the requested exemption from the compliance cost recovery mechanism, be approved by the Commission. Today, August 7, 2013, the PUCO approved the December 12, 2009 joint application filed by DP&L and API. The PUCO's order is attached. Since API had to pay the compliance cost recover rider while the joint application was pending and since API had already ceased its papermaking operations at the West Carrollton facility, the PUCO's order approving the December 12, 2009 joint application permits DP&L to refund the compliance cost that API sought to avoid in the joint application. The PUCO's August 7, 2013 order approving the December 12, 2009 application also states, however, that the approval remains under the PUCO's " ... supervision and regulation, and is subject to change, alteration, or modification by the Commission." More detailed information about the APl/DP&L joint application is available via the PUCO's website at http://d is.puc.state .oh. us/Case Record .aspx?CaseNo=09-1701 &x=O&y=O . We have previously communicated our concerns about the effect of these SB 221 implementation challenges to the attention of the PUCO as well as members of the General Assembly. Should your much appreciated SB 58 efforts result in improvements to current law and its implementation, I regret that the improvements will not be of use to API or the 335 people formerly employed at the West Carrollton facility. I hope this information is useful. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this particular situation or the other similar cases. Best regards, Sam The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you . Sam Randazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (founded I 9? 5) 21 E... 5tate 5t:rect, 17th r1001-, Columbus, Ohio4·;,215 (614-) 71 9-28-'l·O (oFFice), (614·) +6 9-4·6 5? (tax) (614·) ? 9 5-426 8 (cell) sam@mwncmh.com (e-mail) 138 **This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 139 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sam Randazzo Monday, July 29, 2013 4:44 PM Lynch, Jamie; 'Tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'cdwright@aep.com'; Scott Elisar; 'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)'; 'dboehm@bkllawfirm.com'; john.keaton@duke-energy.com'; 'tom.raga@dplinc.com'; 'steve.lake@dplinc.com'; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; 'craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov'; 'jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov' Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen RE: SB 58 IP Meeting Call-In Info Good afternoon: In a recent meeting, we discussed the growing appreciation of the relationship between waterwastewater demands and energy use. Below are links to some information on this subject. http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/sustain/waterefficiency.cfm Make the Drops-to-Watts Connection Being water and energy efficient provides a wide range of benefits-for utilities, consumers, businesses and the community as a whole. Using less water means moving and treating less water, which helps reduce the strain on our water supplies and drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Delivering water and wastewater services is also an energy-intensive effort, as the water is treated, pumped to our homes and businesses, then pumped to wastewater facilities to be treated again. EPA estimates 3-4 percent of national electricity consumption, equivalent to approximately 56 billion kilowatts (kW), or $4 billion, is used in providing drinking water and wastewater services each year. Water and wastewater utilities are typically the largest consumers of energy in municipalities, often accounting for 30-40 percent of total energy consumed. Pursuing energy efficiency at our water sector systems can significantly reduce operating costs, while mitigating the effects of climate change. http://www.nrdc.org/water/conservation/edrain/execsum.asp http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=business.bus water http://www.ucsusa.org/clean energy/our-energv-choices/energy-and-water-use/energy-andwater.html I hope this information is useful. Sam The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. 144 Sam l\.andazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (founded 19 ~ 5) 5tate 5treet, 17th t=loo1-, Columbus, Qhio 4?21 5 (6 I 4) 7 I 9-284·0 (o~~ice) , (6 I 4·) 469--'l·G5? (fax) (614) ? 9 5-426 8 (cell) sarn@mwncmh.com (e-mail) 2 I [.. From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 1:13 PM To: 'Tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'cdwright@aep.com'; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; 'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)'; 'dboehm@bkllawfirm.com'; 'john.keaton@duke-energy.com'; 'tom.raga@dplinc.com'; 'steve.lake@dplinc.com'; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; 'craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov'; 'jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov' Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 IP Meeting Call-In Info All-for those of you who plan on participating in the IP meeting on Thursday by phone, please see the call-in information below. Let me know if you have any questions. 1-800-330-5498 Passcode:5133579332 Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone:(614)466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov **This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 145 Nielson, Stephen From: Scott Elisar Monday, July 29, 2013 3:29 PM Lynch, Jamie Sam Randazzo; Debbie Ryan RE: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting/IEU Ohio meeting August 1 @ 11:00 image002Jpg Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Jamie: Thank you! We (Sam and myself) will be there. Thank you as well for your work in assisting us in having Senator Seitz speak to our IEU Ohio group this Thursday at 11 :00 am at Little Turtle Golf Club. Following up on my voicemail - If it helps Senator Seitz, our !EU-Ohio's members would be interested in Senator Seitz's thoughts concerning: • The public policy behind Senate Bill 58 and its potential impact on the electricity portfolio regulatory framework in Ohio; • the relative roles of regulation and markets in serving the public interest in establishing reasonable prices and reliable service; • the contributions that stakeholders must make to help elected officials strike the right balance and serve the public interest and; • the General Assembly's ability or willingness to effectively oversee the performance of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) in view of all the other responsibilities that must be attended to by the General Assembly. Thank you again for all of your help and assistance. Should you want or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. VVe look forward to seeing Senator Seitz on August 1st. Sincerely, Scott Elisar Scott E. Elisar McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC 21 E. State Street, 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 719-2850 (Direct Dial) (614) 395-3925 (Mobile) (614) 469-4653 (Fax) selisar@mwncmh.com 146 Mc Nees Wallace &:Nuri<:k t.Lc The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230, unless we expressly state otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communications (including any attachments) was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matter(s) addressed herein. From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamle.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig. w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.Ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting AllWe are confirmed for a meeting next Thursday at 2PM at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister in the Chester Board Room. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you require a conference call to be set up. As of now, it looks like everyone will be able to attend in-person so please let me know in advance if we need to set up a line for you. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:28 PM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aeo.com; cdwriqht@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dpllnc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig.w.butler@qovernor.ohio .gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigarl, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting All-as was discussed in Tuesday's meeting, we would like to hold another SB 58 IP meeting next Thursday, August 1st, at 1PM here in Columbus. Please respond with your availability at your earliest convenience so we can get this confirmed. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch 147 Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 148 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Monday, July 29, 2013 1:13 PM 'Tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; 'mbrello@aep.com'; 'cdwright@aep.com'; 'sam@mwncmh.com'; 'selisar@mwncmh.com'; 'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)'; 'dboehm@bkllawfirm.com'; 'john.keaton@duke-energy.com'; 'tom.raga@dplinc.com'; 'steve.lake@dplinc.com'; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; 'craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov'; 'jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov' Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen SB 58 IP Meeting Call-In Info All-for those of you who plan on participating in the IP meeting on Thursday by phone, please see the call-in information below. Let me know if you have any questions. 1-800-330-5498 Passcode: 5133579332 Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 149 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: Subject: Mike Brello Friday, July 26, 2013 7:07 PM Lynch, Jamie Re: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Completed To: Thanks Jamie. We will need call-in info. On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:44 AM, "Lynch, Jamie" wrote: This is an EXTERNAL email. STOP. THINK before you CLICK links or OPEN attachments. AllWe are confirmed for a meeting next Thursday at 2PM at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister in the Chester Board Room. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you require a conference call to be set up. As of now, it looks like everyone will be able to attend in-person so please let me know in advance if we need to set up a line for you. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:28 PM To: Tplne@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@dukeenergy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting All-as was discussed in Tuesday's meeting, we would like to hold another SB 58 IP meeting next Thursday, August 1st, at lPM here in Columbus. Please respond with your availability at your earliest convenience so we can get this confirmed. Thank you in advance, 150 Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone:(614)466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 151 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Lynch, Jamie Friday, July 26, 2013 10:46 AM Senator Jones RE: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting imageOOljpg; image002Jpg Okay, thanks for letting me know. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: J amie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Senator Jones Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 10:27 AM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: RE: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting Hey Jamie, Senator Jones' husband will be out of town that day so she'll have to stay home with her kids. I'll ask her about conferencing in, but as of now she's just asked to be filled in on what happens. Thanks! Maggie Ward Legislative Aide Office of Senator Shannon Jones (614) 466-9737 maggie.ward@ohiosenate.gov From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig .w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting All- 152 We are confirmed for a meeting next Thursday at 2PM at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister in the Chester Board Room. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you require a conference call to be set up. As of now, it looks like everyone will be able to attend in-person so please let me know in advance if we need to set up a line for you. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614)466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:28 PM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig. w. butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy .sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting All-as was discussed in Tuesday's meeting, we would like to hold another SB 58 IP meeting next Thursday, August 1st, at lPM here in Columbus. Please respond with your availability at your earliest convenience so we can get this confirmed. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 153 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Senator Jones Friday, July 26, 2013 10:27 AM Lynch, Jamie RE: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting imageOOljpg; image002jpg Hey Jamie, Senator Jones' husband will be out of town that day so she'll have to stay home with her kids. I'll ask her about conferencing in, but as of now she's just asked to be filled in on what happens. Thanks! Maggie Ward Legislative Aide Office of Senator Shannon Jones (614) 466-9737 maggie.ward@ohiosenate.gov From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dpllnc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig. w. butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy .sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting AllWe are confirmed for a meeting next Thursday at 2PM at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister in the Chester Board Room. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you require a conference call to be set up. As of now, it looks like everyone will be able to attend in-person so please let me know in advance if we need to set up a line for you. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 154 -------~- From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:28 PM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig. w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy .sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting All-as was discussed in Tuesday's meeting, we would like to hold another SB 58 IP meeting next Thursday, August 151, at I PM here in Columbus. Please respond with your availability at your earliest convenience so we can get this confirmed. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 155 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Christine D Wright Friday, July 26, 2013 9:58 AM Lynch, Jamie Re: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting I will be there. Thank you for changing the meeting to 2 PM!I Have a wonderful weekend!! Chrisy Sent from my iPhone On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:44 AM, "Lynch, Jamie" wrote: This is an EXTERNAL email. STOP. THINK before you CLICK links or OPEN attachments. AllWe are confirmed for a meeting next Thursday at 2PM at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister in the Chester Board Room. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you require a conference call to be set up. As of now, it looks like everyone will be able to attend in-person so please let me know in advance if we need to set up a line for you. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:28 PM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@dukeenergy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting All-as was discussed in Tuesday's meeting, we would like to hold another SB 58 IP meeting next Thursday, August 1st, at IPM here in Columbus. 156 Please respond with your availability at your earliest convenience so we can get this confirmed. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J, Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 157 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Denny Larr Friday, July 26, 2013 9:46 AM Lynch, Jamie RE: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting Thanks, Jamie. From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr; dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; cralg.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting AllWe are confirmed for a meeting next Thursday at 2PM at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister in the Chester Board Room. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you require a conference call to be set up. As of now, it looks like everyone will be able to attend in-person so please let me know in advance if we need to set up a line for you. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:28 PM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dollnc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.cgm; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig.w.butler@g9vernor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting All-as was discussed in Tuesday's meeting, we would like to hold another SB 58 IP meeting next Thursday, August 1st, at 1PM here in Columbus. Please respond with your availability at your earliest convenience so we can get this confirmed. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch 158 Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 159 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting AllWe are confirmed for a meeting next Thursday at 2PM at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister in the Chester Board Room. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you require a conference call to be set up. As of now, it looks like everyone will be able to attend in-person so please let me know in advance if we need to set up a line for you. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:28 PM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting All-as was discussed in Tuesday's meeting, we would like to hold another SB 58 IP meeting next Thursday, August 151, at IPM here in Columbus. Please respond with your availability at your earliest convenience so we can get this confirmed. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 160 Email: gov 161 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: tpine@firstenergycorp.com Thursday, July 25, 2013 4:54 PM Lynch, Jamie Re: FW: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting ATTOOOOlJpg The FE team is available and will be in attendance. Thanks. Ty Pine Director, State Affairs-Ohio 100 E. Broad St, STE 2225 Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-358-0153 (0) 614-257-8926 (C) From: "Lynch, Jamie" To: "Tpine@.flrstenergycorp.com" , "rnbrello@aep.com" , "cdwrlght@aep.com" , "sam@mwncrnh.com" , "sellsar@mwncrnh.com" , "Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)" , "dboehm@bkllawflrm.com" , '1ohn.keaton@duke-energy.com" , ''tom.raga@dpllnc.com" , "steveJake@dpllnc.com" , Senator Jones , Senator Eklund , Senator Patton , Senator LaRose , Senator Balderson , "cralg.W.buller@governor.ohio.gov" , '1immy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov" Cc: "Strigari, Frank" , "Dunlap, Dana" , "Lust, Elizabeth" , "Christle, Ian" , "Regula, Emilie" , "Bennett, Greg" , "Nielson, Stephen" Date: 07/25/2013 02:14 PM Subject: FW: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting Please change the time on this request to 2PM instead of IPM for next Thursday. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:28 PM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; 162 steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; era ig. w. butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting All-as was discussed in Tuesday's meeting, we would like to hold another SB 58 IP meeting next Thursday, August 1st, at lPM here in Columbus. Please respond with your availability at your earliest convenience so we can get this confirmed. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov ----------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. 163 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Keaton, John A Thursday, July 25, 2013 4:11 PM Lynch, Jamie RE: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting Lee Barrett, Elizabeth Watts, and I will attend for Duke Energy. Unfortunately, Tim Duff has a prior commitment. Thanks. From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2: 13 PM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; Keaton, John A; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig. w. butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy .sheppard@governor.Ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: FW: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting Please change the time on this request to 2PM instead of lPM for next Thursday. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:28 PM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; sellsar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raqa@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craiq. w.butler@qovernor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.Ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting All-as was discussed in Tuesday's meeting, we would like to hold another SB 58 IP meeting next Thursday, August 15\ at lPM here in Columbus. Please respond with your availability at your earliest convenience so we can get this confirmed. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 164 Email: 165 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Butler, Craig W Thursday, July 25, 2013 3:01 PM Lynch, Jamie Re: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting I will attend Sent from my iPhone On Jul 25, 2013, at 2:14 PM, "Lynch, Jamie" wrote: Please change the time on this request to 2PM instead of lPM for next Thursday. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov ---------- - From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:28 PM To: Tpine@firstenerqycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@dukeenergy.com; tom.raqa@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; cralq.w.butler@goyernor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting All-as was discussed in Tuesday's meeting, we would like to hold another SB 58 IP meeting next Thursday, August 1si, at lPM here in Columbus. Please respond with your availability at your earliest convenience so we can get this confirmed. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 166 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: David Boehm Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:26 PM Lynch, Jamie RE: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting We will be there on behalf of OEG. Thank you. David F. Boehm, Esq. BOEHM, KURTZ & LOWRY 36 E. Seventh St., Suite 1510 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Ph: 513.421.2255 Fax: 513.421.2764 E-mail: DBoehm@BKLlawfirm.com From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2: 13 PM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); David Boehm; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig. w. butler@governor.Ohio.gov; jimmy .sheppard@governor.Ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: FW: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting Please change the time on this request to 2PM instead of IPM for next Thursday. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:28 PM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dbQehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig. w. butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.obio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting All-as was discussed in Tuesday's meeting, we would like to hold another SB 58 IP meeting next Thursday, August 1st, at 1PM here in Columbus. Please respond with your availability at your earliest convenience so we can get this confirmed. Thank you in advance, 167 Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 168 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lust, Elizabeth Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:25 PM Lynch, Jamie Huebner, Victoria RE: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting Jamie-Senator Eklund will be present. Elizabeth M. Lust Legislative Aide Senator John Eklund Ohio Senate Phone (614) 644-7718 elust@ohiosenate.gov From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2: 13 PM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; sellsar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig. w. butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy .sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: FW: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting Please change the time on this request to 2PM instead of 1PM for next Thursday. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:28 PM To: Tplne@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; sellsar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting All-as was discussed in Tuesday's meeting, we would like to hold another SB 58 IP meeting next Thursday, August 1st, at 1PM here in Columbus. Please respond with your availability at your earliest convenience so we can get this confirmed. 169 Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 170 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:13 PM Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen FW: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting Please change the time on this request to 2PM instead of 1PM for next Thursday. Thank.you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:28 PM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig. w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting All-as was discussed in Tuesday's meeting, we would like to hold another SB 58 IP meeting next Thursday, August 1st, at lPM here in Columbus. Please respond with your availability at your earliest convenience so we can get this confirmed. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 171 Nielson, Stephen From: Scott Elisar Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:51 PM Lynch, Jamie RE: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting image003jpg Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Jamie: We will be there - Either Sam or myself or both. Thank you Scott Scott E. Elisar McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC 21 E. State Street, 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 719-2850 (Direct Dial) (614) 395-3925 (Mobile) (614) 469-4653 (Fax) selisar@mwncmh.com Mc Nees Wallace Nu rick uc & The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230, unless we expressly state otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communications (including any attachments) was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matter(s) addressed herein. From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:28 PM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dpfinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig. w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting All-as was discussed in Tuesday's meeting, we would like to hold another SB 58 IP meeting next Thursday, August 1st, at 1PM here in Columbus. Please respond with your availability at your earliest convenience so we can get this confirmed. Thank you in advance, 172 Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.goy ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 173 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Denny Larr Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:30 PM Lynch, Jamie Dave Boehm (dboehm@bkllawfirm.com) RE: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting Works for me, Jamie. Thanks! From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:28 PM To: Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr; dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy .sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Cc: Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting All-as was discussed in Tuesday's meeting, we would like to hold another SB 58 IP meeting next Thursday, August 1st, at lPM here in Columbus. Please respond with your availability at your earliest convenience so we can get this confirmed. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 174 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lynch, Jamie Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:28 PM Tpine@firstenergycorp.com; mbrello@aep.com; cdwright@aep.com; sam@mwncmh.com; selisar@mwncmh.com; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); dboehm@bkllawfirm.com; john.keaton@duke-energy.com; tom.raga@dplinc.com; steve.lake@dplinc.com; Senator Jones; Senator Eklund; Senator Patton; Senator LaRose; Senator Balderson; craig.w.butler@governor.ohio.gov; jimmy.sheppard@governor.ohio.gov Strigari, Frank; Dunlap, Dana; Lust, Elizabeth; Christie, Ian; Regula, Emilie; Bennett, Greg; Nielson, Stephen SB 58 Follow-Up IP Meeting All-as was discussed in Tuesday's meeting, we would like to hold another SB 58 IP meeting next Thursday, August 1st, at lPM here in Columbus. Please respond with your availability at your earliest convenience so we can get this confirmed. Thank you in advance, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 175 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Nielson, Stephen Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:59 AM Lynch, Jamie FW: Proposed amendments to SB 58? graycol.gif From: Carolyn M Sisto [mailto:sistoc@dteenergy.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 5:27 PM To: Nielson, Stephen Subject: Proposed amendments to SB 58? Hi Stephen, I read an article suggesting that Senator Seitz had revised his proposed SB 58. Is it possible to get a copy of the revised legislative language? I would appreciate it. Carrie Sisto Environmental Regulatory Analyst DTE Energy Trading T: 415.653.3795 M: 202.441.1372 sistoc@dteenergy.com AIM: carrie sisto '%}' "Nielson, Stephen" ---09/25/2013 11:20:10 attached documents. This is the version of AM--~Dear Ms. Sisto, Senator Seitz wanted me to send you the From : "Nielson, Stephen" To: '"sistoc@dteenergy.com"' Date: 09/25/2013 11 :20 AM Subject: RE: Constituent Form Submission Dear Ms. Sisto, Senator Seitz wanted me to send you the attached documents. bill being rolled out later today. Thanks, Stephen Nielson 4 This is the version of the -----Original Message----From: sistoc@dteenergy.com [ma ilto:sistoc @dteener gy . com] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 10:19 AM To: SD08iqima Subject: Constituent Form Submission CUSTOM Carrie Sisto 2429 canterbury rd cleveland heights OH 44118 202.441.1372 sistoc@dteenergy .com< / EMAIL> Public Utilities Hello, I am interested in the legislation Senator Seitz intends to introduce that would change the Ohio renewable portfolio standards and energy efficiency requirements. I read in the Columbus Dispatch that he intends to propose the bill today (September 25, 2013). Is there a copy of the bill publicly available? Or could I please have a copy sent to me via email? I would appreciate it. Thanks, Carrie Sisto sistoc@dteenergy.com [attachment "130_LB_0592_6.pdf" deleted by Carolyn M Sisto/Employees/dteenergy] [attachment "L-0592-6-chart A.pdf" deleted by Carolyn M Sisto/Employees/dteenergy] [attachment "L-0592-6-chart B.pdf" deleted by Carolyn M Sisto/Employees/dteenergy] 5 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Tom Raga Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:24 PM Senator Seitz Lynch, Jamie; Mike Brello (mbrello@aep.com) Requested Response OMA Response 12-10-13.pdf Attached is a one-pager responsive to the request regarding OMA and Jacobson. Thanks, Tom This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-Mail, in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender by return e-Mail and delete this e-Mail from your system. Unless explicitly and conspicuously stated in the subject matter of the above e-Mail, this e-Mail does not constitute a contract offer a contract amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-Mail does not constitute consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties. 8 RESPONSE TO OMA 12/3/13 DOCUMENT & JEFF JACOBSON DOCUMENT The most recent critiques of Senate Bill 58 are more of the same. Parties, like the OMA that directly benefit from government-mandated spending, ignore the underlying problem of the current law: Government-imposed energy efficiency mandates are scheduled to increase over time, doubling in 2019 and doubling the costs of energy efficiency for all Ohioans. In considering whether we should change this law and stop runaway costs, one critic asks, "Do Senators really want to take that responsibility?" The answer is yes - Senators should take "that responsibility" and not leave future cost escalation, as this critic suggests, up to the PUCO's "discretion and based on its interpretation of state law." (quotes from paragraph 3 of Jacobson document) Senate Bill 58, in contrast to current law, is about cost caps and cost controls. Under SB 58, a utility will be capped at its 2013 approved expenditures regardless of the targets. Under the current law, there is no cap. Utilities will have no choice but to develop future plans, at ever increasing expenditure levels, to comply with ever increasing targets. When does it stop? And yes, it is true that utilities will get shared savings under SB 58. But, all of the utilities are getting shared savings under today's current law. Shared savings provide utilities with an incentive to control costs and implement energy efficiency programs that maximize benefits for consumers. That's a good incentive mechanism. As with total expenditures, shared savings are capped as well. In the case of AEP, for instance, shared savings are capped at current levels. For others, shared savings are capped as a percentage of overall expenditures. In terms of what counts, SB 58 allows common sense counting. When equipment is installed or companies adopt new processes that save energy, those savings count. Under current law, savings are calculated using complex assumptions that utilities have to spend customer money to verify. If that is not enough, the state then spends additional customer money to audit the auditors. While SB 58 is not perfect, it sets out reasonable cost controls to replace a law that was enacted under very different circumstances. It is interesting that the critics never explain what current law will cost customers in 2019. Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Senator Seitz Wednesday, December 04, 2013 10:46 AM Tpine@firstenergycorp.com FW: Amendment Request Legislation 2013 December Shared savings sunset 12-3-13 vl.doc Ty--what do you want us to do with this? -----Original Message----From: Pappas Porner, Leah [mailto:lpappasporner@calfee.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 7:36 PM To: Lynch, Jamie; Senator Seitz; Home - Senator Seitz Cc: Ty Pine Subject: Fw: Amendment Request Please see attached. Let us know if you have any questions. From: burkj@firstenergycorp.com Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 7:01 PM To: Pappas Porner, Leah Cc: Michael J. Dowling; mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com; Ty Pine; bbingaman@firstenergycorp.com; eyeboah@firstenergycorp.com; agrealy@firstenergycorp.com; jbiltz@firstenergycorp.com Subject: Re: Fw: Amendment Request Here is the corrected amendment ***************************************** James W. Burk Managing Counsel FirstEnergy Service Company 76 South Main Street Akron, Ohio 44308 330-384-5861 (voice) 330-384-3875 (office fax) Email: burkj@firstenergycorp.com From: "Pappas Porner, Leah" 26 To: James Burk , Ty Pine , "Michael J. Dowling" , "mikkelsene@firstenergycorp.com" Date: 12/03/2013 06:08 PM Subject: Fw: Amendment Request From: Lynch, Jamie Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 6:04 PM To: Pappas Porner, Leah Subject: FW: Amendment Request Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us [mailto:kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:50 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: Re: Amendment Request Senator Seitz, The language in the attachment submitted below may conflict with the provisions of the -8 version of SB 58 in lines 1922-1933 (see below). Please let me know how you would like me to draft this amendment. Do you want the amendment to replace the -8 language? If not, do you want the shared savings mechanism tied to the cost cap (as in the -8 version) or to the after-tax net benefits associated with the programs as measured by the utility cost test (as in the language from the attachment.)? Would you like to add "Through December 31, 2018, to the beginning of Division (B) below and retain the other -8 language? Should the "subsequent to 2018" date apply to the curtailed shared savings incentive referred to in division 4928.6616 (C) of the -8 version? Or, do you want the amendment to replace the division (C) language with the language in the attachment which states: "Subsequent to 2018, the commission shall approve shared savings incentive mechanisms consistent with amounts included in previously approved compliance plans"? Please let me know if my questions are unclear. Thank you. 27 Sincerely, Kathy Kathleen Luikart Research Associate Legislative Service Commission 77 South High Street, 9th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-6136 {614) 466-4071 Lines 1922-1933 of LSC 130 0592-8, RC 4928.6616--the cost cap provision (B) The total annualized shared savings incentive authorized for an electric distribution utility's compliance plan as provided under section 4928.6611 of the Revised Code shall not exceed the lesser of one-third of the cost cap total calculated under division (A)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable, for the same compliance year or twenty million dollars. (C) If an electric distribution utility does not meet the energy efficiency and peak demand reduction requirements in a calendar year and has not met the applicable cost cap in that calendar year, the public utilities commission may curtail the total annualized shared savings incentive authorized under section 4928.6611 of the Revised Code for that year. From: "Lynch, Jamie" To: "kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us" Date: 12/03/2013 10:24 AM Subject: Amendment Request Leah Pappas Porner Attorney At Law lpa ppasporner@ca!fee.com 614.621.7007 Phone 614.621.0010 Fax 28 Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP 1100 Fifth Third Center 21 East State Street Columbus, OH 43215-4243 [http://vcard.ca lfee .com/images/logo.gif] V-card I www.calfee.com IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Nothing contained herein or in any attachment hereto is intended to be used, or can be used, to avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential and legally privileged information from the law firm of Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP intended only for the use of the individual(s) identified as addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this electronic mail transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me by telephone immediately. Kathy-please see enclosed for one additional amendment request for Sub. S.B. 58. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov Leah Pappas Porner Attorney At Law lpappasporner@calfee.com 614.621.7007 Phone 614.621.0010 Fax Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP 1100 Fifth Third Center 29 21 East State Street Columbus, OH 43215-4243 [http://vcard.ca Ifee.com/images/logo.gif] V-card I www.calfee.com IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Nothing contained herein or in any attachment hereto is intended to be used, or can be used, to avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential and legally privileged information from the law firm of Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP intended only for the use of the individual(s) identified as addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this electronic mail transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me by telephone immediately. [attachment "2013_12_03_10_18_56.pdf" deleted by James W. Burk/FirstEnergy] 30 Amendments December 2, 2013 Actual Amendment In line 1820 delete "and (C)" In line 1821 insert a period after the word "mechanism". Strike "that". In line 1822 strike "permits". Line 1822 Insert "Through December 31, 2018, the shared savings mechanism shall permit" before the first use of the word "the" In line 1824, delete the comma following the word "test" and insert ". Subsequent to 2018, the commission shall approve shared savings incentive mechanisms consistent with amounts included in previously approved compliance plans." Line 1824 Delete "provided that such incentive mechanism" and insert "A shared savings incentive mechanism under this division" Line 1922, insert at beginning of line "Through the compliance year ending on December 31, 2018," and delete "The" and insert "the" in its place. So that lines 1820 through 1827 would read: (C) Subject to the limit described in division (B) of section 4928.6616, a shared savings incentive mechanism. that permits December 31 1 2018 , the shared savings mechanism shall p ermit the utility to retain one-third of the after-tax net benefits associated with ..::...::..:::..=_+"'":...i;;,.::=-=-=-=-=--..."'-=-.::.....t=--::~:.........::=-_:_:_:_=-=-=-==--::-=--.=...L___::a.::..__;u~t~i~ ·1~1 ~ ·t .=.,,_ cost test. Subsequent to with amounts included in previously approved compliance t such incentive mechanism A shared savin s incentive including activities described in sections 4928.6627 and 4928.6640 of the Revised Code, but excluding the following: Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Lynch, Jamie Wednesday, December 04, 2013 10:45 AM lpappasporner@calfee.com FW: SB 58 -- OMA Analysis of Sub Bill OMA Sub SB 58 ExecBrief (Dec) FINAL.PDF Here is the OMA letter. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov --- ---- From: Ryan Augsburger [mailto:raugsburger@Ohiomfg.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:06 PM To: Senate-OH Cc: Ryan Augsburger Subject: SB 58 -- OMA Analysis of Sub Bill Please find attached an executive briefing of the new sub bill which was informally distributed on November 25. Please provide this document to the Senator in advance of SB 58 deliberations. The OMA opposes the legislation. Sub. SB 58 remains a huge giveaway to electric utility companies. The bill unjustifiably overcompensates utilities, eliminates impc>rtant customer protections and will drive up electricity costs for all customers for many years to come. In the interest of manufacturing competitiveness and consumer protection, the OMA strongly urges the Ohio Senate to reject Sub. SB 58. Ryan Augsburger Managing Director, Public Policy Services The Ohio Manufacturers' Association Protecting and growing Ohio manufacturing www.ohiomfq.com 33 N. High Street Columbus, OH 43215 Tel: 614.629.6817 Mobile: 614.348.1227 raugsburger@ohiomfq.com 31 Substitute Senate Bill 58 Executive Overview December 3, 2013 The OMA remains strongly opposed to Substitute Senate Bill 58 (Sub. SB 58). The most recent substitute bill (Nov. 25, 2013) fails to address many critical substantive and technical concerns raised by customers about the previous version of the bill. In its current form, the legislation remains a huge giveaway to utilities and threatens to wipe out billions of dollars in projected energy savings for Ohio businesses and residents. Not only are the latest changes to Sub. SB 58 insufficient and largely unresponsive to customer concerns, but the bill now contains a number of new and revised provisions that are even worse for customers than the previous version of the legislation. For example: • Sub. SB 58 allows savings from municipal electric systems' and rural electric coops' energy efficiency and peak demand reduction improvements to count toward utilities' compliance requirements - even though the municipals and co-ops are not part of the investor-owned utility distribution system. This allows the utilities to collect 33 percent profit on those savings - savings the utilities had no involvement in creating. • Sub. SB 58 allows savings from non-electric energy efficiency and peak demand reductions to count toward the utilities' compliance requirements. This requires electric customers to pay for non-electric energy efficiency improvements. • Sub. SB 58 allows utilities to recover shared savings incentives (profits) on compliance savings that are banked and used in a future year, without precluding utilities' recovery of profits in the year the savings occur as well. This creates an opportunity for utilities to enjoy double profits for the same energy savings. • Sub. SB 58 allows each utility to decide - at its sole discretion - whether (a) the revised law applies to the utility while its existing plan is in effect, or (b) the utility has to follow its existing plan. The bill is unclear what happens if the utility chooses to be subject to the revised law while continuing its existing plan and that plan conflicts with the revised law. The bill also allows a utility that elects to be governed by the revised law to choose not to be subject to a cost cap while its existing plan is in effect. • Sub. SB 58 specifies that, through a revenue decoupling mechanism, a utility may recover the applicable rate of return associated with the cost of providing distribution service - irrespective of whether the utility actually provides the distribution service to customers. This is another example of SB 58's unwarranted giveaways to utilities. [continued] • Sub. SB 58 expands what counts as renewable energy to Include Ohio "run-of-theriver" hydroelectric generation facilities placed in service since 1980 or rated to operate at an aggregate of 40 Megawatts or more. This provision runs counter to the intent of Ohio's renewable energy policy, which is to incentivize new renewable generation sources - not generation sources that are 30-plus years old. Sub. SB 58 remains a huge giveaway to electric utility companies. The bill unjustifiably overcompensates utilities, eliminates important customer protections and will drive up electricity costs for all customers for many years to come. In the interest of manufacturing competitiveness and consumer protection, the OMA strongly urges the Ohio Senate to reject Sub. SB 58. # # # 2 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Lynch, Jamie Wednesday, December 04, 2013 10:43 AM lpappasporner@calfee.com FW: Senate Bill 58 - Bad for Ohioans' Electric Bills Consumers' Counsel Letter on SB 58 120313.pdf Here is the OCC letter. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: gerfen@occ.state.oh.us [mailto:gerfen@occ.state.oh.us] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:46 PM To: Senator Seitz Subject: Senate Bill 58 - Bad for Ohioans' Electric Bills Dear Senators: Here is a letter from Consumers' Counsel Weston on this legislation that may have a vote in the Public Utilities Committee and possibly on the floor of the Senate tomorrow. In the letter, the Consumers' Counsel recommends that, in the interests of Ohio utility customers, the legilsaiton should not become law. Thank you for your consideration. Scott Gerfen Public Affairs Liaison Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel 614-668-3355 (Cell) 614-466-9 581 (Office) 32 Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel Your Residential Utility Consumer Advocate December 3, 2013 Senator Joe Schiavoni, Assistant Minority Leader Senator Bill Seitz, Public Utilities Committee Chairman Members of the Ohio Senate Senator Keith Faber, President Senator Chris Widener, President Pro Tempore Senator Eric Kearney, Minority Leader Re: Senate Bill 58- Bad for Ohioans' Electric Bills Dear Senators: Tomorrow's potential votes in the Senate Public Utilities Committee and on the Senate floor come at a time when 33 states have residential electricity prices that, on average, are lower than electricity prices for consumers in Ohio. (This ranking is based on data of the U.S. Energy Information Administration.) The legislation will hurt, not help, with improving our electricity prices for Ohio businesses and consumers. I recommend that the legislation not be enacted into Ohio law. The likely subject of tomorrow's vote is the revised version of Substitute Senate Bill 58 that was circulated last week. What follows are my staffs estimates of the revised legislation's electric bill impacts for Ohio households and businesses. Ohio's four million households could pay, on average, as much as $528 more for their electric service under Senate Bill 58, over a utility's three-year energy efficiency plan. For another perspective on the bill impact of the legislation, attached is a graphic showing the estimated premium that electric utilities could charge to Ohioans for energyefficient light bulbs under the legislation's allowances for "shared savings" and "lost revenues." Ohio's businesses could pay, on average, as much as $3,291 more for their electric service under Senate Bill 58, over a utility's three-year energy efficiency plan. My staff estimated this bill impact by summing the projected utility program costs along with the "lost revenues" and "shared savings" that utilities can charge to customers. Business and residential customers will also pay more in future three-year energy-efficiency plans. Despite the opportunities for public testimony on the Substitute Bill, such testimony has been noticeably absent from the electric utilities themselves. Before you vote, please consider having Ohio's electric utilities appear before the Senate Committee to provide you and the public with, among other things, their estimates of the bill impacts of the legislation. I thank the Committee Chairman and Members for the opportunity to testify before the Committee and for consideration of our proposals on affordable electric bills for Ohioans. Sincerely, /CCU£:;;:-Bruce Weston Ohio Consumers' Counsel (614) 387-2969 Attachment 10 West Broad Street, 18th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215-3485 (614) 466-1310 www.occ.ohio.gov The Hidden Cost of a Lightbulb Under Proposed Senate Bill 58 As Supported by the Ohio Electric Utilities 20 Watt Compact Flourescent Llghtbulb ("CFL") installed in 2009 Special Senate Bill 58 pricing! ~5 20 Watt LED Lightbulb installed in 2009 Special Senate Bill 58 pricing! $*5 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: Subject: Attachments: Lynch, Jamie Wednesday, December 04, 2013 9:31 AM Public Utilities; rep27@ohiohouse.gov; Strigari, Frank; Senator Obhof; Senator Faber; Senator Widener FW: Cost to Ohio Taxpayers of Federal PTC State-Level-lmpact-of-Federal-Wind-Subsidies.pdf Importance: High To: AllPlease see enclosed per Chairman Seitz's request. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Julie Johnson [mailto:juliejohnson@ctcn.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:27 PM To: Senator Seitz Subject: Cost to Ohio Taxpayers of Federal PTC Importance: High Senator- You might find this newly released report to be of some value tomorrow. Among other things, the report documents Ohio is a net payer of taxes to underwrite the PTC in windier states. The figure for Ohio is a net loss of $103,847,353.90. Julie 34 Estimating the State-Level lmpact??ji? of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies i? December 2013 Executive Summary This paper examines the distributional impacts of the wind production tax credit (PTC). The obvious difficulty of this examination is the fact that over the past I0 years (the life of the PTC) some eligible wind facilities have elected to take the investment tax credit (ITC) and the Section 1603 grant program instead of the PTC. As we explain below, this does not change the distributional nature of federal wind subsidies, but merely the timing. 1 For the purposes of this paper, we assume that all wind production built over the last I0 years in the United States elected to take the PTC. We call this the proxy PTC to differentiate this metric from the actual PTC. The proxy PTC is a one-year snapshot based on state-level wind generation data for 2012. It does not look at the full value of the PTC over a I0 year period. We find that the distributional impacts of the PTC are striking. The top ten proxy PTC-taking states in 2012 received over 72 percent of the total PTC subsidy transfers for 2012. These top I0 states include Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, Illinois, Minnesota, Washington, California, Colorado, Oregon, and North Dakota. The net proxy PTC transfers are also striking. To calculate the net impact of federal wind subsidies on each state (whether each state is a net taker or net payer of federal wind subsidies), we compare each state's proxy PTC payment to its share of the tax burden related to federal wind subsidies. Proxy PTC Transfers Among the States 1 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies According to our calculations, taxpayers in 30 states and the District of Columbia paid more to the federal government in 2012 to support wind subsidies than wind producers in those states received. Of those 30 net losing states, I I states 2 and the District of Columbia had no wind production and received zero subsidies but still paid their share of the tax burden related to federal wind subsidies. We estimate that five states are net payers of more than $100 million: California, New York, Florida, New Jersey, and Ohio. We also estimate that the wind producers in four states are net takers of at least $100 million: Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, and North Dakota. State Net Impact Net Payers - -......-........, .......... ,, __ . .............. ,-......... .. ·- ""'" (162,554,909.54) New Jersey (125 ,585,386.93) __ Ohio __ , .............. Net Takers ........ , ,, ......... ,,,,, ________ , . . .. . ._ ,. ,. . ._1.- -·-·-..·-·· ........... New York ·Florida ............. _ .........._,_ ............ .................,_ ............. (195 ,849,979.44) California _,.... , .. (138 ,141,406.15) (103,847,353 .90) ""'" -··-·· -..-... ................... ''"'''' '''"''' '''" '' North Dakota 110,663, 105.34 Oklahoma 150,598,297.94 Iowa 265,448, 788.48 Texas 394,451,907.04 -· .. .... ·--·-- · - - - ·-- California's share of the proxy PTC tax burden is $330.8 million, while wind producers in the state received $134.9 million in proxy PTC subsidies, indicating a net payment of just under $196 million in 2012-the largest net payment we estimated. Texas, on the other hand, was the largest net taker of subsidies-wind producers took in $642.5 million in proxy PTC subsidies in 2012, while taxpayers in Texas contributed $248 million toward the related tax burden for a net transfer of $394.5 million. On the regional level, the Northeast and Southeast were the biggest net payers, subsidizing other areas with net losses of $591.8 million and $559.3 million, respectively. Notably, every state in the Southeast region was a net payer with respect to the proxy PTC. The biggest net 2 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies takers on the regional level were the Southwest and Midwest, pulling in $551.4 million and $426.9 million, respectively. The West took in about $183 million in net subsidies. Region Net Impact Northeast -... ........... ""'" Southeast .......... __ ,,,~ .... (591 ,835,449.40) - ................... - · - -"'"'""' (559,316,532.06) · ·- -....... West 182,964,525 .17 Midwest 426,911,720.48 Southwest 551,412,868.88 ........... " " "" " "'""'"' ,..... Although we discuss states and regions as ''net takers" and "net payers," we note that the ultimate takers are actually the owners of wind facilities-a very concentrated group3-while the ultimate payers of the subsidies are all Americans who pay federal taxes. The payments to the wind producers come at the expense of all taxpayers everywhere. In other words, federal wind subsidies do not make all citizens of a "net taker" state better off. 3 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies Introduction The federal production tax credit (PTC) for renewable electricity is one of the federal government's primary policy tools for subsidizing and promoting renewable energy development. The PTC gives electricity producers a tax credit for each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated from qualifying renewable energy sources (currently 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour) for the next ten years of operation, regardless of real-time market signals such as negative prices that indicate that electricity is unwanted. Relative to the wholesale price of electricity, which hovered between 3 and 5 cents per kilowatt-hour for most markets in 2012,4 the PTC represents a lucrative direct subsidy of around 50 to 75 percent of the wholesale price of electricity. In terms of pre-tax value, the PTC is worth approximately 3.4 to 3.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, 5 often making the federal subsidy I00 percent as valuable to the owner of wind facilities as the market price of electricity. Further, because the PTC is not tied to the wholesale price of electricity, owners of wind facilities can afford to pay the electrical grid up to 3.4 to 3.7 cents per kilowatt-hour to take their power. The PTC was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 19926 and "provided an inflationadjusted tax credit of 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour for generation sold from qualifying facilities during the first I0 years of operation," according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).7 In 2009, the American Recovery and ReinvestmentAct (ARRA) gave project owners the option of receiving a 30 percent Investment Tax Credit (ITC) rather than the PTC, where wind producers can deduct 30 percent of the investment cost on their taxes. ARRA also created the section 1603 program, which allowed developers to receive cash grants in lieu of tax credits for 30 percent of the investment cost, but only if construction had begun before the end of 20 I I. The PTC has expired and been renewed several times. Most recently, the PTC expired at the end of 2012, but was renewed in January 2013 as part of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. It is set to expire once again at the end of 2013. Earlier this year, Congress and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) increased the size and scope of the PTC, boosting the value of the PTC from 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour to 2.3 cents. If the Joint Committee on Taxation's estimate of $12 billion cost for the 2013 extension is correct, this increase represents a $500 million boost8 for the wind industry at current production levels. 4 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies Moreover, Congress changed the eligibility requirements for the PTC at the beginning of the year, changing the requirements from a "placed in service" requirement to a "begin construction" requirement. 9 Under new guidance from the IRS, 10 wind facilities are eligible to claim the PTC for I0 years after initial operation if either "physical work of a significant nature" begins in 2013 or by committing just five percent of the total cost of the project before the end of 2013. Projects that do not begin construction by the end of 2013 but have 5 percent of the total cost committed before the end of 2013 are eligible for the PTC if they are placed in service before January I , 20 16. In 2012, wind installations generated 3.5 percent of the U.S. electricity supply. In the same year, total wind capacity increased by 13.1 gigawatts, 11 adding more capacity than any other generation source. 12 Natural gas, however, added 11 times more actual electrical generation than wind. 13 Although wind generation is still small in percentage terms, subsidies to the industry are significant. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that a one-year extension of the PTC in 2013 would cost American taxpayers more than $12 billion and if it is extended again at the end of this year, it would cost American taxpayers an additional $6 billion. 14 Methodology In this report we examine which states are net payers and net takers of federal wind subsidies. At the outset, it should be noted that the "states" themselves are not net payers or net takers of subsidies, but the "benefits" are much more concentrated. The recipients of these subsidies are in fact the companies that own the wind facilities-not the state as a whole-while the cost of the subsidies are spread among all Americans who pay federal taxes. There are a few challenges to estimating the state-by-state breakdown of recipients of wind subsidies. First, the federal government does not provide a state-by-state breakdown of the recipients of federal wind subsidies. Second, some wind producers elected to receive subsidies other than the PTC that preclude them from also receiving PTC payments. The ARRA, for example, allowed wind producers to receive the ITC or Section 1603 grant from the U.S. Treasury in lieu of the PTC if they begin construction on a facility before the end of 20 I 1. 15 While these alternative tax incentives reduce actual PTC payments, they do not reduce the total subsidy transfer to wind producers. The fact that many wind producers elected to take the ITC or Section 1603 grants instead of the PTC provides prima facie evidence that the ITC and Section 1603 grants were more valuable than the PTC at that time for those specific wind developers. 16 In this analysis, we estimate "proxy PTC" payments, i.e., the payments that would have occurred if all of the wind companies had taken the PTC instead of the other options. 5 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies To calculate the value to wind producers generating electricity in 2012 if they had all taken the PTC in lieu of the other subsidies, we start with the actual wind generation data from the EIA for that calendar year, broken down by state. From that we subtract wind generated in 2002 for each state because the PTC only provides subsidies to wind developers for a given wind facility's first I0 years of operation. Since some portion of wind generation in 2012 was in operation for more than I0 years, the owners of those older generators are no longer eligible to receive the PTC in 2012. For that reason, we net out older generation by subtracting the level of generation by state in 2002, as reported by the EIA, from the 2012 generation data. After netting out Ineligible generation, we estimate the total amount of proxy PTC subsidies going to wind producers in each state in 2012 by multiplying each eligible kilowatt-hour produced in 2012 by the then-current PTC rate of 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour (the IRS increased the PTC to 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour for 2013). We use this proxy PTC estimation because accurate and comprehensive data on the exact amount of PTC payments by state are not available. To estimate each state's share of the cost of the proxy PTC, we use data 17 from the IRS that show the share of the federal tax burden borne by each state. From there, we multiply each state's share of the total federal tax burden by our estimate of the sum total of all proxy PTC subsidy payments to arrive at that state's share of the cost of federal wind subsidies. For the purposes of this study, we assume the administrative costs of implementing subsidies are negligible compared to the subsidies themselves (i.e. payments in equal payments out). Our estimate of the total proxy PTC subsidy in 2012 is $2.85 billion. It should be noted that this figure represents a snapshot of federal wind subsidies in a single year. The cumulative impact of wind subsidies is of course much higher. To estimate the net impact of the proxy PTC on each state, we subtract the proxy PTC-related tax burden in each state from the subsidies to wind producers in each state. For example, we estimate that California's share of the proxy PTC tax burden is $330.8 million, while wind producers in the state receive $134.9 million in PTC subsidies, indicating a net loss to the state taxpayers of about $196 million that went to support wind producers in other states. 6 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies , _............... ___ State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Subsidies in 2012 -,--- """"""""- ....,_ .., """ All States Proxy PTC-eligible MWh $Proxy PTC Subsidies $Proxy PTC Tax Burden AK 14,454.85 318,006.70 5,422,906.44 -$Proxy PTC Net Effect .. , ..., ......... (5,104,899.74) ~---l---------+------~-------1-------1 AL 0.00 0.00 - -····"· - 1 - """'N' _ _ __ AR ,__ 23,689,538.66 0.00 0.00 (23,689,538.66) " " " - ' "" · - -- - i - -•HUH , ,,, , ,,,,,,r- , .,, ,, ,.,,,;~---- · ·- 28,541,612.84 ....ONHH'""'""" (28,541,612.84) 1----~--------+-------1-------1---------1 AZ 255,319.75 5,617,034.50 39,387,425.72 (33,770,391 .22) CA 6,133,968.79 134,947,313.38 330,797,292.82 (195,849,979.44) 1 - - -- -1- -- -- co !-•- "''"' -- -----1- - -- -- - - - l -- · -- -- f - -- -- - - - 1 5,905,657 .14 129,924,457 .08 46,522,828.93 "'""' ...... - - j - - .............. - - 1 - - - - - """""'"""'' """'--i'"" 83,401,628.15 """'"' ........ _ _ , CT 0.00 0.00 53,372,816.01 (53,372,816.01) DC 0.00 0.00 28,307,026.33 (28,307,026.33) DE 4,976.62 109,485.64 24,831,203.17 (24,721 ,717.53) 1- - -- t - - -- -- -- - -- - - --t---·-·- - -- -1- - - - - - -1 138, 141,406.15 (138, 141,406.15) FL 0.00 0.00 f - - -- -f......, _ _ _ ,..,,...,.__,, _ _ __,f---~ - - - - t - · -""'""'""'"'- - - " "'""""'"" _ _ _ ,_,,, _ _ GA 0.00 0.00 73,922,777.26 ("13,922,Tl?.26) HI 365,506.61 8,041, 145.42 7,420,819.34 620,326.08 286,569,581.98 21, 120,793.50 265,448,788.48 f-----1--- 1A 13,025,890.09 ID 1,821,257.30 40,067,660.60 8,562,483.85 31,505, 176.75 t---·---;- - -- -- -- - t -- - -·- · - - - + - - - - - - - t - - - - - - -1 IL 7,708,245.47 169,581,400.34 140,710,151.30 28,871,249.04 I -"""'- -'""" """"'""'- - + - - -""'""" ...- ........ - """""""' ---l IN 3, 163,065.07 69,587,431.54 57,939,474.07 11,647,957.47 KS 4,651,951.10 102,342,924.20 24,831,203.17 77,511,721.03 KY 0.00 0.00 28,256,196.71 (28,256,196.71) LA 0.00 0.00 39,387,425.72 (39,387,425.72) .......... - --f. ......... - - .. -...- - - - 1 - _ _ _ ..... ......._ ,_,, ""'"'"'"- 1 - - -"''""""""""""·"- -1 MA 85,414.89 1,879,127.58 90,191,496.58 (88,312,369.00) MD 313,590.48 6,898,990.56 54,514,480.53 (47,615,489.97) 19,457, 135.94 7,135,403.21 12,321,732.73 ME 884,415.27 1- - - - 1 -- - - - -- - - - -- -- - + - - - - - - - + - - - · -..- -- - ; MN 6,623,251.50 67,072,790.17 (42,702,978.55) -1--- - - - - t- - ·...- -..··- - - 1 145,711,533.00 89,049,832.06 56,661,700.94 MO 1,245,481.91 27,400,602.02 Ml 1,107,718.71 1 - -"""""'"'_"' _ _ ,.,. ............... _ __ 24,369,811.62 _ ,,,,,..... ,,..... _ _ ,,.,.,.,,. _ _ 54,799,896.65 (27,399,294.63) MS 0.00 0.00 11,702,061.26 (11,702,061.26) 1 - - - - 1 - - - -- - - ·- · - - l - - - - - - - l - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - --1 MT 1,237,844.60 27,232,581.20 4,852,074.18 22,380,507.02 - ·•"""" _ _ _ ,, , , ,,,, ,, , ~·--·"~ """""" " _ _ _ UH"'""'"'_' _ _ ,...... ,,,.,,,_,...,..,,,,,_,. __ ,_, _ _ _ "'""'""'"" " " _ '_ _ _ _ _ , NC 0.00 0.00 69,641,535.33 (69,641,535.33) ND 5,315,557 .28 116,942,260.16 6,279,154.82 110,663,105.34 NE 1,266,816.01 27,869,952.22 22,262,458.02 5,607,494.20 7 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies ............ NH NJ 260,297.15 ,_, ""!-- ·-·.. ....................................... 5, 726,537 .30 ..._____,r ·. (4,263,027.19) 9,989,564.49 - .......... _ ! 12,869.35 283,125.70 125,868,512.63 (125,585,386.93) NM 2,226,407.05 48,980,955.10 8,847,899.98 40, 133,055.12 NV 128,788.00 2,833,336.00 15,412,470.93 (12,579,134.93) NY 2,950,988.40 64,921,744.80 227,476,654.34 (162,554,909.54) 987,988.30 ..........,_......... .... .,,,. .,_, 8,233,537.44 21,735,742.60 125,583,096.50 (103,84"1,353.90) 181,137,823.68 30,539,525. 74 150,598,297.94 ·-· -· t--" OH ·- 1 OK ...... ........ ""'"""'' OR 5,689,576.07 125, 170,673.54 25,687,451.56 99,483,221.98 PA 2, 150,621.26 47,313,667.72 123,299,767.47 (75,986,099.75) RI 3,181.83 -· /-"-·-·"' SC 0.00 70,000.26 _ _ 12,558,309.65 ,,, ,,, (12,488,309.39) i - -'"" o.oo 21, 120, 793.50 (21, 120,793.50) ~ "" " SD 2,907,501.43 63,965,031.46 5,708,322.57 58,256, 708.89 TN 43,424.00 955,328.00 53,087 ,399.88 (52, 132,071.88) 642,4 78,522.62 248,026,615.58 394,451,907.04 15,661,383.98 17,695,799.96 (2,034,415.98) 0.00 72,781,112.74 (72,781,112.74) 2,174,086.64 3,995,825.80 TX UT VA ............. _WA_ """"'"'' . .................. .. 711,881.09 -· 0.00 VT ....... _. 29,203,569.21 98,822.12 ! -·-'"···· ,, . ..... ........ 6,270,953.08 137,960,967.76 ""'" " " " " " " ... ··-· 59,366,554.71 ... ...... _. " " " " " "'" ··--'"'''''''''''"'"'''"'' (1,821,739.16) 78,594,413.05 -· WI 1,500,039.42 33,000,867.24 46,808,245.06 (13,807,3"17.82) WV WY us 1,277,001.00 28,094,022 .00 7,420,819.34 20,673,202 .66 3,946,769.28 86,828,924.16 4,281,241.93 82,547,682.23 129,734,603.82 2,854, 161,284.04 (Total) Regional Analysis Federal wind subsidies impact every state and region iri the country. As has been shown in previous articles, 18 studies, 19 and testimony before Congress, 20 subsidies such as the wind PTC are inefficient21 policies that distort energy markets, threaten grid reliability, 22 and encourage rent-seeking, 23 rather than energy production. This report shows that federal wind subsidies are also terribly inequitable. A majority of U.S. states-generally states that lack the geography and wind supply to support wind power-unfairly shoulder the burden of these subsidies. IER has highlighted 24 the pitfalls of having a one-size-fits-all federal energy policy that takes from some states and gives to others. This study estimates the amount of this inequity. 8 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies While federal wind energy subsidies are a losing proposition for a majority of states and their taxpayers, some states lose much more than others. On a regional level, the Northeast and Southeast are the biggest "net payers," subsidizing wind companies in other areas to the tune of $591.8 million and $559.3 million, respectively. The regions whose wind producers are the highest "net takers" are the Southwest and Midwest, receiving $551.4 million and $426.9 million in net subsidies, respectively. The Northeast The Northeast is the biggest net payer, paying more than $591.8 million more in taxes in 2012 than wind producers in their states received in federal wind subsidies. For the purposes of this study, states in the Northeast include Connecticut, District of Columbia, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode lsland,Vermont, and West Virginia. Figure I below highlights net subsidies and net losses for each state in the Northeast. Net Impact In the Northeast in 2012 (In mlllfons) WV $50 ME -$50 CT ·$100 MA NJ -$150 NY -$200 As figure I shows, all but two states in the Northeast last year paid more in federal taxes to support federal wind subsidies than wind producers in their state received in subsidies. Two states in the Northeast-New York and New Jersey-have net losses that exceed $100 million each. State focus: New York is the second biggest net payer in the country, shouldering net losses of more than $162.5 million in 2012. Despite producing the most electricity from wind of all 9 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies the states in the Northeast region (about 3 million megawatt-hours of federal subsidy-eligible generation, driven by a high renewable energy mandate 25 as well as participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative), NewYork is the largest net payer in the region. New York's high wind power production and the related subsidies of about $64.9 million are trumped by its $227.5 million share of the federal wind subsidy-related tax burden. The Southeast The Southeast region is the second largest net payer in terms of federal wind subsidies. States in the Southeast paid, in total, $559.3 million more in taxes in 2012 than wind producers in their states received in federal wind subsidies. In this study, the Southeast region includes Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Figure 2 below highlights net subsidies and net losses for each state in the Southeast. Net Impact in the Southeast in 2012 (In millions) $30 -$30 AR KY LA TN -$60 CiA VA NC ·$90 -$120 -$1 SO FL As Figure 2 shows, every state in the Southeast region is a net payer in terms of federal wind subsidies. Of the I I states in the region, the largest losses go to Florida ($138.1 million), Georgia ($73.9 million), Virginia ($72.8 million), and North Carolina ($69.6 million). The Southeast is a net payer because it simply does not have the wind availability of other regions. Because the Southeast does not have quality wind resources, the states in the region generally do not have Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that require utilities to generate a 10 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. If lawmakers in Southeastern states were to impose renewable electricity mandates, these states would likely be forced to buy renewable energy credits (RECs) from states with higher wind potential, providing additional subsidies to wind producers in other states. 26 State focus: Florida is the third biggest net payer nationwide and the biggest net payer in the Southeast. Its net losses of $138.1 million in 2012 represent the all-pain, no-gain prospect of federal wind subsidies in the Southeast. Because the state of Florida had zero wind generation in 2012 but a high share of the federal wind subsidy-related tax burden, federal subsidies to wind power imposed a heavy tax on Floridians without conferring "benefits" to anyone in the state. The Midwest The Midwest is the second largest net taker of federal wind subsidies. Wind producers in Midwest states received, in total, about $427 million more in federal wind subsidies in 2012 than their states paid in taxes to support those federal wind subsidies. For the purposes of this study, states in the Midwest region include Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Figure 3 below highlights net subsidies and net losses for each state in the Midwest. As figure 3 shows, wind producers in 8 out of 12 Midwestern states receive more federal wind subsidies than taxpayers in those states Net Impact In the Midwest In 2012 contribute to their (In millions) share of the wind $300 IA subsidy tax burden. $250 Wind producers in Iowa $200 receive $265.4 million in net subsidies, making Iowa second only to Texas as the largest net taker of federal wind subsidies nationwide. Ohio, on the other hand, fares the worst out of ail states in the Midwest, suffering net losses of $103.8 million. st 50 rm $JOO MN $50 -$50 ·$100 OH -$ 150 11 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies SD KS Despite the Midwest region being a net taker of federal wind subsidies, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin are net payers. Each of these states also has Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that require electric utilities to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. Given that these states do not produce much wind but are still required to add renewables like wind to their generation mix, these states are most likely buying wind from states whose wind producers are net takers of federal wind subsidies. State focus: Ohio provides a case study for how state renewable electricity mandates can force taxpayers to bestow additional subsidies on wind producers in other states. Ohio's RPS requires utilities to generate 12.5 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like wind by 2024. In annual compliance filings, 27 Duke Energy Ohio, a utility that provides electricity to much of the Cincinnati area, reported that they met one half of their total non-solar renewable energy requirements for 2012 by purchasing RECs from "adjacent states." Similarly, FirstEnergy Ohio Utilities, 28 which includes subsidiaries 29 that provide electricity to Akron, Cleveland, and Toledo, also purchased renewables from "other states deliverable into Ohio" to comply with the RPS in 2012. In other words, Ohio taxpayers subsidize wind producers in net taker states not only through their federal tax dollars, but also through the state RPS-which utilities cannot meet without purchasing electricity from wind producers in neighboring states. The Southwest The Southwest is the largest net taker of federal wind subsidies, driven primarily by Texas. As a whole, wind producers in the Southwest received Net Impact in the Southwest in 2012 more than $55 1.4 million (In millions) more in federal wind TX subsidies than taxpayers in $400 their states paid in taxes $350 in 2012 to support federal $300 wind subsidies. For the $250 purposes of this study, $200 states In the Southwest OK include Arizona, New $150 Mexico, Oklahoma, and $100 Texas. Figure 4 highlights NM $50 the net subsidies and net losses of each state in the Southwest. ·$50 12 Estimating the State-Level Impact ot Federal Wind Energy Subsidies As figure 4 shows, wind producers in all but one Southwestern state received more federal wind subsidies in 2012 than taxpayers in their states contributed to their share of the wind subsidy tax burden. The only state in the Southwest whose taxpayers paid more in taxes than their wind producers took in subsidies was Arizona, with net losses of about $33.7 million. State focus: Texas is the biggest net taker of federal wind subsidies nationwide, raking in $394.5 million more In wind subsidies than its share of the federal wind subsidy-related tax burden. In 2012,Texas produced more than 29 million megawatt-hours of federal subsidyeligible wind generation, more than double the second highest state's eligible wind generation. Texas has exceeded its renewable portfolio standard due to particularly good wind corridors within the state. States whose geography is not as conducive to wind generation as Texas-such as Ohio-have much more difficulty meeting their state renewable electricity mandates without importing wind energy from other states. The West The West is the third largest net taker of federal wind subsidies. Wind producers in Western states received, in total, almost $183 million more in wind subsidies than their states' taxpayers paid to support the wind subsidy tax burden in 2012. For the purposes of this study, Western states include Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Figure 5 highlights the net subsidies and net losses of each state in the West. Net Impact In the West In 2012 (In mllllons) OR $ 100 WA WY (0 $50 IH NV AK UT -$50 -$100 -$150 S200 CA 13 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies As Figure 5 shows, wind producers in 7 out of I I Western states are net takers. Wind producers in Oregon are the biggest net takers, at more than $99 million, while taxpayers in California suffer the most net losses, at more than $195.8 million. State focus: In 2012, California had the second highest installed wind capacity in the country 30 and was the seventh largest taker in terms of gross subsidies, receiving a total of almost $135 million in our one-year snapshot. However, because California taxpayers contribute the largest share of the federal tax burden-I I percent of the total-California is actually the biggest net payer of federal wind subsidies. Issues for Further Analysis This analysis evaluates the impacts of wind subsidies without adjusting the PTC-related tax burden for imports of wind-generated electricity. Likewise, our analysis does not adjust for exports of wind-generated electricity from states such as Iowa, which generates about 20 percent of its electricity from wind due to its large wind resource availability, but also exports a major portion of that electricity. This study is a snapshot analysis of federal wind subsidies for a single year-2012. The actual value of the federal wind PTC is much larger than documented in this report because of the I0year life of the subsidy for a given wind facility. Another analysis could evaluate federal wind subsidies over a longer time period. Finally, another study would break down the impacts of each subsidy type--PTC, ITC, and 1603 grant. For the purposes of this white paper, we used a one-year PTC calculation as a proxy. Conclusion As this report highlights, federal wind subsidies such as the PTC provide net subsidies to wind producers in a few states, but those subsidies to wind producers come at the expense of taxpayers everywhere. Further, subsidies to wind producers in the relatively few states with excellent wind resources represent losses to the majority of the states within the U.S. Even in states that seem to accrue net "benefits" from federal wind subsidies, these subsidies merely redistribute wealth from taxpayers to wind energy companies. Federal wind subsidies-beyond being inefficient policies that distort energy markets, threaten grid reliability, and encourage rent-seeking--create an unfair redistribution of wealth across state lines that enriches wind companies in select "net taker" states at the expense of taxpayers in other states. 14 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies 1 See Footnote 17. 2 The 11 states with zero wind production in 2012 are Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. 3 As /ER has explained, federal wind subsidies often support foreign industries rather than U.S. industries. See http://www. in sti tu teforenernyresea rch .org/ 2012/09/ 07 /oba m as-energy-tax-proposals-w ind-vs-oil-and-gas/ 4 Energy Information Administration, 2012 Brief: Average wholesale electricity prices down compared to last year; Jan. 9, 2013, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detajl.cfm?id=9510. See e.g. Lisa Linowes, Wind Energy Without the PTC, Master Resource, May 12, 2012, .bnJtiL www.masterresource.org/2012/0S/wind-energy-without-ptc/. Jonathan A. Lesser, Wind lntermittency and the Production Tax Credit: A High Cost Subsidy for Low Value Power, Oct. 2012, http://www.continentalecon.com/ pub IIcatio ns/cebp/Lesser_PTC_Report_Fi n al_October-2012 .pdf. 5 6 Energy Information Administration, EPACT2005 Summary, http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ aeo 2006analysispapers/epa2005 summary.html. 7 Energy Information Administration, Tax Credits and Renewable Generation, http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/ otheranalysis/aeo 2009analysjspapers/tcrg.html 8 Institute for Energy Research, Breaking News: IRS Gives Big Cash to Big Wind, Apr. 3, 2013, b!m;LL www.lnstltuteforehergyresearch.org/ 2013f04(03/break!ng-news-irs-gives"blg-cash-to-big-wlnd /. 9 See Internal Revenue Service, Clarification of Notice 2013-29, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-13-60.pdf 10 Id. 11 Department of Energy, America's Wind Industry Reaches Record Highs, Aug. 6, 2013, http://energy.gov/articles/ americas-wind -industry-reaches-record-highs. 12 See Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, 2012 Wind Technologies Market Report, Table 2, Aug. 2013, .bnJtiL emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6356e.pdf. 13 From 2011 to 2012, natural gas added 217,019,000 MWh of electricity produced, compared to 19,912,000 MWh of added electricity produced by wind. See, Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Table 7.2a Electricity Net Generation: Total (All Sectors), Nov. 2013, http://www.eia .gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/ sec7 S.pdf. 14 Thomas A. Barthold, Joint Committee on Taxation, Sept. 24, 2013, http://www.instituteforenernyresearch.org/ wp-content/uploads/ 2013/ 10/JCT-wlnd-PTC-cost-estitnate-temporary-extensjoo.pdf. 15 Internal Revenue Service, 1603 Program: Payments for Specified Energy Property in Lieu of Tax Credits, Mar. 4, 2013, http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/recoyery/Pages/1603.aspx. 15 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies 16 For a few years, wind companies could choose between the PTC, the ITC, or Section 1603 grants. The fact that wind companies chose the ITC or Section 1603 grants mean that for those companies, at that specific time, the ITC or the Section 1603 grants were the best choice. This choice implies that the proxy PTC is a lower-bound estimate of the cost of federal wind subsidies. After all, if the PTC was more valuable, the companies would have chosen the PTC and not the ITC or Section 1603 grants. The ITC and the Section 1603 were more valuable, but they also change the timing of the payments for the companies. For many companies it receiving the money up front, as happened with Section 1603 grants, was the most valuable choice. 17 Internal Revenue Service, SOI Tax Stats - Gross Collections, by Type of Tax and State, Fiscal Year - IRS Data Book Ta b/e 5, http ://www.irs.govI ua c/SO 1-Tax-Stats-G ross-Coll ectio ns,-by-Type-of-Tax-a n d-State,-Fisca I-Yea r-1 RS-Data- Book-Ta b Ie-5 . 18 Robin Millican, Wind PTC Proponents Misconstrue the Facts, Institute for Energy Research, Dec. 5. 2012, hlm.;LL www.instituteforenergyresearch.org / 2012/ 12/05/ptc-proponents-misconstrue-the-faqs/. David E. Dismukes, Removing Big Wind's "Training Wheels," American Energy Alliance, Nov. 1, 2012, b.ttu1L www.americanene rgya lliance.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2012/10/Dismukes-Removjng-Big-Winds-TrainingWheels.pdf. 19 20 Institute for Energy Research, IER's Robert Michaels to Testify on the Wind PTC, Oct. l, 2013, blli1;LL www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2013 / 10/0l/jers-robert· michaels-to-testify-on-the·wind-ptc/. 21 Robert Murphy, Assessing the Production Tax Credit, Apr. 24, 2013, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/ 2012/04/24/assessing-the-production-tax-credit/. 22 Travis Fisher & Alex Fitzsimmons, Wind PTC Threatens Grid Reliability, Institute for Energy Research, Sept. 19, 2013, http://www.lnstituteforenergyresearch.org / 2013/09/ 19/wind-ptc-threatens-grjd-rellabjlltv/. 23 Institute for Energy Research, The Wind Giveaway, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch .org/windptc/. Robin Millican, Wind PTC Proponents Misconstrue the Facts, Institute for Energy Research, Dec. 5. 2012, .b..tm;LL www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/ 2012/12/0S/ptc-proponents-misconstrue-the-fam/. 24 25 See Database of Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, New York, http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/ jn centi ve .cfm 71ncentive Code-=N C09 Rhttp: //www.dsireusa.org/!ncehtives/i nee ntive.dm? Incentiye Code-= NY03 R 26 North Carolina already has a renewable energy mandate requiring that 12.5 percent of electricity generation by investor-owned utilities in the state come from renewable sources by 2021. See Database of Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, North Carolina, http;//w w w.dsireusa.org/incentives /i ncentive.cfm ?Incentive Code=NC09R . 27 http://dis.puc.state.oh.us/Ii'ffToP Df/A1001001A13E28B53949C83933.pdf 28 FirstEnergy Service Company, In the Matter of the Annual Alternative Energy Status Report of Ohio Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and The Toledo Edison, Case No. 13-9013-EL-ACP, http://dis.puc.state.oh .us/TiffToPDf/ Al001001Al3D15B02836116206.pdf 29 Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Electric Service Areas of Ohio, http://www.puco .ohio.goy/pucogis/esa/ index.cfm. 30 Department of Energy, Installed Wind Capacity, http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/ wind installed capacity.asp. 16 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: Subject: Attachments: Lynch, Jamie Wednesday, December 04, 2013 9:31 AM Public Utilities; rep27@ohiohouse.gov; Strigari, Frank; Senator Obhof; Senator Faber; Senator Widener FW: Cost to Ohio Taxpayers of Federal PTC State-Level-Impact-of-Federal-Wind-Subsidies.pdf Importance: High To: AllPlease see enclosed per Chairman Seitz's request. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Julie Johnson [mailto:juliejohnson@ctcn.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:27 PM To: Senator Seitz Subject: Cost to Ohio Taxpayers of Federal PTC Importance: High Senator- You might find this newly released report to be of some value tomorrow. Among other things, the report documents Ohio is a net payer of taxes to underwrite the PTC in windier states. The figure for Ohio is a net loss of $103,847,353.90. Julie 33 Estimating the g; State-Level Impact? of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies I December 2 013 Executive Summary This paper examines the distributional impacts of the wind production tax credit (PTC). The obvious difficulty of this examination is the fact that over the past I0 years (the life of the PTC) some eligible wind facilities have elected to take the investment tax credit (ITC) and the Section 1603 grant program instead of the PTC. As we explain below, this does not change the distributional nature of federal wind subsidies, but merely the timing. 1 For the purposes of this paper; we assume that all wind production built over the last I0 years in the United States elected to take the PTC. We call this the proxy PTC to differentiate this metric from the actual PTC. The proxy PTC is a one-year snapshot based on state-level wind generation data for 2012. It does not look at the full value of the PTC over a I0 year period. We find that the distributional Impacts of the PTC are striking. The top ten proxy PTC-taking states in 2012 received over 72 percent of the total PTC subsidy transfers for 2012. These top I0 states include Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, Illinois, Minnesota, Washington, California, Colorado, Oregon, and North Dakota. The net proxy PTC transfers are also striking. To calculate the net impact of federal wind subsidies on each state (whether each state is a net taker or net payer of federal wind subsidies), we compare each state's proxy PTC payment to its share of the tax burden related to federal wind subsidies. Proxy PTC Transfers Among the States 1 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies According to our calculations, taxpayers in 30 states and the District of Columbia paid more to the federal government in 2012 to support wind subsidies than wind producers in those states received. Of those 30 net losing states, I I states 2 and the District of Columbia had no wind production and received zero subsidies but still paid their share of the tax burden related to federal wind subsidies. We estimate that five states are net payers of more than $100 million: California, NewYork, Florida, New Jersey, and Ohio. We also estimate that the wind producers in four states are net takers of at least$ I00 million: Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, and North Dakota. Net Impact State - -- -- - -- - -- - - t - - - , - - ....... .. .., _ ,.- - - !--------·-·-~--------'----- Net Payers 1- - - '"'"'" _ _ _ _ _ _ "'""""""'" _ _ _ .......... .. , , ---·-"'"""""' .. ,.. (195,849,979.44) California 1---"'"""""'"~---,·--' _ _ _ _ ,,_.,...,......................... _ ..,_ _ ,.,..........,..,,_,,,_,, ,,_,, _ __ New York (162,554,909.54) Florida (138, 141,406.15) New Jersey (125,585,386.93) Ohio 1--""" .......,_ _ _ _ .. _, _ __ ___ ,,,_ , , , , _ ,_ """""""' _ _ _ ,...,...... ---1 (103,847,353.90) _ _ ,.............,...__ _ _ ,_,,_,,,,,,.,,,.,,.,.,, _ _ Net Takers --- '""""'""'""-· ---~"-"-·-·----- ·"'" """""""-r---""""""""'""'""'"""""' _ 110,663, 105.34 Oklahoma 150,598,297.94 Iowa 265,448,788.48 Texas 394,451,907.04 1-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t - - - - - - - -1 _ _ ,............... North Dakota L------------------'-----------------~ California's share of the proxy PTC tax burden is $330.8 million, while wind producers in the state received $134. 9 million in proxy PTC subsidies, indicating a net payment of just under $196 million in 2012-the largest net payment we estimated. Texas, on the other hand, was the largest net taker of subsidies-wind producers took in $642.5 million in proxy PTC subsidies in 2012, while taxpayers in Texas contributed $248 million toward the related tax burden for a net transfer of $394.5 million. On the regional level, the Northeast and Southeast were the biggest net payers, subsidizing other areas with net losses of $591.8 million and $559.3 million, respectively. Notably, every state in the Southeast region was a net payer with respect to the proxy PTC. The biggest net 2 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies takers on the regional level were the Southwest and Midwest, pulling in $551.4 million and $426.9 million, respectively. The West took in about $183 million in net subsidies. Region Net Impact Northeast (591,835,449.40) _,,................ __, .,,,,.. (559,316,532.06) _,_,. ...._.. -··-"'"" Southeast !"-'" ""''''"' ,, _ _ _ ,, ,,, , ,, .. , ....... .. -.1 .. , '"""'" ............... ... , ,,,,,,,,,,, __ " •M' __ ,, West 182,964,525.17 Midwest 426,911, 720.48 Southwest 551,412,868.88 ...... ........ .. ...... - ....... Although we discuss states and regions as "net takers" and "net payers," we note that the ultimate takers are actually the owners of wind facilities-a very concentrated group3-while the ultimate payers of the subsidies are all Americans who pay federal taxes. The payments to the wind producers come at the expense of all taxpayers everywhere. In other words, federal wind subsidies do not make all citizens of a "net taker" state better off. 3 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies Introduction The federal production tax credit (PTC) for renewable electricity is one of the federal government's primary policy tools for subsidizing and promoting renewable energy development. The PTC gives elect_ricity producers a tax credit for each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated from qualifying renewable energy sources (currently 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour) for the next ten years of operation, regardless of real-time market signals such as negative prices that indicate that electricity is unwanted. Relative to the wholesale price of electricity, which hovered between 3 and 5 cents per kilowatt-hour for most markets in 2012, 4 the PTC represents a lucrative direct subsidy of around 50 to 75 percent of the wholesale price of electricity. In terms of pre-tax value, the PTC is worth approximately 3.4 to 3.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, 5 often making the federal subsidy 100 percent as valuable to the owner of wind facilities as the market price of electricity. Further, because the PTC is not tied to the wholesale price of electricity, owners of wind facilities can afford to pay the electrical grid up to 3.4 to 3.7 cents per kilowatt-hour to take their power. The PTC was enacted as part of the Enersy Policy Act of 19926 and "provided an inflationadjusted tax credit of 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour for generation sold from qualifying facilities during the first I0 years of operation," according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).7 In 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) gave project owners the option of receiving a 30 percent Investment Tax Credit (ITC) rather than the PTC, where wind producers can deduct 30 percent of the investment cost on their taxes. ARRA also created the section 1603 program, which allowed developers to receive cash grants in lieu of tax credits for 30 percent of the investment cost, but only if construction had begun before the end of 20 I I. The PTC has expired and been renewed several times. Most recently, the PTC expired at the end of 2012, but was renewed in January 2013 as part of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. It is set to expire once again at the end of 2013. Earlier this year, Congress and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) increased the size and scope of the PTC, boosting the value of the PTC from 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour to 2.3 cents. If the Joint Committee on Taxation's estimate of $12 billion cost for the 2013 extension is correct, this increase represents a $500 million boost8 for the wind industry at current production levels. 4 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies Moreover, Congress changed the eligibility requirements for the PTC at the beginning of the year, changing the requirements from a "placed in service" requirement to a "begin construction" requirement. 9 Under new guidance from the IRS, 10 wind facilities are eligible to claim the PTC for I0 years after initial operation if either "physical work of a significant nature" begins in 2013 or by committing just five percent of the total cost of the project before the end of 2013. Projects that do not begin construction by the end of 2013 but have 5 percent of the total cost committed before the end of 2013 are eligible for the PTC if they are placed in service before January I , 2016. In 2012, wind installations generated 3.5 percent of the U.S. electricity supply. In the same year, total wind capacity increased by 13.1 gigawatts, 11 adding more capacity than any other generation source. 12 Natural gas, however, added I I times more actual electrical generation than wind. 13 Although wind generation is still small in percentage terms, subsidies to the industry are significant. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that a one-year extension of the PTC in 2013 would cost American taxpayers more than $12 billion and if it is extended again at the end of this year, it would cost American taxpayers an additional $6 billion. 14 Methodology In this report we examine which states are net payers and net takers of federal wind subsidies. At the outset, it should be noted that the "states" themselves are not net payers or net takers of subsidies, but the "benefits" are much more concentrated. The recipients of these subsidies are in fact the companies that own the wind facilities-not the state as a whole--while the cost of the subsidies are spread among all Americans who pay federal taxes. There are a few challenges to estimating the state-by-state breakdown of recipients of wind subsidies. First, the federal government does not provide a state-by-state breakdown of the recipients of federal wind subsidies. Second, some wind producers elected to receive subsidies other than the PTC that preclude them from also receiving PTC payments. The ARRA, for example, allowed wind producers to receive the ITC or Section 1603 grant from the U.S. Treasury in lieu of the PTC if they begin construction on a facility before the end of 20 I 1. 15 While these alternative tax incentives reduce actual PTC payments, they do not reduce the total subsidy transfer to wind producers. The fact that many wind producers elected to take the ITC or Section 1603 grants instead of the PTC provides prima facie evidence that the ITC and Section 1603 grants were more valuable than the PTC at that time for those specific wind developers. 16 In this analysis, we estimate "proxy PTC" payments, i.e., the payments that would have occurred if all of the wind companies had taken the PTC instead of the other options. 5 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies To calculate the value to wind producers generating electricity in 2012 if they had all taken the PTC in lieu of the other subsidies, we start with the actual wind generation data from the EIA for that calendar year, broken down by state. From that we subtract wind generated in 2002 for each state because the PTC only provides subsidies to wind developers for a given wind facility's first I0 years of operation. Since some portion of wind generation in 2012 was in operation for more than I0 years, the owners of those older generators are no longer eligible to receive the PTC in 2012. For that reason, we net out older generation by subtracting the level of generation by state in 2002, as reported by the EIA, from the 2012 generation data. After netting out ineligible generation, we estimate the total amount of proxy PTC subsidies going to wind producers in each state in 2012 by multiplying each eligible kilowatt-hour produced in 2012 by the then-current PTC rate of 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour (the IRS increased the PTC to 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour for 2013). We use this proxy PTC estimation because accurate and comprehensive data on the exact amount of PTC payments by state are not available. To estimate each state's share of the cost of the proxy PTC, we use data 17 from the IRS that show the share of the federal tax burden borne by each state. From there, we multiply each state's share of the total federal tax burden by our estimate of the sum total of all proxy PTC subsidy payments to arrive at that state's share of the cost of federal wind subsidies. For the purposes of this study, we assume the administrative costs of implementing subsidies are negligible compared to the subsidies themselves (i.e. payments in equal payments out). Our estimate of the total proxy PTC subsidy in 2012 is $2.85 billion. It should be noted that this figure represents a snapshot of federal wind subsidies in a single year. The cumulative impact of wind subsidies is of course much higher. To estimate the net impact of the proxy PTC on each state, we subtract the proxy PTC-related tax burden in each state from the subsidies to wind producers in each state. For example, we estimate that California's share of the proxy PTC tax burden is $330.8 million, while wind producers in the state receive $134.9 million in PTC subsidies, indicating a net loss to the state taxpayers of about $196 million that went to support wind producers in other states. 6 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies ···-- - -- -- - --·--·- ---·- - - -- - - - - - -- -..-, , ----, State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Subsidies in 2012 ............_ ,_ _ _ .,..,.. ...,..................................... r'----'•- -.. ..-..---······· ........,- -.......,,,,,,,,_,_ _ All States Proxy PTC-eligible MWh $Proxy PTC Subsidies $Proxy PTC Tax Burden $Proxy PTC Net Effect AK 14,454.85 318,006.70 5,422,906.44 (5, 104,899.74) AL 0.00 0.00 ,_ _ __,_,, , , _ _ . . . . . .. {23,689,538.66) 23,689,538.66 ..... -------+--~ · ""'""' - """""'"" + -"'"" ..................... AR 0.00 0.00 28,541,612.84 (28,541,612.84) AZ 255,319.75 5,617,034.50 39,387,425.72 (33,770,391.22) CA 6,133,968.79 134,947,313.38 330,797,292.82 (195 ,849,979.44) 5,905,657.14 129,924,457.08 46,522,828.93 """'"""-- """"""" 0.00 53,372,816.01 co 1 - - -- ...................,_ _ ,..... -i· ---~... ................ CT 1--- 0.00 - - 1 - - - -·-· - - - - - - + - -- - - - - t - - - - -- _ __ _ 83,401,628.15 .. ,, ... ............... (53,372.816.01) - ; - -- -----t DC 0.00 0.00 28,307 ,026.33 (28 .307, 026.33) DE 4,976.62 109,485.64 24,831,203.17 (24,721,717.53) 0.00 138,141,406.15 (138,141,406.15) t - - - -- t - -- - -- ----+--- FL 0.00 f - -·'"''"'""""'- .........- t -"'"" - -- ---1- - · - -- -- - ! -- -·. - - -- - -1 1 - - -- - · '" " -- l -"""""""' GA 0.00 0.00 HI 365,506.61 8,041,145.42 IA 13,025,890.09 ID 1,821,257.30 IL """'""' - -7,708,245.47 .........- -............................. .. _ _ ,,,.,,....... .. 73,922,777.26 (73,922,777.26) 7,420,819.34 620,326.08 286,569,581.98 21,120,793.50 265,448, 788.48 40,067,660.60 8,562,483.85 31,505, 176.75 ·-- 169,581,400.34 ..... ........_ '""" 140, 710, 151.30 -----.....- . 28,871,249.04 .....,_ ........ ........... IN 3, 163,065.07 69,587,431.54 57,939,474.07 11,647,957.47 KS 4,651,951.10 102,342,924.20 24,831,203.17 77,511,721.03 KY 0.00 0.00 28,256,196.71 (28,256, 196.71) 0.00 39,387,425.72 (39,387,425.72) LA t------··- ···- 0.00 t----:·-- "H"O M I_ _ 85,414.89 1,879,127.58 90,191,496.58 (88,312,369.00) MD 313,590.48 6,898,990.56 54,514,480.53 (47,6i5,489.97) ME 884,415.27 19,457,135.94 7,135,403.21 12,321,732.73 Ml 1,107,718.71 24,369,811.62 67,072,790.17 -•·"""' ·-·-·"'""'"'"""""- -- · - ·- -.;................. (42,702,978.55) .. ..w - ""'""" _ ... _ MN 6,623,251.50 145,711,533.00 89,049,832.06 56,661,700.94 MO 1,245,481.91 27,400,602.02 54,799,896.65 (27,399 ,294.63) MS 0.00 0.00 11,702,061.26 (11,702,061.26) 4,852,074.18 22,380,507.02 MT f--·" _ "'_ 27,232,581.20 1,237,844.60 I--· ...-- """'~" ,_,, _ _ """""''- -- -- - 1 - -·· - ···- ··· ••H•• - -- t - - MA .........--•'--1-"""'- ! """ ...... - ............. , - t - - "·- ···•"'""""' .....................- - ! NC 0.00 0.00 69,641,535.33 (69,641,535.33) ND 5,315,557.28 116,942,260.16 6,279,154.82 110,663,105.34 NE 1,266,816.01 27,869,952.22 22,262,458.02 5,607,494.20 7 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies __ ,_, NH 260,297.15 NJ NM 5,726,537.30 9,989,564.49 (4,263,027.19) 12,869.35 283,125.70 125,868,512.63 (125,585,386.93) 2,226,407.05 48,980,955.10 8,847,899.98 40, 133,055.12 NV 128,788.00 2,833,336.00 15,412,470.93 (12,579,134.93) NY 2,950,988.40 64,921,744.80 227,476,654.34 (162,554,909.54) 987,988.30 21,735,742.60 125,583,096.50 8,233,537.44 181,137,823.68 30,539,525. 74 150,598,297.94 OR 5,689,576.07 125, 170,673.54 25,687,451 .56 99,483,221 .98 PA 2, 150,621.26 47,313,667.72 123,299,767.47 (75,986,099.75) 12,558,309.65 (12,488, 309.39) - ......,. ,_._____,,..... ....................... f - - ..........- 1- - ; -..................._ ,. OH ...... - RI - ,,,_,............................ 3,181.83 · """""" 70,000.26 """'"""'" " "' --..- .........,. ................................... .......... _........ (103,847,353.90) -·-·-·· ........ ............ ................. ................., ,._ SC 0.00 0.00 21, 120,793.50 (21, 120,793.50) SD 2,907,501.43 63,965,031.46 5,708,322.57 58,256, 708.89 TN 43,424.00 955,328.00 53,087,399.88 (52, 132,071.88) 642,4 78,522.62 248,026,615.58 TX t---· - 1--.. - "' OK - ,,,.,, _ UT VA VT __WA ,_,,,, _ 29,203,569.21 ........... ....................... ............. - '""""""""""''''''"' 394,451,907.04 ""'""" 711,881.09 15,661,383.98 17,695,799.96 (2,034,415.98) 0.00 0.00 72,781,112.74 (72,781,112.74) 98,822.12 2, 174,086.64 3,995,825.80 ·59,366,554.71 (1 ,821 ,739.16) ·-· ...... '"'" """""' 6,270,953.08 . ............ _ 137,960,967. 76 "·-··· .. ..........,, .. ,,,,,,,,_ ...... _ 78,594,413.05 .............,,,, __ ,__,, .............................. WI 1,500,039.42 33,000,867.24 46,808,245.06 (i 3,807,377.82) WV 1,277,001.00 28,094,022.00 7,420,819.34 20,673,202.66 WY 3,946, 769.28 86,828,924.16 4,281,241.93 82,547,682 .23 us 129, 734,603.82 2,854,161,284.04 (Total) Regional Analysis Federal wind subsidies impact every state and region in the country. As has been shown in previous articles, 18 studies,1 9 and testimony before Congress, 20 subsidies such as the wind PTC are inefficient21 policies that distort energy markets, threaten grid reliability, 22 and encourage rent-seeking, 23 rather than energy production. This report shows that federal wind subsidies are also terribly inequitable. A majority of U.S. states-generally states that lack the geography and wind supply to support wind power-unfairly shoulder the burden of these subsidies. IER has highlighted 24 the pitfalls of having a one-size-fits-all federal energy policy that takes from some states and gives to others. This study estimates the amount of this inequity. 8 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies While federal wind energy subsidies are a losing proposition for a majority of states and their taxpayers, some states lose much more than others. On a regional level, the Northeast and Southeast are the biggest "net payers," subsidizing wind companies in other areas to the tune of $591.8 million and $559.3 million, respectively. The regions whose wind producers are the highest "net takers" are the Southwest and Midwest, receiving $551.4 million and $4 26. 9 million in net subsidies, respectively. The Northeast The Northeast is the biggest net payer, paying more than $591.8 million more in taxes in 2012 than wind producers in their states received in federal wind subsidies. For the purposes of this study, states in the Northeast include Connecticut, District of Columbia, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia. Figure I below highlights net subsidies and net losses for each state in the Northeast. Net Impact In the Northeast in 2012 (In mtllfons} WV $50 ME- -$50 CT PA ·$100 MA NJ ·$150 y -$200 As figure I shows, all but two states in the Northeast last year paid more in federal taxes to support federal wind subsidies than wind producers in their state received in subsidies. Two states in the Northeast-New York and New Jersey-have net losses that exceed $100 million each. State focus: New York is the second biggest net payer in the country, shouldering net losses of more than $162.5 million in 2012. Despite producing the most electricity from wind of all 9 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies the states in the Northeast region (about 3 million megawatt-hours of federal subsidy-eligible generation, driven by a high renewable energy mandate 25 as well as participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative), NewYork is the largest net payer in the region. New York's high wind power production and the related subsidies of about $64.9 million are trumped by its $227.5 million share of the federal wind subsidy-related tax burden. The Southeast The Southeast region is the second largest net payer in terms of federal wind subsidies. States in the Southeast paid, in total, $559.3 million more in taxes in 2012 than wind producers in their states received in federal wind subsidies. In this study, the Southeast region includes Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Figure 2 below highlights net subsidies and net losses for each state in the Southeast. Net Impact in the Southeast in 2012 (In millions) $30 -$30 AR KY LA TN -$60 GA VA NC ·$90 -$120 ·$150 fl As Figure 2 shows, every state in the Southeast region is a net payer in terms of federal wind subsidies. Of the I I states in the region, the largest losses go to Florida ($138.1 million), Georgia ($73.9 million), Virginia ($72.8 million), and North Carolina ($69.6 million). The Southeast is a net payer because it simply does not have the wind availability of other regions. Because the Southeast does not have quality wind resources, the states in the region generally do not have Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that require utilities to generate a 10 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. If lawmakers in Southeastern states were to impose renewable electricity mandates, these states would likely be forced to buy renewable energy credits (RECs) from states with higher wind potential, providing additional subsidies to wind producers in other states.26 State focus: Florida is the third biggest net payer nationwide and the biggest net payer in the Southeast. Its net losses of $138.1 million in 2012 represent the all-pain, no-gain prospect of federal wind subsidies in the Southeast. Because the state of Florida had zero wind generation in 2012 but a high share of the federal wind subsidy-related tax burden, federal subsidies to wind power imposed a heavy tax on Floridians without conferring "benefits" to anyone in the state. The Midwest The Midwest is the second largest net taker of federal wind subsidies. Wind producers in Midwest states received, in total, about $427 million more in federal wind subsidies in 2012 than their states paid in taxes to support those federal wind subsidies. For the purposes of this study, states in the Midwest region include Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Figure 3 below highlights net subsidies and net losses for each state in the Midwest. As figure 3 shows, wind producers in 8 out of 12 Midwestern states receive more federal wind subsidies than taxpayers in those states Net Impact In the Midwest In 2012 contribute to their (In millions) share of the wind $300 If\ subsidy tax burden. $250 Wind producers in Iowa $200 receive $265.4 million in net subsidies, making $150 NI) Iowa second only to $100 KS Texas as the largest net MN SD $50 taker of federal wind subsidies nationwide. Ohio, on the other hand, fares the worst out of all states in the Midwest, suffering net losses of ·$SO ·$100 Ml OH -$150 $103.8 million. 11 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies Despite the Midwest region being a net taker of federal wind subsidies, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin are net payers. Each of these states also has Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that require electric utilities to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. Given that these states do not produce much wind but are still required to add renewables like wind to their generation mix, these states are most likely buying wind from states whose wind producers are net takers of federal wind subsidies. State focus: Ohio provides a case study for how state renewable electricity mandates can force taxpayers to bestow additional subsidies on wind producers in other states. Ohio's RPS requires utilities to generate 12.5 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like wind by 2024. In annual compliance filings, 27 Duke Energy Ohio, a utility that provides electricity to much of the Cincinnati area, reported that they met one half of their total non-solar renewable energy requirements for 2012 by purchasing RECs from "adjacent states." Similarly, FirstEnergy Ohio Utilities, 28 which includes subsidiaries 29 that provide electricity to Akron, Cleveland, and Toledo, also purchased renewables from "other states deliverable into Ohio" to comply with the RPS in 2012. In other words, Ohio taxpayers subsidize wind producers in net taker states not only through their federal tax dollars, but also through the state RPS-which utilities cannot meet without purchasing electricity from wind producers in neighboring states. The Southwest The Southwest is the largest net taker offederal wind subsidies, driven primarily by Texas. As a whole, wind producers in the Southwest received Net Impact in the Southwest In 2012 more than $551.4 million (In millions) more in federal wind TX subsidies than taxpayers in $400 their states paid in taxes S3SO in 2012 to support federal $300 wind subsidies. For the $250 purposes of this study, $200 states in the Southwest 01( include Arizona, New $150 Mexico, Oklahoma, and $100 Texas. Figure 4 highlights NM $50 the net subsidies and net losses of each state in the Southwest. Al, ·$50 12 Estimating the State-Level Impact ot Federal Wind Energy Subsidies As figure 4 shows, wind producers in all but one Southwestern state received more federal wind subsidies in 2012 than taxpayers in their states contributed to their share of the wind subsidy .tax burden. The only state in the Southwest whose taxpayers paid more in taxes than their wind producers took in subsidies was Arizona, with net losses of about $33.7 million. State focus: Texas is the biggest net taker of federal wind subsidies nationwide, raking in $394.5 million more in wind subsidies than its share of the federal wind subsidy-related tax burden. In 2012, Texas produced more than 29 million megawatt-hours of federal subsidyeligible wind generation, more than double the second highest state's eligible wind generation. Texas has exceeded its renewable portfolio standard due to particularly good wind corridors within the state. States whose geography is not as conducive to wind generation as Texas-such as Ohio-have much more difficulty meeting their state renewable electricity mandates without importing wind energy from other states. The West The West is the third largest net taker of federal wind subsidies. Wind producers in Western states received, in total, almost $183 million more in wind subsidies than their states' taxpayers paid to support the wind subsidy tax burden in 2012. For the purposes of this study, Western states include Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Figure 5 highlights the net subsidies and net losses of each state in the West. Net Impact In the West In 2012 (In mllllons) OR $100 WA WY 0 $50 HI NV AK UT -$50 -$100 ·$ISO $200 CA 13 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies As Figure 5 shows, wind producers in 7 out of 11 Western states are net takers. Wind producers in Oregon are the biggest net takers, at more than $99 million, while taxpayers in California suffer the most net losses, at more than $195.8 million. State focus: In 2012, California had the second highest installed wind capacity in the country 30 and was the seventh largest taker in terms of gross subsidies, receiving a total of almost $135 million in our one-year snapshot. However, because California taxpayers contribute the largest share of the federal tax burden-I I percent of the total-California is actually the biggest net payer of federal wind subsidies. Issues for Further Analysis This analysis evaluates the impacts of wind subsidies without adjusting the PTC-related tax burden for imports of wind-generated electricity. Likewise, our analysis does not adjust for exports of wind-generated electricity from states such as Iowa, which generates about 20 percent of its electricity from wind due to its large wind resource availability, but also exports a major portion of that electricity. This study is a snapshot analysis of federal wind subsidies for a single year-2012. The actual value of the federal wind PTC is much larger than documented in this report because of the I0year life of the subsidy for a given wind facility. Another analysis could evaluate federal wind subsidies over a longer time period. Finally, another study would break down the impacts of each subsidy type-PTC, ITC, and 1603 grant. For the purposes of this white paper, we used a one-year PTC calculation as a proxy. Conclusion As this report highlights, federal wind subsidies such as the PTC provide net subsidies to wind producers in a few states, but those subsidies to wind producers come at the expense of taxpayers everywhere. Further, subsidies to wind producers in the relatively few states with excellent wind resources represent losses to the majority of the states within the U.S. Even in states that seem to accrue net "benefits" from federal wind subsidies, these subsidies merely redistribute wealth from taxpayers to wind energy companies. Federal wind subsidies-beyond being inefficient policies that distort energy markets, threaten grid reliability, and encourage rent-seeking--create an unfair redistribution of wealth across state lines that enriches wind companies in select "net taker" states at the expense of taxpayers in other states. 14 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies see Footnote 17. l 2 The 11 states with zero wind production in 2012 are Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. 3 As /ER has explained, federal wind subsidies often support foreign industries rather than U.S. industries. See http ://www.i nstitutefo renergyresea rch .org/2012/09/07 /oba mas-en ergy-tax-proposa ls-wl nd-vs-oil-and -gas/ 4 Energy Information Administration, 2012 Brief: Average wholesale electricity prices down compared to last year, Jan. 9, 2013, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm ?id=9510. See e.g. Lisa Linowes, Wind Energy Without the PTC, Master Resource, May 12, 2012, blli!.JL www.masterresource.org/2012/0S/wind-energy-without-ptc/. Jonathan A. Lesser, Wind lntermittency and the Production Tax Credit: A High Cost Subsidy for Low Value Power, Qct. 2012, http://www.continentalecon.com/ pu bl lcatio ns/cebp/Lesser_PTC_Report_Fi nal_October-2012 .pdf. 5 6 Energy Information Administration, EPACT2005 Summary, http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ aeo 2006analysispapers/epa2005 summary.html. 7 Energy Information Administration, Tax Credits and Renewable Generation, http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/ otheranalysis/aeo 2009analysispapers/tcrg.html Institute for Energy Research, Breaking News: IRS Gives Big Cash to Big Wind, Apr. 3, 2013, blli!.JL www.instituteforenergy research .org/2013/04/03/breakiog-news-lrs-glves-big-cash-to-big-wlnd/. 8 9 See Internal Revenue Service, Clarification of Notice 2013-29, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-13-60.pdf 10 Id. 11 Department of Energy, America's Wind Industry Reaches Record Highs, Aug . 6, 2013, http://energy.gov/articles/ americas-wind-industry-reacbes-record-higbs. 12 See Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, 2012 Wind Technologies Market Report, Table 2, Aug. 2013, .tllU2JL emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/ftles/lbnl-6356e.pdf. 13 From 2011 to 2012, natural gas added 217,019,000 MWh of electricity produced, compared to 19,912,000 MWh of added electricity produced by wind . See, Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Table 7.2a Electricity Net Generation: Total (All Sectors), Nov. 2013, http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthty/pdf/ sec7 S.pdf. 14 Thomas A. Barthold, Joint Committee on Taxation, Sept. 24, 2013, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.ora/ w p-content / uploads / 2013/10/J CT-wind-PTC-cost-estimate-temporary-extensioo.pdf. 15 Internal Revenue Service, 1603 Program: Payments for Specified Energy Property in lieu of Tax Credits, Mar. 4, 2013, http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/recovery/Pages/1603.aspx. 15 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies 16 For a few years, wind companies could choose between the PTC, the ITC, or Section 1603 grants. The fact that wind companies chose the ITC or Section 1603 grants mean that for those companies, at that specific time, the ITC or the Section 1603 grants were the best choice. This choice implies that the proxy PTC is a lower-bound estimate of the cost of federal wind subsidies . After all, if the PTC was more valuable, the companies would have chosen the PTC and not the ITC or Section 1603 grants. The ITC and the Section 1603 were more valuable, but they also change the timing of the payments for the companies. For many companies it receiving the money up front, as happened with Section 1603 grants, was the most valuable choice. 17 Internal Revenue Service, SOI Tax Stats - Gross Collections, by Type of Tax and State, Fiscal Year - IRS Data Book Table 5, http ://www.irs.gov/uac/SO 1-Tax-Stats-G ross-Col Iections,-by-Type-of-Tax-an d-State,-Fisca I-Yea r-1 RS-Data- Boo k-Ta bl e-5. 18 Robin Millican, Wind PTC Proponents Misconstrue the Facts, Institute for Energy Research, Dec. 5. 2012, b.!illJL www.jnstituteforenergyresearch.om / 2012/12/0S/ptc-proponenU;-misconstrue-the-facts/. David E. Dismukes, Removing Big Wind's "Training Wheels," American Energy Alliance, Nov. 1, 2012, b!UtiL www.americanenergyalliance.org / wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Disnwkes-Removlng-Blg-Winds-TrajnlngWheels.pdf. 19 20 Institute for Energy Research, IER's Robert Michaels to Testify on the Wind PTC, Oct. 1, 2013, b!UtiL www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2013 / 10/ 01/ jers-robert-mjchaels-to-testify-on-the-wind-pt c/. 21 Robert Murphy, Assessing the Production Tax Credit, Apr. 24, 2013, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch .org/ 2012/04/24/assessing-the-production-tax-credit/. 22 Travis Fisher & Alex Fitzsimmons, Wind PTC Threatens Grid Reliability, Institute for Energy Research, Sept. 19, 2013, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch .org/2013/09/19/wind-otc-threa tens-g rid-reliabil ity/. 23 Institute for Energy Research, The Wind Giveaway, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch .om/windptc/. 24 Robin Millican, Wind PTC Proponents Misconstrue the Facts, Institute for Energy Research, Dec. 5. 2012, .b!!u;LL www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/12/05/ ptc- proponents-misconstrue-the-facts /. 25 See Database of Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, New York, http://www,dsireusa.org/incentives/ jocentive.cfm? lncentive Code=NC09Rhttp: //www.dsireusa.org / jncentives/incentive.cfm? lncentiye Code= NY03R 26 North Carolina already has a renewable energy mandate requiring that 12.5 percent of electricity generation by investor-owned utilities in the state come from renewable sources by 2021. See Database of Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, North Carolina, http: //www.dsireus~ . org/jocentives/incentive . cfm?lncentive Code=NC09R. 27 http://dis .puc.state .oh.us/TiffToPDf/A1001001Al3E28B53949C83933.pdf 28 FirstEnergy Service Company, In the Matter of the Annual Alternative Energy Status Report of Ohio Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and The Toledo Edison, Case No. 13-9013-EL-ACP, http://dis.puc.state.oh .us/TiffToPDf/ Al001001A13D1SB02836116206.pdf 29 Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Electric Service Areas of Ohio, http://www.puco.ohio.gov/pucogis/esa/ index.cfm. 30 Department of Energy, Installed Wind Capacity, http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/ wind installed capacity.asp. 16 Estimating the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy Subsidies Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Lynch, Jamie Wednesday, December 04, 2013 9:05 AM Public Utilities; Strigari, Frank; rep27@ohiohouse.gov; Senator Obhof; Senator Widener; Senator Faber FW: Sen Lamar Alexander letter photo.JPG AllPlease see enclosed per the Chairman's request. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov -----Original Message----From: Tom Stacy [mailto:tfstacy@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 4:53 PM To: Rachael.Carl@ohiohouse.gov; Senator Seitz Subject: Sen Lamar Alexander letter 35 !'he 1lonorable M I. 2016 Thi c\.ll'tbl( n g .1, i.: the wind industr. the multi-}car ccrtaint~ that it had requested, so no'' it is tinw t , kt this \(.•.:h111. l og ~ stand on its own. The \.\ind energy PTC. established b, the Encrg. Policy Act ,f 1992. was origin:llly internkd h\ pro \1ck "ind t·nergy producers a sub:-;idy for every kilowatt hour of ckdricit) 1m duccd . 1\1or..:- th.in :n. :::H . . ~ n --1 terh of billions of tax-pa_ er dollars later. the\\ ind Pre is subsidizing a ·'matun.• t1:.'..:l11wl... !:'..: ., ''Ith O\ er 60 000 megawatts of generation capncity 1nstalkd across the country. In fa\.:t l\.'i.'C rding h) tht• l '. S. Department of Energy in 2012, the ll'P sourer: 0f' new eltctri~ gttn ·rati1 n capacity" ;1::; "ind\\ 1th -P ~ c. l'I ~di narn{;platc capacity addition~ ~rnrp;)ssing ne' nawral gas-firc.'d ge11l·r;Hio11 . The growth in wind is driven rwl by mmkct dcnnnd. but by a fcdt:ral !Bx ~ubsicl)' th,11 at till1t's is more valuable than the wholesale price of the clci..lrkity in null\) ckctricity marh·r... ac rn::-::-> th.; U11itcd St \tl''. Sinct tilt wind PTC is so ~ent'rous, it distorts wholc::.al..: ckctricitv markd.; b' inl'n:a~inl!. the: U'.:l'lllT(:lh.~ l' of the phenomenon called "nc:gativc pricing." Negative prices t~ncourage el ·ctricity µ,.;ncrators to cunail generation. but the \'>ind PTC makes it economical for a wind producer to pay th~ market to lake th('ir power. Conventional generation that is instrumental to the rclinbilit) of the 1.:ledrk grid d~'~s twt have th1.· artifici11I protection of the wind PTC, and is harmed b~ the increased occurrence of ru.:gativc pricinp.. ... " J Our nation's energy policy must make economic sense for taxpayers and not rnanipulati: markets. Continuation of rhe wind PTC not only picks winners and losers. it is distcrting our L'1H.·rs~· 11M1h:t. ,1nd it':-r past time to end a temporary tax credit that was put into law in 1992. :\l'ter murc than :u ~car~. •md t Tuesday, December 03, 2013 6:12 PM Senator Seitz; Home - Senator Seitz Lynch, Jamie Hospital Amendment Talking Points 6886097 _l.DOCX Bill - Please feel free to use the attached talking points for the proposed hospital amendment. Thanks. George Taft I George T. Glover I Managing Director Focused Capitol Solutions LLC 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: Cincinnati• Fax: 513.357.8740 Direct: 513.357.9486 •Cell: 513.607.9492 www.taftlaw.com I glover@focusedcapitolsolutions.com From: O'Brien, Thomas [mailto:TOBrien@Bricker.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 4:35 PM To: Glover, George Subject: Talking Points George, here are the high-level talking points for the amendment language. Tom 38 Purpose and benefit of GCHC amendment to SB 58 I The GCHC amendment language: • Directs the PUCO to adopt specific rules that requiring electric distribution utilities, upon request, to meet with hospitals at least once every two years to discuss the power quality received by hospitals from the utility. • Codifies the growing importance of power quality to hospitals. • Gives the PUCO important policy direction with respect to the level of service that hospitals receive from their distribution utility that does not currently exist. ./ Importantly, the amendment language elevates to the level of Revised Code the regular, but informal practice of providing hospitals with priority in the service restoration plans of the various electric distribution utilities. 6886097vl Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, December 03, 2013 5:16 PM Public Utilities Sub. S.B. 58 Amendments 130SB58-1307 In State, Return to Current Law.pdf; 130SB58-1305 Eliminate Shared Savings.pdf; 130SB58-1306 OMA Amendment.pdf; 130SB58-1308 Customer Class.pdf; 130SB58-1303 Remove Cost Cap.pdf; 130SB58-1304 What Counts.pdf; S0058CL-130.pdf; 130SB58-1296Xl.pdf; 130SB58-1326.pdf; 130SB58-1336.pdf; 130SB58-1337.pdf; 130SB58-1347.pdf; 130SB58-1348.pdf; 130SB58-1316.pdf; 130SB58-1339Xl.pdf; 130SB58-1359.pdf AllPlease see enclosed for the amendments being considering in Senate Public Utilities Committee during tomorrow's hearing on Sub. S.B. 58. We are still waiting on a few amendments being drafted by LSC and I will send those as soon as they are ready to be distributed. As always, do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 39 AM1307 Sub. S .B. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Topic: Renewable energy in-state requirement moved to amend as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 In line 1393, reinsert "At"; c;lelete II (a) Prior to Januar y 1, 2019, at In line 1395, reinsert the"; II• ' delete the underlined period In line 1396, delete II ( b) The"; reinsert "with"; delete "from" 7 In line 1379, reinsert "this state"; delete "the regional" 8 Delete lines 1398 through 1402 9 In line 1403, delete everything before the period 10 The motion was agreed to. Legislative Service Commission -1- 1308858-1307.DOCX/rs AM1305 Sub. S.B. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Topic: Eliminate shared savings provisions moved to amend as follows: 1 Oelete lines 1702 through 1720 2 In line 1816, after the underlined semicolon insert "and" 3 In 4 line 1819, delete ";-'--__.....,__.._ and" and insert an underlined period 5 Delete lines 1820 through 1846 6 In line 1904, delete "(A)" 7 In line 1911, delete "ill" and insert "ill" 8 In line 1916, delete "ill" and insert "ill"; delete "and" 9 In line 1917, delete "shared savings incentives" 10 Delete lines 1922 through 1933 11 In 12 line 1967, delete "but full recovery" insert an underline<;! period 13 Delete lines 1968 and 1969 14 In line 1971, delete ", incentives," 15 and The motion was agreed to. Legislative Service Commission -1- 130SB58-1305.DOCX/ar AM1306 Syb. S.B. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Topic: EE/PDR customer option; remove all other amendments ~----------~------~--------- moved to amend as follows: In line 23, delete all after "That" and insert "section 1 4928.66 be amended and sections 4928.661, 4928.662, 4928.663, 2 4928.664, 4928.665, and 4928.666" 3 Delete lines 24 through 36 4 In line 37, delete "and 4928.6670" 5 Delete lines 38 through 2906 and insert: 6 "Sec. 4928.66. (A) (1) (a) Beginning in 2009, an electric 7 distribution utility shall implement energy efficiency programs 8 that achieve energy savings 9 eq~ivalent to at least three-tenths of one per cent of the total, annual average, and normalized kilowatt-hour sales of the electri~ 10 distribution utility during 11 the preceding three calendar years to customers in this state. An 12 energy efficiency program may include a combined heat and power 13 system placed into service or retrofitted on or after the 14 effective date of the amendment of this section by S.B. 315 of the 15 129th general assembly, 16 S~temb~r 10. 2012, or a waste energy recovery system placed into service or retrofitted on or after €-fie 17 same date September 10, 2012, except that a waste energy recovery 18 system described in division (A) (38) 19 (~) of section 4928.01 of the 1305858-1306/RH Page2 AM1306 Revised Code may be included only if it was placed into service 20 between January 1, 2002, and Decernl;>er 31, 2004. For a waste energy 21 recovery or combined heat and power system, the savings shall be 22 as estimated by the public utilities commission. The savings 23 requirement, using such a three-year average, shall increase to an 24 additional five-tenths of one per cent in 2010, seven-tenths of 25 one per cent in 2011, eight-tenths of one per cent in 2012, 26 nine-tenths of one per cent in 2013, one per cent from 2014 to 27 2018, and two per cent each year thereafter, achieving a 28 cumulative, annual energy savings in excess of twenty-two per cent 29 by the end of 2025. For purposes of a waste energy recovery or 30 combined heat and power system, an electric distribution utility 31 shall not apply more than the total annual percentage of the 32 electric distribution utility's industrial-customer load, relative 33 to the electric distribution utility's total load, to the annual 34 energy savings requirement. 35 (b) Beginning in 2009, an electric distribution utility shall 36 implement peak demand reduction programs designed to achieve a one 37 per cent reduction in peak demand in 2009 and an additional 38 seventy-five hundredths of one per cent reduction each year 39 through 2018. In 2018, the standing committees in the house of 40 representatives and the senate primarily dealing with energy 41 issues shall make recommendations to the general assembly 42 regarding future peak demand reduction targets. 43 (2) For the purposes of divisions {A) (1) (a) and (b) of this section: 44 45 (a) The baseline for energy savings under division (A) (1) (a) 46 of this section shall be the average of the total kilowatt hours 47 the electric distributiqn utility sold in the preceding three 48 calendar years, and the baseline for a peak qemand reduction under 49 1305858-1306/RH Page3 AM1306 50 division (A) (1) (b) of this section shall be the average peak 51 demand on the utility in the preceding three calendar years, except that the commission may reduce either baseline to adjust for new economic growth in the utility's certified territory. The commission shall exclupe from any customer that has e4ect~d ~Ae bas~lin~s the load end usage of tQ opt oµt under sections 4928.661 52 53 54 55 56 to 4928.666 of the Eeyised Code. (b) The commission may amend the benchmarks set forth in 57 division (A) (1) (a) or (b) of this section if, after application by 58 the electric distribution utility, the commission determines that 59 the amendment is necessary because the utility cannot reasonably 60 achieve the benchmarks due to regulatory, economic, or 61 technological reasons beyond its reasonable control. 62 (c) Compliance with divisions (A) (1) (a) and (b) of this 63 section shall be measured by including the effects of all 64 demand-response programs for mercantile customers of the subject 65 electric distribution utility, all waste energy recovery systems 66 and all combined heat and power systems, and all such mercantile 67 customer-sited energy efficiency, including waste energy recovery 68 and combined heat and power, and peak demand reduction programs, 69 adjusted upward by the appropriate loss factors. Any mechanism 70 designed to recover the cost of energy efficiency, including waste 71 energy recovery and combinect heat and power, and peak demand 72 reduction programs under divisions (A) (1) (a) and (b) of this 73 section may exempt mercantile customers that commit their 74 demand-response or other customer-sited capabilities, whether 75 existing or new, for integration into the electric distribution 76 utility's demand-response, energy efficiency, including waste 77 energy recovery and combined heat and power, or peak demand 78 reduction programs, if the commission determines that that 79 exemption reasonably encourages such customers to commit those 80 1305858-1306/RH Page4 AM1306 capabilities to those programs. If a mercantile customer makes such existing or new demand-response, energy efficiency, including waste energy recovery and combined heat and power, or peak demand reduction capability available to an electric distribution utility utility's baseline under division (A) (2) (a) of this section shall be adjusted to exclude the effects of all such demand-response, energy efficiency, including waste energy recovery and combined heat and power, or peak demand reauction programs that may have ~sed to esta~lish the baseline. The ~emand, 83 84 86 87 88 89 90 91 baseline also shall be normalized for changes in numbers of customers, sales, weather, peak 82 85 pursuant to division (A) (2) (c) of this section, the electric existed during the period 81 an¢ other appropriate 92 93 factors so that the compliance measurement is not unduly 94 influenced by factors outside the control of the electric 95 distribution utility. (d) Programs implemented by a utility may include 96 demand-response programs, smart grid investment programs, provided 97 that such programs are demonstrated to be cost-beneficial, 98 customer-sited programs, including waste energy recovery and 99 combined heat and power systems, and transmission and distribution 100 infrastructure improvements that reduce line losses. Division 101 (A) (2) (c) of this section shall ~e applied to include facilitating 102 efforts by a mercantile customer or group of those customers to 103 offer customer-sited demand-response, energy efficiency, including 104 waste energy recovery and combined heat and power, or peak demand 105 reduction capabilities to the ~lectric distribution utility as 106 part of a reasonable arrangement submitted to the commission 107 pursuant to section 4905.31 of the Revised Code. 108 (e) No programs or improvements described in division (A) (2) (d) of this section shall conflict with any statewide building code adopted by the board of building standards. 109 110 111 130$858-1306/RH AM1306 (B) Page 5 In accordance with rules it shall adopt, the public 112 utilities commission shall produce and docket at the commission an 113 annual report containing the results of its verification of the 114 annual levels of energy efficiency and of peak demand reductions 115 achieved by each electric distribution utility pursuant to 116 division (A) of this section. A copy of the report shall be 117 provided to the consumers' counsel. 118 (C) If the commission determines, after notice and 119 opportunity for hearing and based upon its report under division 120 (B) of this section, that an electric distribution utility has 121 failed to comply with an energy efficiency or peak demand 122 reduction requirement of division (A) of this section, the 123 commission shall assess a forfeiture on the utility as provided 124 under sections 4905.55 to 4905.60 and 4905.64 of the Revised Code, 125 either in the amount, per day per undercompliance or 126 noncompliance, relative to the period of the report, equal to that 127 prescribed for noncompliances under section 4905.54 of the Revised 128 Code, or in an amount equal to the then existing market value of 129 one renewable energy credit per megawatt hour of undercompliance 130 or noncompliance. Revenue from any forfeiture assessed under this 131 division shall be deposited to the credit of the advanced energy 132 fund created under section 4928.61 of the Revised Code. 133 (D) The commission may establish rules regarding the content of an application by an electric distri~ution utility for 134 135 commission approval of a revenue decoupling mechanism under this 136 division. Such an application shall not be considered an 137 application to increase rates and may be included as part of a 138 proposal to establish, continue, or expand energy efficiency or 139 conservation programs. The commission by order may approve an 140 application under this division if it determines both that the 141 revenue decoupling mechanism provides for the recovery of revenue 142 130$858-1306/RH Page 6 AM1306 that otherwise may be forgone by the utility as a result of or in connection with the implementation by the electric distribution utility of any energy efficiency or energy conservation programs and reasonably aligns the interests of the utility and of its 143 144 145 146 147 customers in favor of those programs. 148 (E) The commission additionally shall adopt rules that require an electric distribution utility to provide a customer 149 upon request with two years' consumption data in an accessible 150 form. 151 152 Sec. 4928.661. Any customer of an electric distribution utility that meets ~ither gf the following out of both the opportuni,ty from the utility's ~nd coNplianc~ reguir~roents WqY opt ability to obtain di:i;,-ect benefits plan tg rn~et the requirements gf r~ceives level as d etermined by the (Bl S§rvice above the primary voltage ~tility 1 s 155 159 160 purchaser option under section 5727.81 of the Revised Code. el~cting 157 158 tariff classi f ication . The customer's account is subject to the self-assessing Sec. 4928.662. Any customer 154 156 section 4928.66 of the Reyised Cope; (A) The custome r 153 161 to opt out under sections 4928.661 to 4928.666 of the Revised Code shall do so by 162 providing a written notice of intent to opt gut tQ the electric 163 distribution utility from which it receives service and submitting 164 a complete copy of the opt-out notice to the secretary of the 165 public utilities commission. 166 (A) The notice pro~ided 167 to the utility shall include the 168 following; (1) A statement indicating that the customer has elected to I opt out; 169 170 1305858-1306/RH AM1306 Page 7 el~ction (2) Th!i effective da,te, ,of tl;i!i (3) The cu~tQme!'s to Qot out; 171 ecgount n,ymt>ers for each accoynt subject to opt out; 173 (4) The physical locat=ion of the cu,stomer's load center . (Bl 172 a The opt-out notice shall inclµde written election to 174 175 opt out and a verified statement thg,t affirms all of the 176 following; 177 (1) That the customer has contracted with a third narty 178 179 energy efficiency aggregator or has an employee that is an internal energy efficiency expert capabl~ 180 of iQentifying and implementing cost-effective euergy efficiency prosrqm§ Qn its own; (2) That the customer cost-effective energy (3) That the wi~l identify and implement effici~ngy aggreg~tor or verification :Qrqtocq,ls tJaat mee,t o,r verification protQgols that interconnection regional 182 programs; exp~rt utilizes 183 meas~rement ~xgeeQ m~asur~meut ar~ cac>:~ted trg,nsmis~iQn 181 and 184 185 g,nd l;iy tbe PJM 186 orqauizatiQn. L . L.C. or any 187 entity performing the functions igentified in section 4928.12 of 188 the Reyised Code within tbis state; 189 (4) That the efficiency aggreg~tor ~g,yings the or expert will bid the energy c~stome~ 190 hae achieyed into tije capacity 191 market of the PJM intercQnnection regional transmission 192 org ani zat i on. L. L. C . o r a ny entity pe rf ormi ng t h e f uncti o ns 193 identified in section 4928.12 of the Revised Code within this 194 state in order to gompensate the customer for the energy 195 efficiency savings achieyed. 196 Sec. 492~.~63. sections 492e.661 to Qpon a,cv~tQm.er's 4~28.666 of th~ ~lection to Qpt out under Revised Code. all of the 197 198 1305858-1306/RH AM1306 Page 8 199 following apply; (A) An account properly identified in the customer's yerified notice; 200 201 (1) Is not subject to cost recoyery mechanisms established under section 4928.66 of the Reyised Code; and 202 203 (2) Is not eligible to participate in, or directly benefit 204 from, programs arising from electric distribution utility 205 compliance plans approved py the commission to meet tbe 206 requirements of section 4928.66 Rf the Revised Code. 207 (B) The customer is not eligible to participate in a cost 208 recovery exemption agreement under diyision (A) (2) (cl of section 209 4928.66 of the Revised Code. 210 Sec. 4928.664. (A) A customer subsequently may opt in under 211 section 4928.665 of the Revised Code after a previous election to 212 opt out under sections 4928.661 and 4928.662 of the Reyised Code 213 if both ~f the following apply; (1) The customer has pr~yiously 214 opted out for a period of at least three consecutive calendar yeare. 215 216 (2) The customer giyes potice qf its intent to opt in to the 217 public utilities commission and the electric distribution utility 218 from which it receives seryice. The custqmer shall giye the notice 219 six months prior to the next calendar year of the utility's 220 compliance plan. 221 (Bl A customer that opts in under this section shall maintain 222 its opt-in status for three consecutiye calendar years before 223 being eligible subsequently to exercise its right to Qpt out after 224 giying the utility notice six months prior to the next calendar 225 1308858-1306/RH AM1306 Page 9 226 year of the utility's compliance plan. Sec. 4928.665. Any customer electing to opt in under section 227 4928.664 of the Reyised Code shall do so by providing a written 228 notice of intent to opt in to the electric distribution utility 229 from which it receiy es 1 r;:JE~rxic,e the opt-in notice to the commission. The notir;:i; and SJ.l.bmitting a CQmplete cq_py of secr~tary sh~ll 231 of the pµblic utilities 232 incluqe t,he following; (A) A statement indicating that the custom~r has elected to opt in; (Bl 230 233 234 The effective date of t~e 235 election to opt in; (C) The customer's account numbers for each account subject to opt in; 236 237 (D) The physical location of the customer's load center. 238 Sec. 4928.666. A customer that has elected to qpt out retains 239 ownership rights to energy efficiency and demand red.uction sayings 240 the customer has achieved and shall bid the savings into the 241 capacity market of the PJM interconnection regional transmission 242 qrganization. L.L.C. or Qllv entity identified in se~tion p~rforming 4928.12 Qf the Reyiseg the ~ode fun~tions 243 witbin this 244 state. 245 Section 2. That existing section 4928.66 of the Revised Code 247 is hereby repealed." In line 1 of the title, delete all after "amend" and insert an~ 248 249 "section 4928.66 and to enact sections 4928.661, 4928.662, 4928.663, 4928.664, 4928.665, 246 4928.666 of the Revised Code 250 regarding an energy efficiency and peak demand reduction opt out 251 and opt in for certain customers." 252 1308858-1306/RH AM1306 Delete lines 2 through 22 of the title Page 10 253 The motion was _ _ ___ agreed to. 130$858-1306/RH AM1308 Sub. S.B. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Topic: Require energy efficiency savings of 0.3% for each customer class ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- moved to amend as follows: 1 Between lines 742 and 743, insert: 2 " ( 44) "Customer c la ss" means the residential, commercial, 3 and industrial classes of customers as defined by the tariffs of 4 an electric distribution utility." 5 6 7 8 In line 1724, after "i;>hall" insert "apply to each customer class and shall" In line 1727, after "customers" insert "in that class" The motion was agreed to. Legislative Service Conunission - 1- 130SB58-1308.DOCX/ar AM1303 Sub. S.B. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Topic: Energy efficiency and peak demand reduction cost cap removal moved to amend as follows: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 Delete line 33 2 In line 34, delete "4928.6621, 4928.6622, 4928.6623," 3 Delete lines 1880 through 1953 4 In 5 line 1954, delete "4928.6615" and insert "4928.6610"; delete "4928. 6622" an<;i insert "4928. 6660" thro~gh 6 Delete lines 1962 7 In line 2235, delete "resulting from the" 8 Delete line 2236 9 In line 2237, delete "of the Revised Code" and insert "with 10 1992 the ene rg y efficiency and peak demand reduction requirements" 11 In line 2249 I delete "ill" 12 In line 2251, delete "ill" 13 In line 2254, delete II 14 Delete lines 2258 through 2262 15 In line 13 of the title, delete "4928.6614," 16 Delete line 14 of the title Legislative ServiGe Conunission (ii) and insert "~" If and insert -1- "ill" 1308858-1303.DOCX/ar AM1303 17 18 19 20 In line 15 of the title, delete "4928. 6619, "; delete "4928.6621, 4928.6622," In line 16 of the title, delete "4928.6623," The motion was agreeci to. Legislative Service Conunission - 2- 130SB58-1303.DOCX/ar AM1304 Sub. S.B. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Topic: Remove certain items from qualifying as energy efficiency and peak demand reduction items ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ moved to amend as follows: 1 In line 1834, delete "and" 2 Delete line 1835 3 In line 1836, delete "4928.6640 of the Revised Code" 4 In line 1837, delete 5 In line 2018, delete the underlined period 6 Delete lines 2019 through 2021 7 In line 2022, 8 9 10 "ill" delete "(1) and insert "l.!!l" Transmission"; strikethrough the remainder of the line In line 2023, strike through "that reO.uce line losses"; delete the underlined semicolon and insert an underlined period 11 In line 2024, delete 12 In line 2027, after "ill" and insert "Code" insert "ill" "shall also be counted 13 toward meeting the energy efficiency and peak demand reduction 14 requirements 15 improvement" 16 regardless of the intent or origin of the In line 213 4, delete all after " (A) " Legislative Service Corrunission - 1- 130SB58-1304.DOCX/ar AM1304 17 Delete lines 2135 through 2146 18 In line 2147, delete all before "For" 19 In line 2154, delete "ill" and insert "ill" 20 In line 2156, delete "ill'' and insert "ill" 21 In line 2158, delete "ill" and insert "ill" 22 Delete lines 2164 through 2185 23 In line 21e 6, delete "ill" and insert "ill" 24 In line 2193, delete "ill" and insert "ill" 25 In line 2197, delete "ill" and insert "ill'' 26 In line 2201, delete "ill" and insert "J.fil" 27 In line and (I) " 28 and (F)" 29 The motion was 2208, delete "{B), ( G) I and insert "ill. agreed to. Legislative Service Corrunission -2- 130SB58-1304.DOCX/ar Ohio Legislative Service Commission HOl,JSE MEMBERS SENA TE: MEMBERS Wllllam G. Batchelder, Vice-Chairperson Keith Faber, Chairperson Mark Flanders Director Edna Brown Cliff Hite Eric Kearney Larry Obhof Thomas F. Patton Chris Widener Ron Amstutz Armond Budish Cheryl L. Grossman Tracy Maxwell Heard Matt Huffman Barbara R. Sears S.B. 58 Oecember 3, 2013 The Honorable William J. Seitz Ohio Senate Statehouse Columbus, OH 43215 Dear Senator Seitz: Enclosed is a technical and corrective amendment for Sub. S.B. 58 drafted for the latest substitute version of the bill, LSC 130 0592-8. The amendment makes three changes as follows: (1) The amendment adds a change that was missed in the drafting of the substitute bill. The amern;iment changes the reference to a hydroelectric facility in R.C. 4928.65 (line 1613) by adding the phrase "that produces energy that is" so that all references to a hydroelectric facility in the bill include a facility "that produces energy that is deliverable into a regional transmission organization." LSC 130 0592-8 already includes this change in RC. 3706.25 (lines 256-257) and R.C. 4928.01 (lines 656-657). (2) To the references describe<;! above for a hydroelectric facility (lines 257, 657, and 1614), the amendment adds the phrase "as defined in section 4928.66 of the Revised Code" to make the reference to the RTO clear. (3) The amendment deletes incorrect references to this "division" in R.C. 4928.6651 (lines 2273 and 2277) and R.C. 4928.6656 (line 2307) and inserts the word "section" in its place. Vern Riffe Center • 77 South High Street, Ninth Floor • Columbus, Ohio 43216-6136 • www.lsc.state.oh.us Telephone (614) 466·3616 Senator Seltz December 3, 2013 Page2 If you have any question~, al'.Jout thi~ amendment or my explanation, please contact me at (614) 466-4071 or kluikart@l~c.state.oh.us. Sincerely, Kathleen A. Luikart Research Associate ar Enclosure: S0058-CL-13Q.docx 1305558-1348 ~1296X1 S. B. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 en~rgy Topic: Renewable credits for biogas used for fleets moved to amend as follows: 1 In line 1606, 2 comp l y ing 3 requirements 4 Revised Code," 5 6 with after the of "use" renewable division (B) insert energy (2) I and of section purpose ene rg y 4928. 641 of resource of the strike through the first "a" and insert "the In line 160 9, following: ( 1) 8 ( 2) An" 9 In line 1613, delete all after "state" 11 the solar 7 10 for II In strike through "or an" and insert A"; line 1614, delete "organization"; II • .!.... strike through the balance of the line 12 Strike through line 1615 13 In line 1616, strike through "of section"; 14 "4 92 8. 641"; strike through "of the Revised Code" l.5 or that produces 16 t ransmissi on organizatio,n as defined in s e?t ion 17 Revised Code; energy that Legislative Service Gornmission is deliverable -1- delete and insert into the "L regional 4928. 66 of ttie 130SB58-1296Xl . DOCX/rs AM1296Xl 18 (3) A seller of compressed natural gas that has been 19 produced from biologically derived methane gas and will be used 20 to power 21 government, 22 services for public 23 that seller may 24 ~~hiples the o~ belonging to ei~her util~ties, public units of contractors for the performance of transportation fl I I ~ utilit~es or l7nits of government, only provide renewable provided energy credits for ' metered amounts , of gas solQ. to th9se entities" In 25 line 1647, metho~s afte:t" the 1,mderlined insert "The 26 method or 27 the quantity of energy derived from biologically derived methane 28 g as 29 3, 412, 142 British thermal units." 30 The motion was to an shall specify that, period electricity e_quival e nt, for purposes of converting one megawatt hour equa ls agreed to. Legislative Service Commission -2- 130SB58-1296Xl.DOCX/rs AM1326 Sub. S.B. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Topic: Municipal power agency ~~..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--~ 1 2 3 4 In line 2349, delete mQved to amend as follows: the second "or" and insert underlined comma In line 2350, after "corpor~tion" insert ", or municipal power agency as defined in sect i on 3734.058 of the Revised Code" 5 In line 2353, delete "or" and insert an underlined comma 6 In line 2354, after 7 an The motion was "coreopat~on" insert ", or agency" agreed to. Legislative Service Co!llJllission -1- 130$858-1326.DOCX/rs AMl.336 Sub. S.B. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Topic: Energy conversi.on method changes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ moved to amenQ as follows: 1 In line 1651, delete all after "systems" 2 In line 1652, delete "Revised Code" 3 • The motion was agreed to. Legislative Service Conunission -1- 130SB58-1336.DOCX/rs AM1337 Sub. S.B. 58 LSC 130 0592-S Topic: Compliance plan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~3, moved to amend as follows: 1 In line 2 Delete lines 1880 through 1893 3 In line 1899, delete "The co st cap sha ll a p p!Y t o an" cieJ..ete "4 92 8. 6614," ' thro~gh 4 Delete lines 1900 5 In line 1909, delete "approved after the effective date of 6 1903 S.B. 58" 7 In line 1910, Q.elete "of the 130th g eneral assembly" 8 In line 13 of the title, delete "4928.6614," 9 The motion was agreed to. Legislative Service Commission -1- 1308858-1337.DOCX/ar AM1347 Sub. S.B. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Topic: Limit RECs sold oy run-of-the-river hydro facilities vintage 1980-1998 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In line 1613, after "or" insert "that produces energ y that 1 2 3 4 moved to amend as follows: is" In line 1914, after "organization" insert "as defined in placed in section 4928.66 of the Revised Code" 5 Between line$ 1652 and 1653, insert: 6 "(D) A run-of-the-river hydroelectric facility 7 service after January 1, 1980, but prior to January 1, 1998, may 8 sell no more 9 credits prior to January 1, 2019." 10 The motion was than forty-five per cent of its renewable energy agreed to. Legislative Service Commission -1- 1308858-1347.DOCX/ar AM1348 Sub. S.B. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Topic: Technical anc;i ~orrective amendment moved to amend as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 In line 257, after "organization" insert "as defined in insert "as defined in section 4928.66 of the Revised Code" In line 657, after "organization" section 4928.66 of the Revised Code" In line 1613, c;ielete "or" and insert "that e :i;oduces ene rgy that is" In line 1614, after "organization" insert "as defined in section 4928.6 6 of the Revised Code " In line 2273, strike through "division" and insert line 2277, strike through "division" and insert line 2307, strike through "division" and insert "section" In "section" In 14 "section" 15 The motion was agreec;i to. Legislative Service Commission -1- 130SB58-1348.DOCX AM1316 Sub. S.B. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Topic: EE/PDR programs for low-income customers moved to amend as follows: 1 In line 2027, after "~o,d~" ini;;ert "to benefit low-income 2 customers throµgh pro9rams that include , but are not limited to, 3 energy audits, 4 appliances, and windows, and other weatherization measures" 5 The motion was the installation of energy efficient insulation, agr~ed Legislative Service Conunission to. -1- 130SB58-1316.DOCX/ar AM1339Xl Sub. S. B. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Topic: Ensure reliable el~ctric service to hospitals moved to amend as follows: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 In line 32, after "sections" insert "4928 .112," 2 Between lines 750 and 751, insert: 3 "Sec. 4928 .112. (A) In interruption of :eeriod of emergency or disaster, an 4 electric service 5 electric distribution utility's 6 give 7 distribution utility. 8 9 during a the priority to hos pi ta ls (BJ If requested l;>y a event service that are I an restoration plan customers hosp i tal electric distribution utility shall £ of that is of the its confer at shall electric customer, an least biennially 10 with that hospital regarding power quality issues and concerns 11 related to 12 spikes, and 13 those events or their imEact on the hospital. 14 15 16 (C) the utility's harmonic facilities, disturbances, The public utilities including in an commission voltage effort shall to adopt sags, minimize rules to carry out this section." In line 17 "4928.112," 18 The motion was 12 of the title, after "sections" insert agreed to. Legislative Service Conunission - 1- 130SB58-1339Xl.DOCX/rs AM1359 Sub. S.S. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Topic: Shared savings incentive at PUCO's discretion - - - - - - - - - -- -- - moved to amend as follows: In line 1816, after the underlined semicolon insert ".9..lli.1" 1 In line 1819, delete'': ana" and insert an underlined period 2 "fil" In line 1820, delete all after 3 Delete lines 1821 through 1836 4 In line 1837, delete 5 11 l.Ql 11 Delete lines 1841 through 1845 6 In line 1846, delete all before the final underlined period 7 and insert 11 {D) The public utilities commis§ion WPY authorize a sh0red sayin9§ each electric incentiv~ to be included in the utility. distrib~tiQn Ih~ CQffiPl~apce in~entive shall plan of ~easure savings using the utility cost te§t" 11 In line 1917, before sua~~d 11 11 ~ 11 insert "2.IlY" 10 11 , 12 if one is" insert an underlined comma In line 1931, delete the second 9 11 In line 1922, after "inceijtivfe" insert In line 1924, after 8 11 ~ 11 In line 1959, after 11 incentiye 11 insert In line 1968, after 11 .Q.f, 11 insert "SlllY" and insert ".e.!l.Y" 11 .QI:" 13 14 15 16 17 1305858-1359/AT AM1359 Pae 2 The motion was agreed to. Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Scott Elisar Tuesday, December 03, 2013 4:18 PM 'Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com)'; 'Charlotte Hickcox (chickcox@ohiochamber.com)'; 'tpine@firstenergycorp.com'; Charles Willoughby - Gmail; 'John McGough Omcgough@mcgough-inc.com) '; 'peggy.claytor@timken.com'; Lynch, Jamie 'Kurt Leib' RE: Answers to OMA's False Claims - Sorry Typo on previous document! image003jpg; image004.jpg; OMA's false claims on SB 58.pdf Importance: High To: Now - Please share Thanks Scott Scott E. Elisar McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC 21 E. State Street, 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 719-2850 (Direct Dial) (614) 395-3925 (Mobile) (614) 469-4653 (Fax) selisar@mwncmh.com McNees Wallace & Nurkk LLC The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230, unless we expressly state otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communications (including any attachments) was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matter(s) addressed herein. From: Scott Elisar Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:56 PM To: Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); Charlotte Hickcox (chickcox@ohiochamber.com); tpine@flrstenergycorp.com; Charles Willoughby - Gmall; John McGough (jmcgough@mcgough-inc.com); 'peggy.claytor@timken.com'; Lynch, Jamie (Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov) Cc: 'Kurt Leib' Subject: Answers to OMA's False Claims Please share. Thank you Scott 40 Scott E. Ellsar McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC 21 E. State Street, 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 719-2850 (Direct Dial) (614) 395-3925 (Mobile) (614) 469-4653 (Fax) selisar@mwncmh.com Mc Nees Wallace Nurlck & LLC The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230, unless we expressly state otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communications (including any attachments) was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matter(s) addressed herein. **This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 41 .. i: •... ,.. ,,.,... • .• Substitute Senate Bill 58 Executive Overview December 3, 2013 ANSWERS TO OMA's false claims concerning SB 58 • Sub. SB 58 allows savings from municipal electric systems' and rural electric co-ops' energy efficiency and peak demand reduction improvements to count toward utilities' compliance requirements - even though the municipals and co-ops are not part of the investor-owned utility distribution system . This allows the utilities to collect 33 percent profit on those savings - savings the utilities had no involvement in creating. False - SB 58 - Page 77 line 2345 - 2355, Muni and Rural does not count towards an .EDU Compliance plan • Sub. SB 58 allows savings from non-electric energy efficiency and peak demand reductions to count toward the utilities' compliance requirements. This requires electric customers to pay for non-electric energy efficiency improvements. False - This claim confuses two issues. SB 58 expressly codifies that all energy efficiency is to be counted towards compliance which reflects an accurate interpretation of current law (R.C. 4928.66). Any cost that an electric distribution utility attempts to recover will be reviewed by the PUCO as part of the Edu's three year compliance plans. SB 58, Page 59 line 1804-1811. • Sub. SB 58 allows utilities to recover shared savings incentives (profits) on compliance savings that are banked and used In a future year, without precluding utilities' recovery of profits in the year the savings occur as well. This creates an opportunity for utilities to enjoy double profits for the same energy savings. False - SB 58 page 60, Line 1837 -1840 - if compliance is banked or saved, it can only be provided once in the year in which the banked savings is used. - ·~ · - ····.··.·-.~1. ..·..·.~ · ··~.~.··-·. •·· ••• r-.· • Sub. SB 58 allows each utility to decide - at its SQle discretion - whether (a) the revised law applies to the utility while its existing plan is in effect, or (b) the utility has to follow its existing plan. The bill is unclear wbat happens if the utility chooses to be subject to the -- -·revised law while·contrnu1ng its existing plan and thatplan c onflicts with the revised law. The bill also allows a utility that elects to be governed by the revised law to choose not to be subject to a cost cap while its existing plan is in effect. False - if the utility chooses to be subject to the revised law - then it has to comply with the revised law. •Sub. SB 58 specifies that, through a revenue decoupling mechanism, a utility may recover the applicable rate of return associated with the cost of providing distribution service - irrespective of whether the utility actually provides the distribution service to customers. This is another example of SB 58's unwarranted giveaways to utilities. False - page 60 - line 1817 - legislation simply says that an EDU compliance plan shall include either lost revenue or revenue decoupling mechanism. OMA's claim makes no sense. •Sub. SB 58 expands what counts as renewable energy to include Ohio "run-of-the-river" hydroelectric generation facilities placed in service since 1980 or rated to operate at an aggregate of 40 Megawatts or more. This provision runs counter to the intent of Ohio's renewable energy policy, which is to incentivize new renewable generation sources - not generation sources that are 30-plus years old. False - This is another example of the OMA opining about what it believes legislative intent was when SB 221 was enacted. We believe Senator Coley, who served as a state representative when SB 221 was enacted, is perfectly capable of expressing his own views on legislative intent. ·. ·::: ::. . ;: . I·-·: ·:::;::· ·.· .. . ···· - ·· ·•·°"'I•... ... .......,.,,. ,..... .... . . , , . . ---.·· ··-·.r.... --.-...·. ._:.~·.-.· .- ; •.. .• -.- .. ~. . ... . This latest OMA handout contains the same false claims and misleading descriptions of SB 58 - - - -- "-_.-_.tf1:0Hlave4:leeft:1ae-fearure-0Hbe-QM8's f effert ta ,hloel< Mf'l:refuffo.s::olcur:r.ent:Law" J.be:::OM~,ei.;:::•:ss======== do-nothing campaign even conflicts with the recommendations it made during the Committee hearings (such as a cost ·cap for energy efficiency that protects consumers and addressing the problems that the mandates impose on Qhio">rarger energy 1,1sers). . What the OMA does not bother to let legisle\tors or the public know is that it has taken payments totaling $2.970 million dollars over the last co1,1ple years in exchange for signing settlements that have increased Ohio electric bills by hundreds of millions of dollars. (see attached list). The OMA claims that SB 56, legislation which proposes to establish a limit on the mandate compliance costs (including shared savings) that can be passed on to customers.as a result of the 2006 vintage portfolio mandates, will somehow increase electric bills. It is a big lie. The OMA claims that the Pl)CO not the general assembly sets rates based on its discretion. This OMA claim is also wrong. Where the PUCO sets rates, it does so according to a formula specified by the General Assembly and the PUCO must act within a specified period of time or the utility's proposed rates can go into effect because that is what the General Assembly put in the law. It is the General Assembly and not the PUCO that gave consumers choices to select their supplier of competitive energy services. Regardless of what the PUCO can or cannot do in the.rate setting context, it was the General Assembly that made the portfolio mandates part of Ohio law and the PUCO has no discretion to ignore the mandates simply because the mandates are based on a set of assumptions that are out at touch with reality. If there are problems with current law, the only way they get fixed is by the General Assembly changing the law. Under current. law, the OMA and other stakeholders have agreed to settlement agreements that provide utilities with incentives (including shared savings) that they think other customers should pay for. It seems to pe OK for the OMA to enable a utility to collect shared savings so long as the OMA and not the General Assembly gets to decide. It seems OK for the OMA to agree to give the utilities something for which there is no explicit legal authority vested in the PUCO but not OK if the .General Assembly wishes to make it clear that the PUCO has such authority. It is the OMA that wants the discretion to determine when and how utilities are rewarded, at customers expense, for complying with the mandate law which was enacted by the General Assembly not the OMA. · · Look at the list of businesses (small and large) and business organizations representing small and large business customers that have spoken up in support of SB 56. The history of the OMA's flip flopping on whether portfolio mandates are a good idea, the OMA's bogus claims and assertions and the large population of Ohio businesses that have spoken against the OMA's position make it clear that the OMA is trying to keep current law in place to keep its settlement-payment gravy train rolling. Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Collins, Christopher Tuesday, December 03, 2013 4:15 PM Lynch, Jamie FW: AM1361 130SB58-1361.pdf JamiePlease see the reformatted version of the amendment you were seeking earlier regarding: 'Deliverability of renewable energy, definition of renewable energy resource, and Btu to MW conversion.' Thanks, Christopher Collins Office of Senator Cliff Hite Ohio's 1st Senate District Chris.collins@Ohiosenate.gov Office: ( 614 )466-8150 From: rstein@lsc.state.oh.us [mailto:rstein@lsc.state.oh.us] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 4:11 PM To: Collins, Christopher Subject: AM1361 42 AM1361 Sub. S.B. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Topic: Deliverability of renewable energy; definition of renewable energy resource; Btu to MW conversion moved to amend as follows: In 1 line 230, after the underlined insert "provided 2 that 3 measured 4 uni ts is equivalent to one megawatt hour of electricity," 5 6 the quantity of energy derived comma In tha ~ so line 255, In line quantity of energy 9 that 12 delete 616, 8 11 multi p le "or of lake"; 3,412,142 reinsert British "or"; thermal delete the that the underlined comma 7 10 each from the heat captured is each after derive~ multiple of "~" insert II I provided from the heat captured is measured so 3,412,142 British thermal units is delete the equivalent to one megawatt hour of electricity" In line 655, delete "or lake"; reinsert "or"; underlined comma 13 In line 1393, delete "2019" and insert "2020" 14 In 15 through "can" line 1396, reinsert Legislative Service Corrunission "with"; - 1- delete "from"; strike 130SB58-1361.DOCX/rs AM1361 In line 16 17 1397, strike through "l:;)e shown to be deliverable into"; delete "the reg;iona]:" 18 Delete lines 1398 through 1402 19 In line 1403, 20 insert 21 organization, 22 at 23 systems in this state. 24 the " generate delete ener gy except (4) On and within level after shall January 1, before energy be the re g ional t he renewable that distribution everything all to of and transmission resources connected 2020, period connected distribution the renewable 25 energy resources implemented by the utility or company shall be 26 met 27 transmission 28 resour ~ es 29 to distribution systems in this state" with resources that generate organization, conne ct~ d energy except that within the renewable regional energy at th e distribution l evel shall be connected 30 In line 1611, delete "or lake" 31 In line 1612, reinsert "or"; delete the underlined comma 32 In line 1613, 33 is" 34 The motion was after "or" insert "that produces energy that agreed to. Legislative Service Corrunission -2- 130SB58-1361.DOCX/rs Nielson, Stephen From: Kevin Murray Tuesday, December 03, 2013 4:07 PM Scott Elisar; Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); Charlotte Hickcox (chickcox@ohiochamber.com); tpine@firstenergycorp.com; Charles Willoughby - Gmail; John McGough Omcgough@mcgough-inc.com); 'peggy.claytor@timken.com'; Lynch, Jamie 'Kurt Leib' Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: DC· • Scott Something got messe, the last bullet - it doesn't match up. -i From: Scott Elisar Sent: Tuesday, December · To: Denny Larr (dlarr@larr~ Willoughby - Gmail; John M1 (Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.91 Cc: 'Kurt Leib' Subject: Answers to OMA's ier.com); tpine@firstenergycorp.com; Charles ;laytor@timken.com'; Lynch, Jamie Please share. Thank you Scott Scott E. Elisar McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC 21 E. State Street, 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 719-2850 (Direct Dial) (614) 395-3925 (Mobile) (614) 469-4653 (Fax) selisar@mwncmh.com McNee s W llac Nurlck 1 LLC The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230, unless we expressly state otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communications (including any attachments) was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matter(s) addressed herein. 43 ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SP AM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 44 Substitute Senate Bill 58 Executive Overview December 3, 2013 ANSWERS TO OMA's false claims concerning SB 58 • Sub. SB 58 allows savings from municipal electric systems' and rural electric co-ops' energy efficiency and peak demand reduction improvements to count toward utilities' compliance requirements - even though the municipals and co-ops are not part of the investor"owned utility distribution system. This allows the utilities to collect 33 percent profit on those savings - savings the utilities had no involvement in creating. False - SB 58 - Page 77 line 2345 - 2355, Muni and Rural does not count towards an EDU Compliance plan • Sub. SB 58 allows savings from non-electric energy efficiency and peak demand reductions to count toward the utilities' compliance requirements. This requires electric customers to pay for non-electric energy efficiency improvements. False - This claim confuses two issues. SB 58 expressly codifies that all energy efficiency is to be counted towards compliance which reflects an accurate interpretation of current law (R.C. 4928.66). Any cost that an electric distribution utility attempts to recover will be reviewed by the PUCO as part of the Edu's three year compliance plans. SB 58, Page 59 line 1804-1811. • Sub. SB 58 allows utilities to recover shared savings incentives (profits) on compliance savings that are banked and used in a future year, without precluding utilities' recovery of profits in the year the savings occur as well. This creates an opportunity for utilities to enjoy double profits for the same energy savings. False - SB 58 page 60, Line 1837 -1840 - if compliance is banked or saved, it can only be provided once in the year in which the banked savings is used. • 1 1 ' --<; .. - -· · '"" .. .. • • Sub. SB 58 allows each utility to decide - at its sole discretion - whether (a) the revised law applies to the utility while its existing plan is in effect, or (b) the utility has to follow · · g_pjan. The bl.II is unclear what happens if the utllitY. chooses to be subject to the revised law while continuing its existing plan an t at pan con icts w t e revise aw. e 1 also allows a utility that elects to be governed by the revised law to choose not to be subject to a cost cap while its existing plan is in effect. False - if the utility chooses to be subject to the revised law - then it has to comply with the revised law. • Sub. SB 58 specifies that, through a revenue decoupling mechanism, a utility may recover the applicable rate of return associated with the cost of providing distribution service - irrespective of whether the utility actually provides the distribution service to customers. This is another example of SB 58's unwarranted giveaways to utilities. False - This is another example of the OMA opining about what it believes legislative intent was when SB 221 was enacted. We believe Senator Coley, who served as a state representative when SB 221 was enacted, is perfectly capable of expressing his own views on legislative intent. I • •.•~ t 1rt ~· • " • • t •••- ' " "'-" ' • 1 •• ••• u, • \oi•.. 1;1, 10 ...i .. ~ ! : . ~· .;.· .· ·..· .: • • • .. • • ••---:-.. . :-, .. . : . -.--·-·.•.•.•.•-•.!.•.:.•.',• This latest OMA handout contains the same fals e claims and misleading descriptions of SB 58 at-.have-bee.1+-U:la--featui:e-of-tl:le--G MA~s-effGEHe:bl eGk-AN¥-re.feFFRS=Gf-G1.Jff-efil-faw !be-OMA's do:-nothing campaign even conflicts with the recommendations it made during the Committee hearings (such as a cost cap for energy efficiency that protects consumers and addressing the problems that the mandates impose on Ohlo'>iarger energy users). What the OMA does not bother to let legislators or the public know is that it has taken payments totaling $2.970 million dollars over the last couple years in exchange for signing settl~ments that have increased Ohio electric bills by hundreds of millions of dollars. (see attached list). The OMA claims that SB 58, legislation which proposes to establish a limit on the mandate compliance costs (including shared savings) that can be passed on to customers as a result of the 2008 vintage portfolio manc;lates, will somehow increase electric bills. It is a big lie. The OMA claims that the PVCO not the general assembly sets rates based on its discretion. This OMA claim is also wrong . . Where the PUCO sets rates, it does so according to a formula specified by the General Assembly and the PUCO must act within ii! specified period of time or the utility's proposed rates can go into effect because that is what the General Assembly put in the law. It is the General Assembly and not the PUCO that gave consumers choices to select their supplier of competitive energy services. Regardless of what the PUCO can or cannot do in the .rate setting context, it was the General Assembly that made the portfolio mandates part of Ohio law and the PUCO has no discretion to ignore the mandates simply because the mandates are based on a set of assumptions that are out of touch with reality. If there are problems with current law, the only way they get fixed is by the General Assembly changing the law. Under current.law, the OMA and other stakeholders have agreed to settlement agreements that provide utilities with incentives (including shared savings) that they think other customers should pay for. It seems to be OK for the OMA to enable a utility to collect shared savings so long as the OMA and not the General Assembly gets to decide. It seems OK for the OMA to agree to give the utilities something for which there is no explicit legal authority vested in the PUCO but not OK if the General Assembly wishes to make it clear that the PUCO has such authority. It is the OMA that wants the discretion to determine when and how utilities are rewarded, at customers expense, for complying with the mandate law which was enacted by the General Assembly not the OMA. Look at the list of businesses (small and large) and business organizations representing Srl)all and large business customers that have spoken up In support of SB 58. The history of the OMA's flip flopping on whether portfolio mandates are a good idea, the OMA's bogus claims and assertions and the large population of Ohio businesses that have spoken against the OMA's position make it clear that the OMA is trying to keep current law in place to keep its settle1ment-payment gravy train rolling. .·. :i.·.;. ·., I !.~.;..::.. . "' -.. . :\ .. ·-~' ·' . : :i .\" . ··;t -~ - . .... I :: •: • i" ..... ...... . . ;:· '' ...~ •. ~- • ,r;l- .i~. ' ;·.. : . ,~·,'!· : I. ', ~ ·,- · I. j I Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: rstein@lsc.state.oh.us Tuesday, December 03, 2013 4:06 PM Lynch, Jamie AM1339-1 130SBS8-1339Xl.pdf (See attached file: 130SB58-1339X1.pdf) 45 AM1339X1 Sub. S.B. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Topic: Ensure reliable electric service to hospitals move~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ to amend as follows: 1 In line 32, after "sections" insert "4928.112," 2 Between lines 750 and 751, insert: 3 "Sec. (A) 4928 .112. interruption of period of emergency or disaster, an electric service 5 electric distribution utility's 6 give 7 distribution utility. 9 a the 4 8 during In priority to hospitals (B) If requested by a event of service that are restoration plan customers hospital electric distribution ut,ility shall that is with that hospital 11 related to 12 spikes, and 13 those events or their impact on the hospital. 14 15 16 (C) utility's public its shall electric customer, an least biennially regarding power quality issues and concerns harmonic The of the confer at 10 the an facilities, disturbances, utilities including in an commission voltage effort shall to adopt sags, minimize rules to carry out this section." In line 17 "4928.112," 18 The motion was 12 of the title, after "sections" insert agreed to. Legislative ServiQe Commission -1- 130SB58-1339Xl.DOCX/rs Nielson, Stephen From: Scott Elisar Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:56 PM Denny Larr (dlarr@larrpc.com); Charlotte Hickcox (chickcox@ohiochamber.com); tpine@firstenergycorp.com; Charles Willoughby - Gmail; John McGough Umcgough@mcgough-inc.com); 'peggy.claytor@timken.com'; Lynch, Jamie 'Kurt Leib' Answers to OMA's False Claims image003jpg; Answers to OMA's False Claims.pdf Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Please share. Thank you Scott Scott E. Elisar McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC 21 E. State Street, 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 719-2850 (Direct Dial) (614) 395-3925 (Mobile) (614) 469-4653 (Fax) selisar@mwncmh.com Mc Nees Wallace & Nurf.ckttc The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230, unless we expressly state otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communications (including any attachments) was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matter(s) addressed herein. **This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 46 Substitute Senate Bill 58 Executive Overview December 3, 2013 ANSWERS TO OMA's false claims concerning SB 58 •Sub. SB 58 allows savings from municipal electric systems' and rural electric co-ops' energy efficiency and peak demand reduction improvements to count toward utilities' compliance requirements - even though the municipals and co-ops are not part of the investor-owned utility distribution system. This allows the utilities to collect 33 percent profit on those savings - savings the 1,1tilities had no involvement in creating. False - SB 58 - Page 77 line 2345 - 2355, Muni and Rural does not count towards an EDU Compliance plan •Sub. SB 58 allows savings from non-electric energy efficiency and peak demand reductions to count toward the utilities' compliance requirements. This requires electric customers to pay for non-electric energy efficiency improvements. False - This claim confuses two issues. SB 58 expressly codifies that all energy efficiency is to be counted towards compliance which reflects an accurate interpretation of current law (R.C. 4928.66). Any cost that an electric distribution utility attempts to recover will be reviewed by the PUCO as part of the Edu's three year compliance plans. SB 58, Page 59 line 1804-1811. • Sub. SB 58 allows utilities to recover shared savings incentives (profits) on compliance savings that are banked and used in a future year, without precluding utilities' recovery of profits in the year the savings occur as well. This creates an opportunity for utilities to enjoy double profits for the same energy savings. False - SB 58 page 60, Line 1837 -1840 - if compliance is banked or saved, it can only be provided once in the year in which the banked savings is used. _. ·-·-·.• •,-. •:•.--.·- :::-.·.-••·::~- .;::.~.::! .. . ~;-~":..:·--·.• :::-:· ••. .....·- .. • • Sub. S6 58 allows each utility to decide - at its sole discretion - whether (a) the revised law applies to the utility while its existing plan is in effect, or (b) the utility has to follow -;-;-;-:---===~its...e.xi.sling_plan. The bill is unclear what happens if tbe utility choos~s to be subject to the ·· revised law while continuing its existing plan and that plan conflicts with the revised law. The bill also allows a utility that elects to be governed by the revised law to choose not to be subject to a cost cap while its existing plan is in effect. False - if the utility chooses to be subject to the revised law - then it has to comply with the revised law. • Sub. SB 58 specifies that, through a revenue decoupling mechanism, a utility may recover the applicable rate of return associated with the cost of providing distribution service - irrespective of whether the utility actually provides the distribution service to customers. This is another example of SB 58's unwarranted giveaways to utilities. False - This is another example of the OMA opining about what it believes legislative intent was when SB 221 was enacted. We believe Senator Coley, who served as a state representative when SB 221 was enacted, is perfectly capable of expressing his own views on legislative intent. • .. -···•·- . .. I • • •' • o ... -• I · -· •••I • A'41' 1 4 ~- -c • .•.•• · •.• _, ..._.. , .,., ,., , • • • ,t• ~ I ,. . . . •••• • • •• .• " •• . ·' !:···· :· . _., I This latest OMA handout contains the same false claims and misleading descriptions of SB 58 :Aat-l:lav.e-beer:i-tl:ie..-featt.11'.6-Gf-tl:le..GM~-0E1:4e-bleGK-AN¥-fefefffiS-Gf-e\;IFEeAHaw.----IAe-GMA"s do~nothing campaign even conflicts with the recommendations it mac;le c;f\Jring the Committee hearings (such as a cost ·cap for energy efficiency that protects consumers and addressing the problems that the mandates impose on Ohio'-larger energy users). .. What the OMA does not bother to let legislators or the public know is that it has taken payments totaling $2.970 million dollars over the last couple years in exchange for signing settlements that have increased Ohio electric bills by hundreds of millions of dollars. (see attached list). The OMA claims that SB 58, legislation which proposes to establish a limit on the mandate compliance costs (including shared &avings) that can be passed on to customers as a result of the 2008 vintage portfolio mandates, will somehow increase electric bills. It is a big lie. The OMA claims that the PVCO not the general assembly sets rates based on its discretion. This OMA claim is also wrong .. Where the PUCO sets rates , it does so according to a formula specified by the General Assembly and the PUCO must act within a specified period of time or the utility's proposed rates can go into effect because that is what the General Assembly put in the law. It is the General Assembly and not the PUCO that gave consumers choices to select their supplier of competitive energy services. Regardless of what the PUCO can or cannot do in the .rate setting context, it was the General Assembly that made the portfolio mandates part of Ohio law and the PUCO has no discretion to ignore the mandates simply because the mandates are based on a set of assumptions that are out of touch with reality. If there are problems with current law, the only way they get fixed is by the General Assembly changing the law. Under current. law, the OMA and other stakeholders have agreed to settlement agreements that provide utilities with incentives (incluqing shared savings) that they think other customers should pay for. It seems to be OK for the OMA to enable a utility to collect shared savings so long as the OMA and not the General Assembly gets to decide. It seems OK for the OMA to agree to give the utilities something for which there is no explicit legal authority vested in the PUCO but not OK if the General Assembly wishes to make: it clear that the PUCO has such authority. It is the OMA that wants the discretion to determine when and how utilities are rewarded, at customers expense, for complying with the mandate law which was enacted by the General Assembly not the OMA. Look at the list of businesses (small and large) and business organizations representing srnall and large business customers that have spoken up in support of SB 58. The history of the OMA's flip flopping on whether portfolio mandates are a good idea, the OMA's bogus claims and assertions and the large population of Ohio businesses that have spoken against the OMA's position make It clear that the OMA is trying to keep current law in place to keep its settlement-payment gravy train rolling. .... .!.~f . '-.• ~' - .-·. . ~ I· .. I .. . •:\. .. ' : ! ~ ' Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:55 PM Riley, Lindsay Sub. S.B. 58 130_LB_0592_8.pdf Please see enclosed per your request. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 47 LSC 130 0592-8 130th General Assembly Regular Session Sub. S. B. No. 58 2013-2014 AB I LL To amend sections 717.25, 1710.061, 3706.25, 4905.31, 1 4928.01, 4928.143, 4928.20, 4928.61, 4928.65, 2 5501.311, and 5727.75; to amend section 4928.64 3 and to recodify it by subdividing it into sections 4 4928.641, 4928.642, 4928.643, 4928.644, 4928.645, 5 4928.646, 4928.647, and 4928.648; to amend section 6 4928.66 and to recodify it by subdividing it into 7 sections 4928.661, 4928.662, 4928.665, 4928.666, 8 4928.667, 4928.668, 4928.6625, 4928.6626, 9 4928.6627, 4928.6650, 4928.6651, 4928.6655, 10 4928.6656, 4928.6657, and 4928.6658; to enact new 11 section 4928.66 and sections 4928.649, 4928.6610, 12 4928.6611, 4928.6612, 4928.6613, 4928.6614, 13 4928.6615, 4928.6616, 4928.6617, 4928.6618, 14 4928.6619, 4928.6620, 4928.6621, 4928.6622, 15 4928.6623, 4928.6630, 4928.6631, 4928.6632, 16 4928.6633, 4928.6634, 4928.6635, 4928.6640, 17 4928.6641, 4928.6642, 4928.6645, 4928.6646, 18 4928.6647, 4928.6659, 4928.6660, and 4928.6670 of 19 the Revised Code to modify the alternative energy 20 resource, energy efficiency, and peak demand 21 reduction law. 22 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO: Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 3 owner's real property; and (iv) Not producing energy for direct sale by the facility owner to the public. (2) S4 SS "Electric distribution utility" and "mercantile customer" have the same meanings as in section 4928.01 of the Revised Code. (3) S3 "Reduction in demand" has the same meaning as in section 1710.01 of the Revised Code. S6 S7 S8 S9 (B) The legislative authority of a municipal corporation may 60 establish a low-cost alternative energy revolving loan program to 61 assist owners of real property within the municipal corporation 62 with installing and implementing either of the following on their 63 real property: 64 (1) Alternative energy technologies limited to solar 6S photovoltaic projects, solar thermal energy projects, geothermal 66 energy projects, and customer-generated energy projects; 67 (2) Energy efficiency technologies, products, and activities 68 that reduce or support the reduction of energy consumption, allow 69 for the reduction in demand, or support the production of clean, 70 renewable energy. 71 (C) If the legislative authority decides to establish such a 72 program, the legislative authority shall adopt an ordinance that 73 provides for the following: 74 (1) Creation in the municipal treasury of an alternative energy revolving loan fund; (2) A source of money, such as gifts, bond issues, real 7S 76 77 property assessments, or federal subsidies, to seed the 78 alternative energy revolving loan fund; 79 (3) Facilities for making loans from the alternative energy revolving loan fund, 80 including an explanation of how owners of 81 real property within the municipal corporation may qualify for 82 Sub.S.B.No.58 LSC 130 0592-8 alternative energy revolving loan fund. Page 5 115 The alternative energy revolving loan fund shall be seeded 116 with sufficient money to enable loans to be made until the fund 117 accumulates sufficient reserves through investment and repayment 118 of loans for revolving operation. 119 (D) Except as provided in division (E) of this section and 120 section 4928 . 6670 of the Revised Code, an electric distribution 121 utility may count toward its compliance with the energy efficiency 122 and peak demand reduction requirements of oeetioR sections 4928.66 123 to 4928.6660 of the Revised Code any energy efficiency savings or 124 any reduction in demand that is produced by projects utilizing 125 alternative energy technologies or energy efficiency technologies, 126 products, and activities that are located in its certified 127 territory and for which a loan has been made under this section. 128 129 (E) A mercantile customer that realizes energy efficiency 130 savings or reduction in demand produced by alternative energy 131 technologies or energy efficiency technologies, products, or 132 activities that it owns and for which a loan has been made under 133 this section may elect to commit the savings or reduction to the 134 electric distribution utility in exchange for an exemption from an 135 energy efficiency cost recovery mechanism permitted under oeetioR 136 sections 4928.66 to 4928.6660 of the Revised Code, approved by the 137 public utilities commission. 138 (F) The legislative authority shall submit a quarterly report 139 to the electric distribution utility that includes, but is not 140 limited to, both of the following: 141 (1) The number and a description of each new and ongoing 142 project utilizing alternative energy technologies or energy 143 efficiency technologies, products, or activities located in the 144 utility's certified territory that produces energy efficiency 145 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 7 4928.66 to 4928.6660 of the Revised Code for energy efficiency 176 savings or reduction in demand from such projects. 177 Sec. 3706.25. As used in sections 3706.25 to 3706.30 of the 178 Revised Code: 179 (A) 180 "Advanced energy project" means any technologies , products, activities, or management practices or strategies that 181 facilitate the generation or use of electricity or any type of 182 energy and that reduce or support the reduction of energy 183 consumption or support the production of clean, renewable energy 184 for industrial, distribution, commercial, institutional, 185 governmental, research, not-for-profit, or residential energy 186 users including, but not limited to, advanced energy resources and 187 renewable energy resources. "Advanced energy project" includes any 188 project described in division (A), 189 (B}, or (C) of section 4928.621 of the Revised Code. 190 (B) "Advanced energy resource" means any of the following: 191 (1) Any method or any modification or replacement of any 192 property, process, device, structure, or equipment that increases 193 the generation output of an electric generating facility to the 194 extent such efficiency is achieved without additional carbon 195 dioxide emissions by that facility; 196 (2) Any distributed generation system consisting of customer 197 cogeneration technology, primarily to meet the energy needs of the 198 customer's facilities; 199 (3) Advanced nuclear energy technology consisting of 200 generation III technology as defined by the nuclear regulatory 201 commission; other, later technology; or significant improvements 202 to existing facilities; 203 (4) Any fuel cell used in the generation of electricity, including, but not limited to, a proton exchange membrane fuel 204 205 Page 9 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 than three hundred seventy thousand according to the most recent 238 federal decennial census, biologically derived methane gas, or 239 energy derived from nontreated by-products of the pulping process 240 or wood manufacturing process, including bark, wood chips, 241 sawdust, and lignin in spent pulping liquors. "Renewable energy 242 resource" includes, but is not limited to, any energy derived from 243 a 244 fuel cell used in the generation of electricity, including, but not limited to, a proton exchange membrane fuel cell, phosphoric 245 acid fuel cell, molten carbonate fuel cell, or solid oxide fuel 246 cell; wind turbine located in the state's territorial waters of 247 Lake Erie; methane gas emitted from an abandoned coal mine; 248 storage facility that will promote the better utilization of a 249 renewable energy resource that primarily generates off peak; or 250 distributed generation system used by a customer to generate 251 electricity from any such energy. As used in this division, 252 "hydroelectric facility" means a hydroelectric generating facility 253 that is located at a dam on a river, or on any water discharged to 254 a river or lake, that is within or bordering this state 255 er~ within or bordering an adjoining state. that produces energy that is 256 deliverable into the regional transmission organization. and meets 257 all of the following standards: 258 (1) The facility provides for river flows that are not 259 detrimental for fish, wildlife, and water quality, including 260 seasonal flow fluctuations as defined by the applicable licensing 261 agency for the facility. 262 (2) The facility demonstrates that it complies with the water quality standards of this state, which compliance may consist of certification under Section 401 of the "Clean Water Act of 1977, 263 264 11 265 91 Stat. 1598, 1599, 33 U.S.C. 1341, and demonstrates that it has 266 not contributed to a finding by this state that the river has 267 impaired water quality under Section 303(d) of the "Clean Water 268 Act of 19 7 7 , 11 114 stat . 8 7 O, 3 3 u . S . C . 1313 . 269 Sub. S. 8. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 11 4921., 4923., 4927., 4928., and 4929. of the Revised Code do not 300 prohibit a public utility from filing a schedule or establishing 301 or entering into any reasonable arrangement with another public 302 utility or with one or more of its customers, consumers, or 303 employees, and do not prohibit a mercantile customer of an 304 electric distribution utility as those terms are defined in 305 section 4928.01 of the Revised Code or a group of those customers 306 from establishing a reasonable arrangement with that utility or 307 another public utility electric light company, providing for any 308 of the following: 309 (A) The division or distribution of its surplus profits; 310 (B) A sliding scale of charges, including variations in rates 311 based upon stipulated variations in cost as provided in the 312 schedule or arrangement. 313 (C) A minimum charge for service to be rendered unless such 314 minimum charge is made or prohibited by the terms of the 315 franchise, grant, or ordinance under which such public utility is 316 operated; 317 (D) A classification of service based upon the quantity used, 318 the time when used, the purpose for which used, the duration of 319 use, and any other reasonable consideration; 320 (E) Any other financial device that may be practicable or 321 advantageous to the parties interested. In the case of a schedule 322 or arrangement concerning a public utility electric light company, 323 such other financial device may include a device to recover costs 324 incurred in conjunction with any economic development and job 325 retention program of the utility within its certified territory, 326 including recovery of revenue foregone as a result of any such 327 program; any development and implementation of peak demand 328 reduction and energy efficiency programs under oectioa sections 329 4928.66 to 4928.6660 of the Revised Code; any acquisition and 330 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 (2) Page 13 "Billing and collection agent" means a fully independent 362 agent, not affiliated with or otherwise controlled by an electric 363 utility, electric services company, electric cooperative, or 364 governmental aggregator subject to certification under section 365 4928.08 of the Revised Code, to the extent that the agent is under 366 contract with such utility, company, cooperative, or aggregator 367 solely to provide billing and collection for retail electric 368 service on behalf of the utility company, cooperative, or 369 aggregator. 370 (3) "Certified territory" means the certified territory 371 established for an electric supplier under sections 4933.81 to 372 4933.90 of the Revised Code. 373 (4) "Competitive retail electric service" means a component 374 of retail electric service that is competitive as provided under 375 division (B) of this section. 376 (5) "Electric cooperative" means a not-for-profit electric 377 light company that both is or has been financed in whole or in 378 part under the "Rural Electrification Act of 1936," 49 Stat. 1363, 379 7 U.S.C. 901, and owns or operates facilities in this state to 380 generate, transmit, or distribute electricity, or a not-for-profit 381 successor of such company. 382 (6) "Electric distribution utility" means an electric utility that supplies at least retail electric distribution service. (7) 383 384 "Electric light company" has the same meaning as in 385 section 4905.03 of the Revised Code and includes an electric 386 services company, but excludes any self-generator to the extent 387 that it consumes electricity it so produces, sells that 388 electricity for resale, or obtains electricity from a generating 389 facility it hosts on its premises. 390 (8) "Electric load center" has the same meaning as in section 4933.81 of the Revised Code. 391 3 92 Sub.S.B.No.58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 15 the level of funds specifically included in an electric utility's 424 rates on October 5, 1999, pursuant to an order of the public 425 utilities commission issued under Chapter 4905. or 4909. of the 426 Revised Code and in effect on October 4, 1999, for the purpose of 427 improving the energy efficiency of housing for the utility's 428 low-income customers. The term excludes the level of any such 429 funds committed to a specific nonprofit organization or 430 organizations pursuant to a stipulation or contract. 431 (16) "Low-income customer assistance programs" means the 432 percentage of income payment plan program, the home energy 433 assistance program, the home weatherization assistance program, 434 and the targeted energy efficiency and weatherization program. 435 (17) "Market development period" for an electric utility 436 means the period of time beginning on the starting date of 437 competitive retail electric service and ending on the applicable 438 date for that utility as specified in section 4928.40 of the 439 Revised Code, irrespective of whether the utility applies to 440 receive transition revenues under this chapter. 441 (18) "Market power" means the ability to impose on customers 442 a sustained price for a product or service above the price that 443 would prevail in a competitive market. 444 (19) "Mercantile customer" means a commercial or industrial 445 customer if the electricity consumed is for nonresidential use and 446 the customer consumes more than seven hundred thousand kilowatt 447 hours per year or is part of a national account involving multiple 448 facilities in one or more states. 449 (20) "Municipal electric utility" means a municipal 450 corporation that owns or operates facilities to generate, 451 transmit, or distribute electricity. 452 (21) "Noncompetitive retail electric service" means a component of retail electric service that is noncompetitive as 453 454 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 17 otherwise def erred for future regulatory consideration absent 486 commission action. "Regulatory assets" includes, but is not 487 limited to, all deferred demand-side management costs; all 488 deferred percentage of income payment plan arrears; 489 post-in-service capitalized charges and assets recognized in 490 connection with statement of financial accounting standards no. 491 109 (receivables from customers for income taxes) ; future nuclear 492 decommissioning costs and fuel disposal costs as those costs have 493 been determined by the commission in the electric utility's most 494 recent rate or accounting application proceeding addressing such 495 costs; the undepreciated costs of safety and radiation control 496 equipment on nuclear generating plants owned or leased by an 497 electric utility; and fuel costs currently deferred pursuant to 498 the terms of one or more settlement agreements approved by the 499 commission. 500 (27) "Retail electric service" means any service involved in 501 supplying or arranging for the supply of electricity to ultimate 502 consumers in this state, from the point of generation to the point 503 of consumption. For the purposes of this chapter, retail electric 504 service includes one or more of the following "service 505 components": generation service, aggregation service, power 506 marketing service, power brokerage service, transmission service, 507 distribution service, ancillary service, metering service, and 508 billing and collection service. 509 (28) "Starting date of competitive retail electric service" means January 1, 2001. (29) "Customer-generator" means a user of a net metering system. (30) 510 511 512 513 "Net metering" means measuring the difference in an 514 applicable billing period between the electricity supplied by an 515 electric service provider and the electricity generated by a 516 customer-generator that is fed back to the electric service 517 Sub.S.B.No.58 LSC 130 0592-8 cogeneration technology; (c) Clean coal technology that includes a carbon-based Page 19 547 548 product that is chemically altered before combustion to 549 demonstrate a reduction, as expressed as ash, in emissions of 550 nitrous oxide, mercury, arsenic, chlorine, sulfur dioxide, or 551 sulfur trioxide in accordance with the American society of testing 552 and materials standard D1757A or a reduction of metal oxide 553 emissions in accordance with standard D5142 of that society, or 554 clean coal technology that includes the design capability to 555 control or prevent the emission of carbon dioxide, which design 556 capability the commission shall adopt by rule and shall be based 557 on economically feasible best available technology or, in the 558 absence of a determined best available technology, shall be of the 559 highest level of economically feasible design capability for which 560 there exists generally accepted scientific opinion; 561 (d) Advanced nuclear energy technology consisting of 562 generation III technology as defined by the nuclear regulatory 563 commission; other, later technology; or significant improvements 564 to existing facilities; 565 (e) Any fuel cell used in the generation of electricity, 566 including, but not limited to, a proton exchange membrane fuel 567 cell, phosphoric acid fuel cell, molten carbonate fuel cell, or 568 solid oxide fuel cell; 569 (f) Advanced solid waste or construction and demolition 570 debris conversion technology, including, but not limited to, 571 advanced stoker technology, and advanced fluidized bed 572 gasification technology, that results in measurable greenhouse gas 573 emissions reductions as calculated pursuant to the United States 574 environmental protection agency's waste reduction model (WARM); 575 (g) Demand-side management and any energy efficiency 576 improvement; 577 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 21 lYil Geothermal energy; 608 Fuel derived from solid wastes, as defined in 609 section 3734.01 of the Revised Code, through fractionation, 610 biological decomposition, or other process that does not 611 principally involve combustion; 612 -f¥.H-(viii) Biomass energy; 613 ~(vii) (vii) (ix) Heat caotured from a generator of electricity. 614 boiler or heat exchanger fueled by biologically derived methane 615 9..9.fil 616 ~Energy produced by cogeneration technology that is placed 617 into service on or before December 31, 2015, and for which more 618 than ninety per cent of the total annual energy input is from 619 combustion of a waste or byproduct gas from an air contaminant 620 source in this state, which source has been in operation since on 621 or before January 1, 1985, provided that the cogeneration 622 technology is a part of a facility located in a county having a 623 population of more than three hundred sixty-five thousand but less 624 than three hundred seventy thousand according to the most recent 625 federal decennial census; 626 (·,riii)Jxil Biologically derived methane gas; ~(xii) Energy derived from nontreated by-products of the 627 628 pulping process or wood manufacturing process, including bark, 629 wood chips, sawdust, and lignin in spent pulping liquors. 630 "Renewable energy resource" includes, but is not limited to, 631 any energy derived from a fuel cell used in the generation of 632 electricity, including, but not limited to, a proton exchange 633 membrane fuel cell, phosphoric acid fuel cell, molten carbonate 634 fuel cell, or solid oxide fuel cell; wind turbine located in the 635 state's territorial waters of Lake Erie; methane gas emitted from 636 an abandoned coal mine; waste energy recovery system placed into 637 service or retrofitted on or after the effeetive date of the 638 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 (iii) The facility complies with mandatory prescriptions Page 23 670 regarding fish passage as required by the federal energy 671 regulatory commission license issued for the project, regarding 672 fish protection for riverine, anadromous, and catadromous fish. 673 (iv) The facility complies with the recommendations of the 674 Ohio environmental protection agency and with the terms of its 675 federal energy regulatory commission license regarding watershed 676 protection, mitigation, or enhancement, to the extent of each 677 agency's respective jurisdiction over the facility. 678 (v) The facility complies with provisions of the "Endangered 679 Species Act of 1973," 87 Stat. 884, 16 U.S.C. 1531 to 1544, as 680 amended. 681 (vi) The facility does not harm cultural resources of the 682 area. This can be shown through compliance with the terms of its 683 federal energy regulatory commission license or, if the facility 684 is not regulated by that commission, through development of a plan 685 approved by the Ohio historic preservation office, to the extent 686 it has jurisdiction over the facility. 687 (vii) The facility complies with the terms of its federal 688 energy regulatory commission license or exemption that are related 689 to recreational access, accommodation, and facilities or, if the 690 facility is not regulated by that commission, the facility 691 complies with similar requirements as are recommended by resource 692 agencies, to the extent they have jurisdiction over the facility; 693 and the facility provides access to water to the public without 694 fee or charge . 695 (viii) The facility is not recommended for removal by any 696 federal agency or agency of any state, to the extent the 697 particular agency has jurisdiction over the facility. 698 (3 8) following: "Waste energy recovery system" means either of the 699 700 Sub.S.B.No.58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 25 supply and demand; 731 (c) Water delivery and transfer. 732 (42) "Water treatment function" means any of the preliminary. 733 secondary, tert iary. and advanced activities. whether physical. 734 biological. or chemical. associated with the removal of 735 contaminants from. or conditioning of, wastewater prior to its 736 return to the environment or recycled use; 737 (43) "Energy intensity" means the amount of energy used to 738 produce a certain level of output or activity. measured by the 739 quantity of energy needed to perform a oarticular activity. 740 expressed as energy per unit of output. energy per unit of gross 741 total floor space. or an activity measure of service. 742 (B) For the purposes of this chapter, a retail electric 743 service component shall be deemed a competitive retail electric 744 service if the service component is competitive pursuant to a 745 declaration by a provision of the Revised Code or pursuant to an 746 order of the public utilities commission authorized under division 747 (A) of section 4928.04 of the Revised Code. Otherwise, the service 748 component shall be deemed a noncompetitive retail electric 749 service. 750 Sec. 4928.143. (A) For the purpose of complying with section 751 4928.141 of the Revised Code, an electric distribution utility may 752 file an application for public utilities commission approval of an 753 electric security plan as prescribed under division (B) of this 754 section. The utility may file that application prior to the 755 effective date of any rules the commission may adopt for the 756 purpose of this section, and, as the commission determines 757 necessary, the utility immediately shall conform its filing to 758 those rules upon their taking effect. 759 (B) Notwithstanding any other provision of Title XLIX of the 760 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 27 construction shall be authorized, however, unless the commission 793 first determines in the proceeding that there is need for the 794 facility based on resource planning projections submitted by the 795 electric distribution utility. Further, no such allowance shall be 796 authorized unless the facility's construction was sourced through 797 a competitive bid process, regarding which process the commission 798 may adopt rules. An allowance approved under division (B) (2) (b) of 799 this section shall be established as a nonbypassable surcharge for 800 the life of the facility. 801 (c) The establishment of a nonbypassable surcharge for the 802 life of an electric generating facility that is owned or operated 803 by the electric distribution utility, was sourced through a 804 competitive bid process subject to any such rules as the 805 commission adopts under division (B) (2) (b) of this section, and is 806 newly used and useful on or after January 1, 2009, which surcharge 807 shall cover all costs of the utility specified in the application, 808 excluding costs recovered through a surcharge under division 809 (B) (2) (b) of this section. However, no surcharge shall be 810 authorized unless the commission first determines in the 811 proceeding that there is need for the facility based on resource 812 planning projections submitted by the electric distribution 813 utility. Additionally, if a surcharge is authorized for a facility 814 pursuant to plan approval under division (C) of this section and 815 as a condition of the continuation of the surcharge, the electric 816 distribution utility shall dedicate to Ohio consumers the capacity 817 and energy and the rate associated with the cost of that facility. 818 Before the commission authorizes any surcharge pursuant to this 819 division, it may consider, as applicable, the effects of any 820 decommissioning, deratings, and retirements. 821 (d) Terms, conditions, or charges relating to limitations on 822 customer shopping for retail electric generation service, 823 bypassability, standby, back-up, or supplemental power service, 824 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 29 modernization . As part of its determination as to whether to allow 856 in an electric distribution utility's electric security plan 857 inclusion of any provision described in division (B) (2) (h) of this 858 section, the commission shall examine the reliability of the 859 electric distribution utility's distribution system and ensure 860 that customers' and the electric distribution utility's 861 expectations are aligned and that the electric distribution 862 utility is placing sufficient emphasis on and dedicating 863 sufficient resources to the reliability of its distribution 864 system. 865 (i) Provisions under which the electric distribution utility 866 may implement economic development, job retention, and energy 867 efficiency programs, which provisions may allocate program costs 868 across all classes of customers of the utility and those of 869 electric distribution utilities in the same holding company 870 system. 871 (C) (1) The burden of proof in the proceeding shall be on the 872 electric distribution utility. The commission shall issue an order 873 under this division for an initial application under this section 874 not later than one hundred fifty days after the application's 875 filing date and, for any subsequent application by the utility 876 under this section, not later than two hundred seventy-five days 877 after the application's filing date. Subject to division (D) of 878 this section, the commission by order shall approve or modify and 879 approve an application filed under division (A) of this section if 880 it finds that the electric security plan so approved, including 881 its pricing and all other terms and conditions, including any 882 deferrals and any future recovery of deferrals, is more favorable 883 in the aggregate as compared to the expected results that would 884 otherwise apply under section 4928.142 of the Revised Code. 885 Additionally, if the commission so approves an application that 886 contains a surcharge under division (B) (2) (b) or (c) of this 887 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 31 commission may approve, modify and approve, or disapprove subject 920 to division (C) of this section, provisions for the incremental 921 recovery or the deferral of any costs that are not being recovered 922 under the rate plan and that the utility incurs during that 923 continuation period to comply with section 4928.141, division (B) 924 e£. section 4928.64 4928.641, or division (A) of section sections 925 4928.66 to 4928.6660 of the Revised Code. 926 (E) If an electric security plan approved under division (C) 927 of this section, except one withdrawn by the utility as authorized 928 under that division, has a term, exclusive of phase-ins or 929 deferrals, that exceeds three years from the effective date of the 930 plan, the commission shall test the plan in the fourth year, and 931 if applicable, every fourth year thereafter, to determine whether 932 the plan, including its then-existing pricing and all other terms 933 and conditions, including any deferrals and any future recovery of 934 deferrals, continues to be more favorable in the aggregate and 935 during the remaining term of the plan as compared to the expected 936 results that would otherwise apply under section 4928.142 of the 937 Revised Code. The commission shall also determine the prospective 938 effect of the electric security plan to determine if that effect 939 is substantially likely to provide the electric distribution 940 utility with a return on common equity that is significantly in 941 excess of the return on common equity that is likely to be earned 942 by publicly traded companies, including utilities, that face 943 comparable business and financial risk, with such adjustments for 944 capital structure as may be appropriate. The burden of proof for 945 demonstrating that significantly excessive earnings will not occur 946 shall be on the electric distribution utility. If the test results 947 are in the negative or the commission finds that continuation of 948 the electric security plan will result in a return on equity that 949 is significantly in excess of the return on common equity that is 950 likely to be earned by publicly traded companies, including 951 utilities, that will face comparable business and financial risk, 952 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 33 termination of a plan under this division, rates shall be set on 986 the same basis as specified in division (C) (2) (b) of this section, 987 and the commission shall permit the continued deferral and 988 phase-in of any amounts that occurred prior to that termination 989 and the recovery of those amounts as contemplated under that 990 electric security plan. In making its determination of 991 significantly excessive earnings under this division, the 992 commission shall not consider, directly or indirectly, the 993 revenue, expenses, or earnings of any affiliate or parent company . 994 Sec. 4928.20. (A) The legislative authority of a municipal 995 corporation may adopt an ordinance, or the board of township 996 trustees of a township or the board of county commissioners of a 997 county may adopt a resolution, under which, on or after the 998 starting date of competitive retail electric service, it may 999 aggregate in accordance with this section the retail electrical 1000 loads located, respectively, within the municipal corporation, 1001 township, or unincorporated area of the county and, for that 1002 purpose, may enter into service agreements to facilitate for those 1003 loads the sale and purchase of electricity. The legislative 1004 authority or board also may exercise such authority jointly with 1005 any other such legislative authority or board. For customers that 1006 are not mercantile customers, an ordinance or resolution under 1007 this division shall specify whether the aggregation will occur 1008 only with the prior, affirmative consent of each person owning, 1009 occupying, controlling, or using an electric load center proposed 1010 to be aggregated or will occur automatically for all such persons 1011 pursuant to the opt-out requirements of division (D) of this 1012 section. The aggregation of mercantile customers shall occur only 1013 with the prior, affirmative consent of each such person owning, 1014 occupying, controlling, or using an electric load center proposed 1015 to be aggregated. Nothing in this division, however, authorizes 1016 the aggregation of the retail electric loads of an electric load 1017 Sub.S.B.No.58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 35 (D) No legislative authority or board, pursuant to an 1050 ordinance or resolution under divisions (A) and (B) of this 1051 section that provides for automatic aggregation of customers that 1052 are not mercantile customers as described in division (A) of this 1053 section, shall aggregate the electrical load of any electric load 1054 center located within its jurisdiction unless it in advance 1055 clearly discloses to the person owning, occupying, controlling, or 1056 using the load center that the person will be enrolled 1057 automatically in the aggregation program and will remain so 1058 enrolled unless the person affirmatively elects by a stated 1059 procedure not to be so enrolled. The disclosure shall state 1060 prominently the rates, charges, and other terms and conditions of 1061 enrollment. The stated procedure shall allow any person enrolled 1062 in the aggregation program the opportunity to opt out of the 1063 program every three years, without paying a switching fee. Any 1064 such person that opts out before the commencement of the 1065 aggregation program pursuant to the stated procedure shall default 1066 to the standard service offer provided under section 4928.14 or 1067 division (D) of section 4928.35 of the Revised Code until the 1068 person chooses an alternative supplier. 1069 (E) (1) With respect to a governmental aggregation for a 1070 municipal corporation that is authorized pursuant to divisions (A) 1071 to (D) of this section, resolutions may be proposed by initiative 1072 or referendum petitions in accordance with sections 731.28 to 1073 731.41 of the Revised Code. 1074 (2) With respect to a governmental aggregation for a township 1075 or the unincorporated area of a county, which aggregation is 1076 authorized pursuant to divisions (A) to (D) of this section, 1077 resolutions may be proposed by initiative or referendum petitions 1078 in accordance with sections 731.28 to 731.40 of the Revised Code, 1079 except that: 1080 (a) The petitions shall be filed, respectively, with the 1081 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 aggregator's governmental boundaries; (5) Subject to division (C) of section 4928.21 of the Revised Page 37 1112 1113 Code, a customer who appears on the "do not aggregate" list 1114 maintained under that section. 1115 (I) Customers that are part of a governmental aggregation 1116 under this section shall be responsible only for such portion of a 1117 surcharge under section 4928.144 of the Revised Code that is 1118 proportionate to the benefits, as determined by the commission, 1119 that electric load centers within the jurisdiction of the 1120 governmental aggregation as a group receive. The proportionate 1121 surcharge so established shall apply to each customer of the 1122 governmental aggregation while the customer is part of that 1123 aggregation. If a customer ceases being such a customer, the 1124 otherwise applicable surcharge shall apply. Nothing in this 1125 section shall result in less than full recovery by an electric 1126 distribution utility of any surcharge authorized under section 1127 4928.144 of the Revised Code. Nothing in this section shall result 1128 in less than the full and timely imposition, charging, collection, 1129 and adjustment by an electric distribution utility, its assignee, 1130 or any collection agent, of the phase-in-recovery charges 1131 authorized pursuant to a final financing order issued pursuant to 1132 sections 4928.23 to 4928.2318 of the Revised Code. 1133 (J) On behalf of the customers that are part of a 1134 governmental aggregation under this section and by filing written 1135 notice with the public utilities commission, the legislative 1136 authority that formed or is forming that governmental aggregation 1137 may elect not to receive standby service within the meaning of 1138 division (B) (2) (d) of section 4928.143 of the Revised Code from an 1139 electric distribution utility in whose certified territory the 1140 governmental aggregation is located and that operates under an 1141 approved electric security plan under that section. Upon the 1142 filing of that notice, the electric distribution utility shall not 1143 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 39 established under that plan, except any nonbypassable generation 1177 charges that relate to any cost incurred by the electric 1178 distribution utility, the deferral of which has been authorized by 1179 the commission prior to the effective date of the amendment of 1180 this section by S.B. 221 of the 127th general assembly, July 31, 1181 2008. 1182 Sec. 4928.61. (A) There is hereby established in the state 1183 treasury the advanced energy fund, into which shall be deposited 1184 all advanced energy revenues remitted to the director of 1185 development under division (B) of this section, for the exclusive 1186 purposes of funding the advanced energy program created under 1187 section 4928.62 of the Revised Code and paying the program's 1188 administrative costs. Interest on the fund shall be credited to 1189 the fund. 1190 (B) Advanced energy revenues shall include all of the following: (1) Revenues remitted to the director after collection by 1191 1192 1193 each electric distribution utility in this state of a temporary 1194 rider on retail electric distribution service rates as such rates 1195 are determined by the public utilities commission pursuant to this 1196 chapter. The rider shall be a uniform amount statewide, determined 1197 by the director of development, after consultation with the public 1198 benefits advisory board created by section 4928.58 of the Revised 1199 Code. The amount shall be determined by dividing an aggregate 1200 revenue target for a given year as determined by the director, 1201 after consultation with the advisory board, by the number of 1202 customers of electric distribution utilities in this state in the 1203 prior year. Such aggregate revenue target shall not exceed more 1204 than fifteen million dollars in any year through 2005 and shall 1205 not exceed more than five million dollars in any year after 2005. 1206 The rider shall be imposed beginning on the effective date of the 1207 Sub. S. 8. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 41 municipal electric utility in the energy efficiency revolving loan 1238 program as it existed immediately prior to the effective date of 1239 the amendment of this section by Sub. H.B. 251 of the 126th 1240 general assembly, January 4, 2007, does not constitute a decision 1241 to participate in the advanced energy fund under this section as 1242 so amended. 1243 (3) All remittances under divisions (C) (1) and (2) of this 1244 section shall continue only until the end of ten years following 1245 the starting date of competitive retail electric service or until 1246 the advanced energy fund, 1247 including interest, reaches one hundred million dollars, whichever is first. 1248 (D) Any moneys collected in rates for non-low-income customer 1249 energy efficiency programs, as of October 5, 1999, and not 1250 contributed to the energy efficiency revolving loan fund 1251 authorized under this section prior to the effective date of its 1252 amendment by Sub. H.B. 251 of the 126th general assembly, January 1253 4, 2007, shall be used to continue to fund cost-effective, 1254 residential energy efficiency programs, be contributed into the 1255 universal service fund as a supplement to that required under 1256 section 4928.53 of the Revised Code, or be returned to ratepayers 1257 in the form of a rate reduction at the option of the affected 1258 electric distribution utility. 1259 Sec. 4928.64. (A)+±-t- As used in sections 4928.64 to 4928.649 and 4928.65 of the Revised Code, means ttr1: "alternative energy resource" the following: 1261 1262 (1) An advanced energy resource or renewable energy resource, as defined in section 4928.01 of the Revised 1260 Code~ that has a 1263 1264 placed-in-service date &f. on or after January 1, 1998, or after 1265 with respect to any run - of-the-river hydroelectr i c facilit y. an 1266 in-service date on or after January 1. 1980; a 1267 (2) A renewable energy resource created on or after January 1268 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 43 or equipment regardless of the type of energy intensity reduction, 1299 provided that such plan. policy, behavior, or practice does not 1300 result in a substitution of an alternative form of energy use for 1301 the use of purchased electricity; 1302 (f) Any plan. policy. behavior. or practice that reduces the 1303 energy intensity of any water supply £unction or water treatment 1304 function; 1305 l.gl Any advanced energy resource or renewable energy resource 1306 of the mercantile customer that can be utilized effectively as 1307 part of any advanced energy resource plan of an electric 1308 distribution utility and would otherwise qualify as an alternative 1309 energy resource if it were utilized directly by an electric 1310 distribution utility. 1311 -fil-1-(h) Any energy intensity reduction that is achieved, in 1312 whole or in part, as a result of the funding provided from the 1313 universal service fund established under section 4928.51 of the 1314 Revised Code. 1315 (Bl As used in sections 4928.64 to 4928.649 of the Revised 1316 Code . "regional transmission organization" has the same meaning as 1317 in section 4928.66 of the Revised Code. 1318 J.£l For the purpose of this oeetion sections 4928.641 to 1319 4928.649 of the Revised Code and as it considers appropriate, the 1320 public utilities commission may classify any new technology as 1321 such an advanced energy resource or a renewable energy resource. 1322 Sec. 4928.641. ~(A) (1) By 2025 and thereafter, an electric 1323 distribution utility shall provide from alternative energy 1324 resources, including, at its discretion, alternative energy 1325 resources obtained pursuant to an electricity supply contract, a 1326 portion of the electricity supply required for its standard 1327 service offer under section 4928.141 of the Revised Code, and an 1328 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 45 (c) A utility or company electing to resume the use of the 1360 baseline described in division (A) (2) (a) (i) of this section shall 1361 use the baseline for a minimum of three consecutive compliance 1362 years. The utility or company is not required to provide the 1363 notice described in division (Al (2) (b) of this section for the 1364 second and thi r d compliance years of that minimum period. 1365 (B) Subject to the cost cap provisions of section 4928.644 of 1366 the Revised Code. of the alternative energy resources implemented 1367 by the subject utility or company by 2025 and thereafter: 1368 (1) Half may be ~eHerated met from advanced energy resources 1369 and shall be counted toward the compliance benchmarks of this 1370 section in every year such resources are provided in order to meet 1371 compliance. beginning in 2009; 1372 (2) At least half shall be generated from renewable energy 1373 resources, including one-half per cent from solar energy 1374 resources, in accordance with the following benchmarks: 1375 By end of year Renewable energy Solar energy resources resources 2009 0.25% 0.004% 1377 2010 0.50% 0.010% 1378 2011 1% 0.030% 1379 2012 1. 5% 0.060% 1380 2013 2% 0.090% 1381 2014 2.5% 0.12% 1382 2015 3.5% 0.15% 1383 2016 4.5% 0.18% 1384 2017 5.5% 0.22% 1385 2018 6.5% 0.26% 1386 2019 7.5% 0.3% 1387 2020 8.5% 0.34% 1388 2021 9.5% 0.38% 1389 2022 10.5% 0.42% 1390 1376 Sub. S. 8. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 47 Code, that the utility or company has failed to comply with any 1420 ffi::teb benchmark under division {Bl (2) 1421 of section 4928.641 of the Revised Code, the commission shall impose a renewable energy 1422 compliance payment on the utility or company. 1423 +a+JlU. The compliance payment pertaining to the solar energy resource benchmarks under division (B) (2) of~ section 4928.641 1424 1425 of the Revised Code shall be an amount per megawatt hour of 1426 undercompliance or noncompliance in the period under review, 1427 starting at four hundred fifty dollars for 2009, four hundred 1428 dollars for 2010 and 2011, and similarly reduced every two years 1429 thereafter through 2024 by fifty dollars, to a minimum of fifty 1430 dollars. 1431 -ffrt.~ The compliance payment pertaining to the renewable energy resource benchmarks under division (B) (2) of ~ section 1432 1433 4928.641 of the Revised Code shall equal the number of additional 1434 renewable energy credits that the electric distribution utility or 1435 electric services company would have needed to comply with the 1436 applicable benchmark in the period under review times an amount 1437 that shall begin at forty-five dollars and shall be adjusted 1438 annually by the commission to reflect any change in the consumer 1439 price index as defined in section 101.27 of the Revised Code, but 1440 shall not be less than forty-five dollars. 1441 -fe-t-1£1 The compliance payment shall not be passed through by 1442 the electric distribution utility or electric services company to 1443 consumers. The compliance payment shall be remitted to the 1444 commission, for deposit to the credit of the advanced energy fund 1445 created under section 4928.61 of the Revised Code. Payment of the 1446 compliance payment shall be subject to such collection and 1447 enforcement procedures as apply to the collection of a forfeiture 1448 under sections 4905.55 to 4905.60 and 4905.64 of the Revised Code. 1449 Sub.S.B.No.58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 49 (Cl In making the calculation u nde r divi sion (Bl of t his 1481 section. any exemption from taxes and assessments granted under 1482 section 5727.75 of the Revised Code shall be treated as if it had 1483 not been granted. 1484 (D) Even if the cost can established in this section is met 1485 in any year. recovery for ongoing costs that are associated with 1486 contracts executed by the electric distribution utility to procure 1487 renewa ble e n ergy resources that are being recovered from custome rs 1488 through a bypassable charge as of the effective date of S.B. 58 of 1489 the 130th general assembly shall continue until the costs 1490 associated with the contracts are fully recovered. 1491 Sec. 4928.645. (4) (a)J.Al_ An electric distribution utility or 1492 electric services company may request the public utilities 1493 commission to make a force majeure determination pursuant to this 1494 divisiofi section regarding all or part of the utility's or 1495 company's compliance with any ffiifiiffitiffi benchmark under division 1496 (B) (2) of~ section 4928.641 of the Revised Code during the 1497 period of review occurring pursuant to divisiofi (C) (2) of this 1498 section 4928.643 of the Revised Code. The commission may require 1499 the electric distribution utility or electric services company to 1500 ~art 1501 of its default service before the utility's or company's request 1502 of force majeure under this division can be made. 1503 make solicitations for renewable energy resource credits as -B:H-lfil... Within ninety days after the filing of a request by an 1504 electric distribution utility or electric services company under 1505 division (C) (4) (a)J.Al_ of this section, the commission shall 1506 determine if renewable energy resources are reasonably available 1507 in the marketplace in sufficient quantities for the utility or 1508 company to comply with the subject ffiiniffiUffi benchmark during the 1509 review period. In making this determination, the commission shall 1510 consider whether the electric distribution utility or electric 1511 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 51 service territories of the regional transmission organi~ations 1544 that manage transmission systems located in this state 1545 organization. The commission shall use the results of this study 1546 to identify any needed changes to the amount of the renewable 1547 energy compliance payment specified under divisions (C) (2) (a)llU_ 1548 and -fe+llil_ of tfl.i-e section 4928 . 643 of the Revised Code. 1549 Specifically, the commission may increase the amount to ensure 1550 that payment of compliance payments is not used to achieve 1551 compliance with tfl.i-e section 4928.641 of the Revised Code in lieu 1552 of actually acquiring or realizing energy derived from renewable 1553 energy resources. However, if the commission finds that the amount 1554 of the compliance payment should be otherwise changed, the 1555 commission shall present this finding to the general assembly for 1556 legislative enactment. 1557 Sec. 4928.647. (D) (l)J.Al. The public utilities commission 1558 annually shall submit to the general assembly in accordance with 1559 section 101.68 of the Revised Code a report describing all of the 1560 following: 1561 -fa+J.ll The compliance of electric distribution utilities and electric services companies with division (B) of ~ section 4928.641 of the Revised Code; .f&t-12.l The average annual cost of renewable energy credits 1562 1563 1564 1565 purchased by utilities and companies for the year covered in the 1566 report; 1567 +e+l.J.l Any strategy for utility and company compliance or for 1568 encouraging the use of alternative energy resources in supplying 1569 this state's electricity needs in a manner that considers 1570 available technology, costs, job creation, and economic impacts. 1571 llil_ The commission shall begin providing the information 1572 described in division (D) (1) (b) (A) (2) of this section in each 1573 Sub. S. 8. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 53 (B) Any advanced energy resource. 1604 Sec. 4928.65. lbJ_ An electric distribution utility or 1605 electric services company may use renewable energy credits any 1606 time in the five calendar years following the date of their 1607 purchase or acquisition from any entity, including, but not 1608 limited to, a mercantile customer or an owner or operator of a 1609 hydroelectric generating facility that is located at a dam on a 1610 river, or on any water discharged to a river or lake, that is 1611 within or bordering this state er~ within or bordering an 1612 adjoining state. or deliverable into the regional transmission 1613 organization, for the purpose of complying with the renewable 1614 energy and solar energy resource requirements of division (B) (2) 1615 of section 4928.64 4928.641 of the Revised Code. !±!fie 1616 (B) The public utilities commission shall adopt rules 1617 specifying that one unit of credit shall equal one megawatt hour 1618 of electricity derived from renewable energy resources, except 1619 that, for a generating facility of seventy-five megawatts or 1620 greater that is situated within this state and has committed by 1621 December 31, 2009, to modify or retrofit its generating unit or 1622 units to enable the facility to generate principally from biomass 1623 energy by June 30, 2013, each megawatt hour of electricity 1624 generated principally from that biomass energy shall equal, in 1625 units of credit, the product obtained by multiplying the actual 1626 percentage of biomass feedstock heat input used to generate such 1627 megawatt hour by the quotient obtained by dividing the then 1628 existing unit dollar amount used to determine a renewable energy 1629 compliance payment as provided under division (C) (2) (b)Jlil. of 1630 section 4928.64 4928.643 of the Revised Code by the then existing 1631 market value of one renewable energy credit, but such megawatt 1632 hour shall not equal less than one unit of credit. The rules also 1633 shall provide for this state a system of registering renewable 1634 energy credits by specifying which of any generally available 1635 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 end-use or utility system functionality. (Cl "Energy efficiency program" may include the following: (1) A policy. behavior. practice. or program designed and implemented to comply with energy efficiency reauirements; (2) A combined heat and power system placed into service or retrofitted on or after September 10. 2012; (3) A waste energy recovery system placed into service or Page 55 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 retrofitted on or after September 10. 2012. except that a waste 1673 energy recovery system described in division (A) (38) (bl of section 1674 4928.01 of the Revised Code may be included only i-f it was placed 1675 into service between January 1. 2002. and December 31. 2004; 1676 (4) Increased use of post-consumer recycled glass by a mercantile customer. (D) "Energy efficiency reguirements" means the savings requirements under section 4928.661 of the Revised Code. (El "Lost revenue mechanism" means a mechanism to recover all 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 lost. forgone. or eliminated distribution and transmission 1682 revenue. not otherwise recovered from customers. that is 1683 calculated based on kilowatt hours or kilowatts eliminated in 1684 order to comply with the energy efficiency or peak demand 1685 reduction requirements that would have otherwise been sold to 1686 retail customers resulting in retail revenue for the utility. 1687 (Fl "Peak demand reduction program" means a policy. practice . 1688 behavior, or program designed to comply with peak demand reduction 1689 requirements. 1690 (G) 1691 "Peak demand reduction requirements" means benchmark requirements under section 4928.662 of the Revised Code. (H) "Regional transmission organization" means the PJM 1692 1693 interconnection regional transmission organization. L.L.C. or any 1694 entity performing the functions identified in section 4928.12 of 1695 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 57 kilowatt-hour sales of the electric distribution utility during 1726 the preceding three calendar years to customers in this state. For 1727 a waste energy recovery or combined heat and power system, the 1728 savings shall be as estimated by the public utilities commission. 1729 The savings requirement, using such a three-year average, shall 1730 increase to an additional five-tenths of one per cent in 2010, 1731 seven-tenths of one per cent in 2011, eight-tenths of one per cent 1732 in 2012, nine-tenths of one per cent in 2013, one per cent from 1733 2014 to 2018, 1734 ~one and one-quarter per cent in 2019. one and one-half per cent in 2020. one and three-quarters per cent in 1735 2021. two per cent each year thereafter in 2022. two and 1736 one-quarter per cent in 2023. two and one-half per cent in 2024, 1737 and two and three-quarters per cent in 2025, achieving a 1738 cumulative, annual energy efficiency savings in excess of 1739 twenty-two per cent by the end of 2025. ¥ar 1740 (B) For purposes of a waste energy recovery or combined heat 1741 and power system, an electric distribution utility shall not apply 1742 more than the total annual percentage of the electric distribution 1743 utility's industrial-customer load, relative to the electric 1744 distribution utility's total load, to the annual energy efficiency 1745 savings requirement. 1746 Sec. 4928.662. -fe+JAl. Beginning in 2009, an electric 1747 distribution utility shall implement peak demand reduction 1748 programs designed to achieve a one per cent reduction in peak 1749 demand in 2009 and an additional seventy-five hundredths of one 1750 per cent reduction each year through 2018. 1751 -±ft Peak demand reduction shall be measured relative to the measure of the peak 1752 demand that is used by the applicable regional transmission 1753 organization to establish a supplier's resource adequacy or 1754 capacity obligation. 1755 (B) In 2018, the standing committees in the house of 1756 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 59 exclude the effects of all such demand-response, energy 1787 efficiency, including waste energy recovery and combined heat and 1788 power, or peak demand reduction programs that may have existed 1789 during the period used to establish the baseline. 1790 Sec. 4928.667. The baseline also shall be normalized for 1791 changes in numbers of customers, sales, weather, peak demand, and 1792 other appropriate factors so that the compliance measurement is 1793 not unduly influenced by factors outside the control of the 1794 electric distribution utility. 1795 Sec. 4928.668. -f.frt- The public utilities commission may amend 1796 the beachmarko set forth ia divioioa (A) (1) (a) or (b) of this 1797 sectioa energy efficiency and peak demand reduction requirements 1798 if, after application by the electric distribution utility, the 1799 commission determines that the amendment is necessary because the 1800 utility cannot reasonably achieve the benchmarks due to 1801 regulatory, economic, or technological reasons beyond its 1802 reasonable control. 1803 Sec. 4928.6610. Each electric distribution utility shall have 1804 a compliance plan to meet t he energy efficiency and peak demand 1805 reduction reguirements. Fol l owing the expiration 0£ any compliance 1806 plan that was approved by the public utilities commission or. 1807 prior to November l, 2013. was file d with. but not yet approved 1808 by. the commission. prior to the effective date of S.B. 58 of the 1809 130th genera l assembly. each subsequent compliance plan shall 1810 encompass at least a three-year Qeriod . 1811 Sec. 4928 . 6611 . Each compliance plan approved by the public utilities commission shall include: (A) Recovery from customers of all compliance costs incurred 1812 1813 1814 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 61 Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. ( 1993 l 509 U.S. 579. Sec. 4928.6612. In advance of the period during which an 1846 1847 electric distribution utility will be required to comply with the 1848 energy efficiency and neak demand requirements. the publi9 1849 utilities commission shall approve a compliance plan for the 1850 utility. 1851 Sec. 4928.6613. (A) If, on the effective date of S.B. 58 of 1852 the 130th general assembly. an electric distribution utility has a 1853 compliance plan based on the energy efficiency savings and peak 1854 demand reduction re quirements under former section 4928.66 of the 1855 Revised Code as it existed orior to the e f £ective date of S . B . 58 1856 of the 130th general assembly that was approved by the public 1857 utilities commission or. prior to November 1. 2013. was filed 1858 with. but not yet approved by. the commission. the electric 1859 distribution utility may. at its sole discretion. continue or 1860 implement such compliance plan. including any existing approved 1861 cost recovery and incentive mechanisms, until such costs and 1862 incentives are fully recovered. Subject to division (Bl of this 1863 section. all provisions of sect i ons 4928.66 to 4928.6660 of the 1864 Revised Code as amended or enacted in S.B. 58 of the 130th general 1865 assembly shall apply if the electric distribution utility 1866 continues or implements such compliance plan. 1867 (B) At its sole discretion. an electric distribution utility 1868 may elect not to be subject to sections 4928.66 to 4928.6660 of 1869 the Revised Code as enacted by S.B. 58 of the 130th general 1870 assembly for purposes of a compliance plan described in division 1871 (A) of this section. Upon such election. the provisions of section 1872 4928.66 of the Revised Code as it existed prior to the enactment 1873 of S.B. 58 of the 130th general assembly shall apply to the plan 1874 for the period du r ing which the compliance plan remains in effect . 1875 After the expiration of the plan. the provisions of section 1876 Sub. S. 8. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 63 electric distribution utility s hall. pursuant t o section 4928.6615 1907 of the Revised Code. select one of the following cost cap methods 1908 for comp liance plans approved after the effective date of S.B . 58 1909 of the 130th general assembly: 1910 (1) The electric distribution utility's compliance costs 1911 associated with the energy efficiency and peak demand reduction 1912 requirements in any year shall not exceed the cost per kilowatt 1913 hour of energy efficiency savings and cost per kilowatt of peak 1914 demand reduction that was incurred in calendar year 2013; 1915 (2) The total annualized rate impact of compliance costs and 1916 shared s ayings incentives associated with an electric distribu tion 1917 utility's compliance in any year with the energy efficiency and 1918 peak demand reduction regµirements s hall not exceed t he compliance 1919 costs approved for that electric distribution utility for the 1920 calendar year 2013. 1921 (Bl The total annualized shared savings incentive authorized 1922 for an electric distribution utility's compliance plan as provided 1923 under section 4928.6611 of the Revised Code s hall not exceed the 1924 lesser of one-third of the cost cap total calculated under 1925 division (Al (ll or (2) of this section. as applicable. for the 1926 same compliance year or twenty million dollars. 1927 (C) If an electric distribution utility does not meet the 1928 energy efficiency and peak demand reduction requirements in a 1929 calendar year and has not met the applicable cost cap in that 1930 calendar year. the public utilities commission may curtail the 1931 tota l annualized shared sayings incentive authorized under section 1932 4928 . 6611 of the Revised Code for that year. 1933 Sec. 4928.6617. Once the applicable cost cap under section 1934 4928.6616 of t h e Revised Code is me t. an electric distribution 1935 utility, by operation of law. is deemed to have met the energy 1936 Sub. 5. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Sec. 4928.6622. Page 65 (A) If the cost cap described in section 1965 492 8. 6 616 of the Rev ise d Code is me t. e XI? e n d i t u re o f compl ianc e 1966 costs shall be curtailed as soon as practicable but full recovery 1967 of s h ared saving s i n c entive s e arned on or be f o r e t he d at e the c o st 1968 cap is met shall not be curtailed or otherwise limited. 1969 (Bl An electric distribution utility shall be permitted to 1970 recover all compliance costs. incentives. and related items 1971 resulting from a ny t emporar y overcomgliance re s ulting from the 1972 imglementa ti on of se c ti ons 49 2 8.66 to 4 9 28.6 6 60 o f 1973 t h e Rev ised Code and occurring as :part of a compliance :plan described in 1974 division (A) of section 4928.6613 of the Revised Code. 1975 Sec. 4928.6623. (A) At least once each calendar year. the 1976 public utilities commission shall publish. and make available to 1977 the public, a regort identifying the following: 1978 (1) The stat e wide cumulative total amount incurr ed for 1979 compliance costs that are subject to a cost cap described in 1980 section 4928.6616 of the Revised Code; 1981 (2) For each electric distribution utility. the annual total 1982 amount incurred for compliance costs that are subject to a cost 1983 cap described in section 4928.6616 of the Reyised Code; 1984 (3) For each e lectric distribution utility. the typical 1985 effect of recovery of compliance costs on the bills of its 1986 residential. commercial. and industrial consumers. 1987 (B) The commission shall reguire each electric distribution utility to inform consumers. through an annual electric bill insert or othe r wi se. of any report issued pursuant to divi s ion 1988 1989 (Al 1990 of this section and how the consumers may obtain access to and a 1991 copy of each report. 1992 Sec. 4928. 6625. -fe+ Compliance with divisions (.'\) (1) (a) aRd 1993 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 67 (2) Energy efficiency savings and peak demand reduction that 2024 are achieved. in whole or in part. as a result of funding provided 2025 from the universal service fund established by section 4928.51 of 2026 the Revised Code. 2027 Sec . 4928.6630 . (A) .As used in sections 4928.6630 to 4928. 6635 of the Revised Code. "cus.tomer" means any retail 2028 2029 customer of an electric distribution utility to which either o f 2030 the following applies: 2031 (1) The retail customer receives service above the primary 2032 voltage level as determined by the utilitv's tariff 2033 classification . 2034 (2) The retail customer is a commercia l or industrial customer that: (a } Receives electricity through a meter of an end user or 2035 2036 2037 through more than one meter at a single location in a quantity 2038 that exceeds forty-five million kilowatt hours of electricity for 2039 the preceding calendar year; and 2040 (bl Has made a written request for registration as a 2041 self-assessing purchaser oursuant to section 5727.81 of the 2042 Revised Code. 2043 (Bl A customer of an electric distribution utility may opt 2044 out of the opportunity and ability to obtain direct benefits from 2045 the utility's compliance plan. Such an opt out shall extend to all 2046 of the customer's accounts, irrespective of the size or service 2047 voltage level that are associated with the activities performed by 2048 the customer and that are located on or adjacent to the customer's 2049 premises. Any election exercised under division (B} of section 2050 4928.6613 of the Revised Code shall not affect the timing or the 2051 scope of the opt-out opportunity available to customers pursuant 2052 to this section. 2053 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 69 (1) The customer has previously opted out for a period of at least three consecutive caleµdar years. (2) The customer gives twelve months' advance notice of its 2083 2084 2085 intent to opt in to the public utilities commission and the 2086 electric distribution utility from which it receives service. 2087 (Bl A customer that opts in under this section shall maintain 2088 its opt-in status for three consecutive calendar years before 2089 being eligible subseguently to exercise its right to opt out after 2090 giving the utility twelve months' advance notice. 2091 (Cl A customer is not eligible to participate in a mercantile 2092 customer agreement under section 4928.6650 of the Revised Code 2093 during any period when it has an opt-out status. 2094 Sec. 4928.6634. Any customer electing to opt in under section 2095 4928.6633 of the Revised Code s hall do so by providing a written 2096 notice of intent to opt in to the electric distribution utility 2097 from which it receives service and submitting a complete copy of 2098 the opt-in notice to the secretary of the public utilities 2099 commission. The notice shall include the following; 2100 (Al A statement indicating that the customer has elected to opt in; 2101 2102 (Bl The effective date of the election to opt in; 2103 (Cl The account number for each customer account to which the 2104 opt in may apply; 2105 (D) The physical location of the customer's load center. 2106 (Al Upon a customer's election to opt out 2107 under sections 4928.6630 to 4928.6635 of the Revised Code. the 2108 customer shall prepare and submit a report to the staff of the 2109 public utilities commission. The report shall. for the period that 2110 the opt out is in effect. summarize the energy efficiency and peak 2111 Sec. 4928.6635. Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 (Bl Energy ef:ficiency savings and peak d ema nd reduction Page 71 2142 achieved on and after the effective date of S.B. 58 of the 130th 2143 general assembly shall be measured on the higher of an as found or 2144 deemed basis. except that. solely at t.he option of the electric 2145 distribution utility. such savings and reduction achieved since 2146 2006 may also be measure d using this method. For ne w construction. 2147 the energy efficiency savings and peak demand reduction shall be 2148 counted based on 20 08 f e deral standards. p r ovide d tha t whe n n ew 2149 construction replaces an existing facility. the difference in 2150 energy consumed. energy intensity. and peak demand between the new 2151 and replaced facility shall be counted toward meeting the energy 2152 efficiency and peak demand r eduqtion requirements. 2153 (Cl The commission shall count both the energy efficiency savings and peak demand reduction on an annualized basis. (D) The commission shall count both the energy efficiency savings and p e ak demand reduction on a gross savings basis. (El The commission shall recognize and count . on a British 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 thermal unit equivalent basis. nonelectric energy efficiency 2159 savings or peak demand reductions that occur as a consequence of a 2160 compliance plan approved by the commission. except that a British 2161 thermal unit savings associated with switching equipment or 2162 proceBses from e lectric usage to gas us a ge sha ll not qua lify . 2163 (Fl The commission shall r ecognize and count energy 2164 efficiency savings and peak demand reductions that occur as a 2165 consequence of consumer reductions in water usage or reductions 2166 and improvements in wastewater treatment. 2167 (G) If proposed by the electric distribution uti l ity in its 2168 sole discretion. the commission shall recognize and count energy 2169 ef f i c i e ncy s ayings a n d p eak d e ma nd r eduction a sso ciated wi th h eat 2170 rate and other efficiency or energy intensity improvements 2171 achieved since 2006 from electric generating plants that have 2172 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 73 reduction reguirements in futur e year s. 2205 Sec. 4928.6641. An electric distribution utility annually 2206 shall notify the public utilities commission regarding which 2207 measurement described in divisions (B). 2208 (G). and (I) of section 49 2 8.6640 of t h e Revi sed Code wil l be include d t o d ete r mine 2209 compliance with the energy efficiency and peak demand reduction 2210 reguirements. 2211 Sec. 4928.6642. All energy efficiency savings and peak demand 2212 reductions. including energy efficiency savings and peak demand 2213 reductions described in division (El of section 717.25 of the 2214 Revised Code and divisions (A) and (Bl of section 1710.061 of the 2215 Revised Code, shall be counted toward compliance with the energy 2216 efficiency and peak demand reduction recniirements. consistent with 2217 s e ction 4928.6640 o f the Revised Code. r egardless o f whether the 2218 savings or reductions may be counted toward compliance with 2219 sections 4928.64 to 4928,649 of the Revised Code. 2220 Sec. 4928.6645 . The public utilit i es commission shal l not 2221 reguire that an electric distribution utility achieve energy 2222 efficiency savings or peak demand reduction in excess of the 2223 energy effici ency and peak demand reducti on requirements . 2224 Sec. 4928.6646. The public utilities commission shall 2225 libera l l y con s t rue sect i ons 4928.66 to 4928.6660 o f the Revi s ed 2226 Code in favor of counting energy efficiency savings and peak 2227 demand reduction achieved by customers or through utility programs 2228 in order to achieve the energy efficiency and peak demand 2229 r e duc ti on requ iremen t s. a s f u rthe r speci f i e d i n section 49 2 8. 6640 2230 of the Revised Code. 2231 Sec. 4928.6647. The public utilities commission shall not 2232 Sub.S.B.No.58 Page75 LSC1300592~ (2) The public utilities commission determines that that 2263 exemption reasonably encourages such customers to commit those 2264 capabilities to those programs. 2265 (B) Any election exercised under division (B) of section 2266 4928.6613 of the Revised Code shall not affect the timing or the 2267 scope of the exemption available to a mercantile customer pursuant 2268 to this section. 2269 Sec. 4928.6651. -ft». The public utilities commission may 2270 establish rules regarding the content of an application by an 2271 electric distribution utility for commission approval of a revenue 2272 decoupling mechanism under this division. Such an application 2273 shall not be considered an application to increase rates and may 2274 be included as part of a proposal to establish, continue, or 2275 expand energy efficiency or conservation programs. The commission 2276 by order may approve an application under this division if it 2277 determines both that the revenue decoupling mechanism provides for 2278 the recovery of revenue that otherwise may be forgone by the 2279 utility as a result of or in connection with the implementation by 2280 the electric distribution utility of any energy efficiency or 2281 energy conservation programs and reasonably aligns the interests 2282 of the utility and of its customers in favor of those programs. 2283 Sec. 4928.6655. -fB+. In accordance with rules it shall adopt, 2284 the public utilities commission shall produce and docket at the 2285 commission an annual report containing the results of its 2286 verification of the annual levels of energy efficiency and of peak 2287 demand reductions achieved by each electric distribution utility 2288 pursuant to division (A) of this section the energy efficiency and 2289 peak demand reduction requirements. A copy of the report shall be 2290 provided to the consumers' counsel. 2291 Sec. 4928.6656. (C) If Except as provided in section 2292 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 (A) The energy efficiency resources have been installed and Page 77 2322 the electric distribution utility can demonstrate resource 2323 ownership. provided that savings must be adjusted for regional 2324 t r a nsmiss i o n o r gan i za t ion measuremen t a nd v e rif i c a t ion s t a ndard s . 2325 have a mea s u r emen t and ver i fi cation plan a pprove d by the reg i onal 2326 transmission organization. and are of sufficient scale; and 2327 (B) The demand response resources are owned by the electric 2328 distribution utility and will be available in the applicable 2329 delivery year. 2330 The commission shall not. however. require an electric 2331 distribution utility to offer projected energy efficiency 2332 r es ou r ce s o r d e ma nd response r e s our ces in to reg i ona l t ransmiss ion 2333 organization capacity auctions. The commission shall not have any 2334 authority to supervise or regulate ownership or use rights of 2335 c u stomer- s ited cap a b il iti es that are not v oluntarily commi tted to 2336 an electric distribution utility. 2337 Sec. 4928.6660. The energy efficiency and peak demand 2338 r eduction r e quire me nts_ and any associat e d compl i anc e requ ireme nts 2339 shall not apply after the date that any federal benchmarks 2340 requiring energy efficiency savings or peak demand reductions 2341 become effective regardless of whether the federal benchmarks 2342 specify that they have a preemptive effect on the energy 2343 efficienc y a nd peak deman d reduct i on requirements. 2344 Sec. 4928.6670. No method, modification. replacement, 2 345 improvement. procedure. or effort made in relation to. or energy 2346 efficiency savings or peak demand reduction achieved from. an 2347 e lec tri c gene rating p l ant. transmission line . distribution line. 2348 o r related f ac i l ity. owned b y a n e l ectric cooperat ive or muni c ipa l 23 49 corporation shall count toward an electric distribution utility's 2350 or electric services compa ny' s compl iance un d er sect ions 4 92 8 . 6 4 2351 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 79 effective date of an appropriation enacted by the general assembly 2383 from which the department may lawfully pay rentals under such 2384 agreement. Any such agreement may include, without limitation, any 2385 agreement by the department with respect to any costs of 2386 transportation facilities to be included prior to acquisition and 2387 construction of such transportation facilities. Any such agreement 2388 shall not constitute a debt or pledge of the faith and credit of 2389 the state, or of any political subdivision of the state, and the 2390 lessor shall have no right to have taxes or excises levied by the 2391 general assembly, or the taxing authority of any political 2392 subdivision of the state, for the payment of rentals thereunder. 2393 Any such agreement shall contain a statement to that effect. 2394 (D) A municipal corporation, township, or county may use 2395 service payments in lieu of taxes credited to special funds or 2396 accounts pursuant to sections 5709.43, 5709.75, and 5709.80 of the 2397 Revised Code to provide its contribution to the cost of a 2398 transportation facility, provided such facility was among the 2399 purposes for which such service payments were authorized. The 2400 contribution may be in the form of a lump sum or periodic 2401 payments. 2402 {E) Pursuant to the "Telecommunications Act of 1996," 110 2403 Stat. 152, 47 U.S.C. 332 note, the director may grant a lease, 2404 easement, or license in a transportation facility to a 2405 telecommunications service provider for construction, placement, 2406 or operation of a telecommunications facility. An interest granted 2407 under this division is subject to all of the following conditions: 2408 (1) The transportation facility is owned in fee simple or 2409 easement by this state at the time the lease, easement, or license 2410 is granted to the telecommunications provider. 2411 (2) The lease, easement, or license shall be granted on a 2412 competitive basis in accordance with policies and procedures to be 2413 determined by the director. The policies and procedures may 2414 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 81 to further efforts to promote energy conservation and energy 2445 efficiency, the director may grant a lease, easement, or license 2446 in a transportation facility to a utility service provider that 2447 has received its certificate from the Ohio power siting board or 2448 appropriate local entity for construction, placement, or operation 2449 of an alternative energy generating facility service provider as 2450 defined in section sections 4928.64 to 4928.649 of the Revised 2451 Code. An interest granted under this division is subject to all of 2452 the following conditions: 2453 (1) The transportation facility is owned in fee simple or in 2454 easement by this state at the time the lease, easement, or license 2455 is granted to the utility service provider. 2456 (2) The lease, easement, or license shall be granted on a 2457 competitive basis in accordance with policies and procedures to be 2458 determined by the director. The policies and procedures may 2459 include provisions for master leases for multiple sites. 2460 (3) The alternative energy generating facility shall be 2461 designed to provide energy for the department's transportation 2462 facilities with the potential for selling excess power on the 2463 power grid, as the director may determine is necessary for highway 2464 or other departmental purposes . 2465 (4) The director shall require indemnity agreements in favor 2466 of the department as a condition of any lease, easement, or 2467 license granted under this division. Each indemnity agreement 2468 shall secure this state from liability for damages arising out of 2469 safety hazards, zoning, and any other matter of public interest 2470 the director considers necessary. 2471 (5) The alternative energy service provider fully complies 2472 with any permit issued by the Ohio power siting board under 2473 Chapter 4906. of the Revised Code and complies with section 2474 5515.01 of the Revised Code pertaining to land that is the subject 2475 Sub.S.B.No.58 Page83 LSC1300592~ of an energy facility using solar panels to generate electricity. 2505 (B) (1) Tangible personal property of a qualified energy 2506 project using renewable energy resources is exempt from taxation 2507 for tax years 2011 through 2016 if all of the following conditions 2508 are satisfied: 2509 (a) On or before December 31, 2015, the owner or a lessee 2510 pursuant to a sale and leaseback transaction of the project 2511 submits an application to the power siting board for a certificate 2512 under section 4906.20 of the Revised Code, or if that section does 2513 not apply, submits an application for any approval, consent, 2514 permit, or certificate or satisfies any condition required by a 2515 public agency or political subdivision of this state for the 2516 construction or initial operation of an energy project. 2517 (b) Construction or installation of the energy facility 2518 begins on or after January 1, 2009, and before January 1, 2016. 2519 For the purposes of this division, construction begins on the 2520 earlier of the date of application for a certificate or other 2521 approval or permit described in division (B) (1) (a) of this 2522 section, or the date the contract for the construction or 2523 installation of the energy facility is entered into. 2524 (c) For a qualified energy project with a nameplate capacity 2525 of five megawatts or greater, a board of county commissioners of a 2526 county in which property of the project is located has adopted a 2527 resolution under division (E) (1) (b) or (c) of this section to 2528 approve the application submitted under division (E) of this 2529 section to exempt the property located in that county from 2530 taxation. A board's adoption of a resolution rejecting an 2531 application or its failure to adopt a resolution approving the 2532 application does not affect the tax-exempt status of the qualified 2533 energy project's property that is located in another county. 2534 (2) If tangible personal property of a qualified energy 2535 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 85 tax-exempt status of the qualified energy project's property that 2568 is located in another county. 2569 (3) The certification for the qualified energy project issued 2570 under division (E) (2) of this section has not been revoked. An 2571 energy project for which certification has been revoked is 2572 ineligible for exemption under this section. Revocation does not 2573 affect the tax-exempt status of the project's tangible personal 2574 property for the tax year in which revocation occurs or any prior 2575 tax year. 2576 (D) Except as otherwise provided in this section, real 2577 property of a qualified energy project is exempt from taxation for 2578 any tax year for which the tangible personal property of the 2579 qualified energy project is exempted under this section. 2580 (E) (1) (a) A person may apply to the director of development 2581 services for certification of an energy project as a qualified 2582 energy project on or before the following dates: 2583 (i) December 31, 2015, for an energy project using renewable energy resources; (ii) December 31, 2017, for an energy project using clean 2584 2585 2586 coal technology, advanced nuclear technology, or cogeneration 2587 technology. 2588 (b) The director shall forward a copy of each application for 2589 certification of an energy project with a nameplate capacity of 2590 five megawatts or greater to the board of county commissioners of 2591 each county in which the project is located and to each taxing 2592 unit with territory located in each of the affected counties. Any 2593 board that receives from the director a copy of an application 2594 submitted under this division shall adopt a resolution approving 2595 or rejecting the application unless it has adopted a resolution 2596 under division (E) (1) (c) of this section. A resolution adopted 2597 under division (E) (1) (b) or (c) of this section may require an 2598 Sub.S.B.No.58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 87 one county in which the project is located has adopted a 2630 resolution approving the application under division (E) (1) (b) or 2631 (c) of this section. 2632 (c) No portion of the project's facility was used to supply electricity before December 31, 2009. (3) The director shall deny a certification application if 2633 2634 2635 the director determines the person has failed to comply with any 2636 requirement under this section. The director may revoke a 2637 certification if the director determines the person, or subsequent 2638 owner or lessee pursuant to a sale and leaseback transaction of 2639 the qualified energy project, has failed to comply with any 2640 requirement under this section. Upon certification or revocation, 2641 the director shall notify the person, owner, or lessee, the tax 2642 commissioner, and the county auditor of a county in which the 2643 project is located of the certification or revocation. Notice 2644 shall be provided in a manner convenient to the director. 2645 (F) The owner or a lessee pursuant to a sale and leaseback 2646 transaction of a qualified energy project shall do each of the 2647 following: 2648 (1) Comply with all applicable regulations; 2649 (2) File with the director of development services a 2650 certified construction progress report before the first day of 2651 March of each year during the energy facility's construction or 2652 installation indicating the percentage of the project completed, 2653 and the project's nameplate capacity, as of the preceding 2654 thirty-first day of December. Unless otherwise instructed by the 2655 director of development services, the owner or lessee of an energy 2656 project shall file a report with the director on or before the 2657 first day of March each year after completion of the energy 2658 facility's construction or installation indicating the project's 2659 nameplate capacity as of the preceding thirty-first day of 2660 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 89 lessee and the county engineer may enter into an agreement 2693 regarding specific transportation plans, reinforcements, 2694 modifications, use and repair of roads, financial security to be 2695 provided, and any other relevant issue . 2696 (5) Provide or facilitate training for fire and emergency 2697 responders for response to emergency situations related to the 2698 energy project and, for energy projects with a nameplate capacity 2699 of five megawatts or greater, at the person's expense, equip the 2700 fire and emergency responders with proper equipment as reasonably 2701 required to enable them to respond to such emergency situations; 2702 (6) Maintain a ratio of Ohio-domiciled full-time equivalent 2703 employees employed in the construction or installation of the 2704 energy project to total full-time equivalent employees employed in 2705 the construction or installation of the energy project of not less 2706 than eighty per cent in the case of a solar energy project, and 2707 not less than fifty per cent in the case of any other energy 2708 project. In the case of an energy project for which certification 2709 from the power siting board is required under section 4906.20 of 2710 the Revised Code, the number of full-time equivalent employees 2711 employed in the construction or installation of the energy project 2712 equals the number actually employed or the number projected to be 2713 employed in the certificate application, if such projection is 2714 required under regulations adopted pursuant to section 4906.03 of 2715 the Revised Code, whichever is greater. For all other energy 2716 projects, the number of full-time equivalent employees employed in 2717 the construction or installation of the energy project equals the 2718 number actually employed or the number projected to be employed by 2719 the director of development services, whichever is greater. To 2720 estimate the number of employees to be employed in the 2721 construction or installation of an energy project, the director 2722 shall use a generally accepted job-estimating model in use for 2723 renewable energy projects, including but not limited to the job 2724 Sub.S.B.No.58 LSC 130 0592-8 municipal power agency. (c) The owner or lessee contracts for the sale of power or Page 91 2757 2758 renewable energy credits from the energy project before June 17, 2759 2010. 2760 (9) Make annual service payments as required by division (G) 2761 of this section and as may be required in a resolution adopted by 2762 a board of county commissioners under division (E) of this 2763 section. 2764 (G) The owner or a lessee pursuant to a sale and leaseback 2765 transaction of a qualified energy project shall make annual 2766 service payments in lieu of taxes to the county treasurer on or 2767 before the final dates for payments of taxes on public utility 2768 personal property on the real and public utility personal property 2769 tax list for each tax year for which property of the energy 2770 project is exempt from taxation under this section. The county 2771 treasurer shall allocate the payment on the basis of the project's 2772 physical location. Upon receipt of a payment, or if timely payment 2773 has not been received, the county treasurer shall certify such 2774 receipt or non-receipt to the director of development services and 2775 tax commissioner in a form determined by the director and 2776 commissioner, respectively. Each payment shall be in the following 2777 amount: 2778 (1) In the case of a solar energy project, seven thousand 2779 dollars per megawatt of nameplate capacity located in the county 2780 as of December 31, 2010, for tax year 2011, as of December 31, 2781 2011, for tax year 2012, as of December 31, 2012, for tax year 2782 2013, as of December 31, 2013, for tax year 2014, as of December 2783 31, 2014, for tax year 2015, as of December 31, 2015, for tax year 2784 2016, and as of December 31, 2016, for tax year 2017 and each tax 2785 year thereafter; 2786 (2) In the case of any other energy project using renewable 2787 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Page 93 installation of the energy facility a ratio of Ohio-domiciled 2819 full-time equivalent employees to total full-time equivalent 2820 employees of less than seventy-five per cent but not less than 2821 sixty per cent, seven thousand dollars per megawatt of nameplate 2822 capacity located in the county as of the thirty-first day of 2823 December of the preceding tax year; 2824 (c) If the project maintains during the construction or 2825 installation of the energy facility a ratio of Ohio-domiciled 2826 full-time equivalent employees to total full-time equivalent 2827 employees of less than sixty per cent but not less than fifty per 2828 cent, eight thousand dollars per megawatt of nameplate capacity 2829 located in the county as of the thirty-first day of December of 2830 the preceding tax year. 2831 (H) The director of development services in consultation with 2832 the tax commissioner shall adopt rules pursuant to Chapter 119. of 2833 the Revised Code to implement and enforce this section. 2834 Section 2. That existing sections 717.25, 1710.061, 3706.25, 2835 4905.31, 4928 . 01, 4928.143, 4928.20, 4928.61, 4928.64, 4928.65, 2836 4928.66, 5501.311, and 5727.75 of the Revised Code are hereby 2837 repealed. 2838 Section 3. The act recodifies section 4928.64 of the Revised 2839 Code by subdividing it into the sections identified in the 2840 following table. The left-hand column identifies the sections that 2841 result from the recodification, and the right-hand column 2842 indicates the source of the resulting section in section 4928.64 2843 of the Revised Code before its recodification. Except insofar as 2844 amendments are indicated in the resulting sections, the resulting 2845 sections are a continuation of, and are to be substituted in a 2846 continuing way for, the law as it existed in section 4928.64 of 2847 the Revised Code before its recodification. 2848 Page 95 Sub. S. B. No. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 4928 . 668 4928. 66 (A) (2) (b) 2878 4928 . 6625 4928.66(A) (2) (c), 1st sentence. 2879 4928 . 6626 4928. 66 (A) (2) (d) I 2nd sentence. 2880 4928.6627 4928. 66 (A) (2) (d) I 1st sentence . 2881 4928.6650 4928. 66 (A) (2) (c), 2nd sentence . 2882 4928.6651 4928. 66 (D) 2883 4928.6655 4928.66(B) 2884 4928.6656 4928. 66 (C) 2885 4928.6657 4928.66(E) 2886 4928.6658 4928. 66 (A) (2) (e) 2887 The source of new section 4928.66 of the Revised Code is 2888 division (A) (1) (a) (second sentence) of former section 4928.66 of 2889 the Revised Code. 2890 Section 5. To the extent that the Public Utilities Commission 2891 may have adopted, prior to the effective date of S.B . 58 of the 2892 130th General Assembly, methods to measure alternative energy, 2893 energy efficiency, and peak demand reduction compliance that are 2894 different or inconsistent with the requirements of former sections 2895 4928.64 and 4928.66 of the Revised Code as they existed prior to 2896 the effective date of S . B. 58 of the 130th General Assembly, such 2897 difference or inconsistency shall, for purposes of addressing all 2898 cases or controversies, be resolved by the Commission and the 2899 Supreme Court in favor of the measurement method that maximizes 2900 the amount of compliance during the period in question. 2901 Section 6. If the requirement under division (B) (3) (a) of 2902 section 4928.641 of the Revised Code is found to be invalid by a 2903 court of competent jurisdiction, then division (B) (4) of section 2904 4928.641 of the Revised Code shall apply, 2905 limitation in that division. irrespective of the date 2906 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:50 PM Lynch, Jamie Re: Amendment Request 2013_12_03_10_18_56.pdf Senator Seitz, The language in the attachment submitted below may conflict with the provisions of the -8 version of SB 58 in lines 19221933 (see below). Please let me know how you would like me to draft this amendment. Do you want the amendment to replace the -8 language? If not, do you want the shared savings mechanism tied to the cost cap (as in the -8 version) or to the after-tax net benefits associated with the programs as measured by the utility cost test (as in the language from the attachment.)? Would you like to add "Through December 31, 2018, to the beginning of Division (B) below and retain the other -8 language? Should the "subsequent to 2018" date apply to the curtailed shared savings incentive referred to in division 4928.6616 (C) of the -8 version ? Or, do you want the amendment to replace the division (C) language with the language in the attachment which states: "Subsequent to 2018, the commission shall approve shared savings incentive mechanisms consistent with amounts included in previously approved compliance plans"? Please let me know if my questions are unclear. Thank you. Sincerely, Kathy Kathleen Luikart Research Associate Legislative Service Commission 77 South High Street, 9th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-6136 (614) 466-4071 Lines 1922-1933 of LSC 130 0592-B, RC 4928.6616--the cost cap provision (B) The total annualized shared savings incentive authorized for an electric distribution utility's compliance plan as provided under section 4928.6611 of the Revised Code shall not exceed the lesser of one-third of the cost cap total calculated under division (A) (1) or (2) of this section, as applicable, for the same compliance year or twenty million dollars. (C) If an electric distribution utility does not meet the energy efficiency and peak demand reduction requirements in a calendar year and has not met the applicable cost cap in that calendar year, the public utilities commission may curtail the 50 total annualized shared savings incentive authorized under section 4928.6611 of the Revised Code for that year. From: To: "Lynch, Jamie" "kluikart@lsc.state.oh.us" Date: 12/03/201310:24 AM Subject: Amendment Request Kathy-please see enclosed for one additional amendment request for Sub. S.B. 58. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614)466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov 51 AM1359 Sub. S.B. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Topic: Shared savings incentive at PUCQ 1 s discretion - - - - -- - -- - -- -- moved to amend as follows: In line 1816, after the \lnderlined semicolon insert In line 1819, delete 11 ; 11 ~ 11 1 a:gd 11 and insert an underlined period In line 1820, delete all after 11 fil 2 11 3 Delete lines 1821 through 1836 In line 1837, delete 11 4 lfil 11 5 Delete lines 1841 through 1845 In line 1846, delete all and insert shared 11 6 befor~ O;;>l The pyblic utiUties s~yings incentive to be the final underlined period may authorize a <;omm~ssion iu~lyd~d 7 B in toe compliance plan of 9 each electric distribution utility. The incentive shall measure 10 savings usin9 the ;utility 11 co~t In line 1917, before 11 test 11 shared 11 insert In line 1922, after 11 In line 1924, after "~" inc~ntiy~ 11 11 insert .eny 11 11 • 12 if one is 11 insert an underlined comma In line 1931, delete the second 11 ~ 11 In line 1959, after 11 incentive 11 insert In line 1968, after 11 .Q.f. 11 insert "fillY" and insert 11 .Q.J::. 11 11 fillY 11 13 14 15 16 17 1305858-1359/AT AM1359 Page 2 The motion was agreed to. 13053584 3591AT Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:25 PM Chrisy Wright; Dave Boehm; Denny Larr; John Keaton; Michael Carey; Mike Brello; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Steve Lake; Tom Raga; Ty Pine FW: SB 58 Amendment 130SB58-1359-shared savings incentive.pdf; image005jpg; image006.jpg See enclosed for a correction. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Dunlap, Dana Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3: 16 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: FW: SB 58 Amendment Today I'm not very smart. Tomorrow will be better! AM1359 • Removes guaranteed, statutory shared-savings from the bill but provides shared-savings incentive authority to the PUCO at its discretion in keeping with the negotiated rate-making structure under current law. This is the only amendment Senator Jones is submitting. I apologize for providing the incorrect description. Thank you! DD --From: Dunlap, Dana Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 2:46 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Cc: Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Amendment JamieAttached you will find Senator Jones' proposed amendment for SB 58. It is the same amendment she submitted last go-around, but simply redrafted to the -8 version of the bill. Please contact me with any questions. AM1359 • • Amends shared-savings provisions to provide PUCO with permissive authority to authorize shared savings program. Includes school districts that participate in group purchasing for electricity to be among the limited customers who may participate in the streamlined opt-out process. 55 Thank you, Dana Dunlap Office of State Senator Shannon Iones Ohio's 7th Senate District 614-466-9737 dana.dunlap@ohiosenate.gov 56 Actual Amendment In line 1797 insert a period a Iler the word "mechanism". Strike "that permits". Line 1797 Insert "Through December 31, 2018, the shared savings mechanism shall pennit"' before the word ''the'' In line 1798, insert the \\'Ord "either" following the word "retain" Jn line 1800, delete the comma following the word "test". Insert "or twenty mlllion dollars annmilly, whichever is less. Subsequent tel 2018, the commission shall' approve shared savings incentive mechanisms consistent with amounts included in previously approved compliance plans." following the word "test". Linc 1800 Delete ''provided that such incentive mechanism" and insert "A shai·etl savings incentive mechanism under this division" Linc l 897, insert ut beginning of line ' 'Thro~1gh the compliance year r.:nding on Di;;ccmber 31, 2018," and delete "The" and insert ;'the" in its place. So thnt lines 1796 through 1803 would 1·ead: (C) Sub j ect to the limit described in di vision (Bl of section 4928.6616, a shared savings incent ive mechanism . :Jecetibe r 3!. , 2018, the shai:ed e i t h~r sa'~ ing s mechanism .shall oe rrri~ Through the utility to retain one-third of the after-tax net benefits associated with the aePrf2.ved programs as measure d by a u t ilitx: cost test or t\venty million ·' do ll l;l.:r n annuall y , whi che ver is l ess . s h a ll app .cov e s h~re d · s av i ngE1 i n centi.v e Subse(!een t to 2 018 . the commi s sion m ech~:J.s m s ill<:: l b!_ded i_!!_ p r evi•c us ly approved c ompliance plans . cons i s t en t with amoun ts A shared s avings inceb_tive mechanism unde r this di vision s hall af2E!Y. to all compliance activities, including activit ies described :Ln sections 4928.6627 and ,1928. 661!0 of the Revised Code , but excluding the fol lowing: Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dunlap, Dana Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:16 PM Lynch, Jamie FW: SB 58 Amendment 130SB58-1359-shared savings incentive.pdf; imageOOSJpg; image006Jpg Today I'm not very smart. Tomorrow will be better! AM1359 • Removes guaranteed, statutory shared-savings from the bill but provides shared-savings incentive authority to the PUCO at its discretion in keeping with the negotiated rate-making structure under current law. This is the only amendment Senator Jones is submitting. I apologize for providing the incorrect description. Thank you! DD From: Dunlap, Dana Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 2:46 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Cc: Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Amendment JamieAttached you will find Senator Jones' proposed amendment for SB 58. It is the same amendment she submitted last go-around, but simply redrafted to the -8 version of the bill. Please contact me with any questions. AM1359 • • Amends shared-savings provisions to provide PUCO with permissive authority to authorize shared savings program. Includes school districts that participate in group purchasing for electricity to be among the limited customers who may participate in the streamlined opt-out process. Thank you, Dana Dunlap Office of State Senator Shannon Jones Ohio's 7th Senate District 614-466-9737 dana.dunlap@ohiosenate.gov 57 AM1359 Sub. S.B. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Topic: Shared savings incentive at PUCO's discretion ----------~--- moved to amend as follows: In line 1816, after the underlined semicolon insert In line 1819, delete 11 : 11 §.I!Q. 11 1 and" and insert an underlined period 2 In line 1820, delete all after "Kl." 3 Delete lines 1821 through 1836 4 "Jfil" In line 1837, delete 5 Delete lines 1841 through 1845 6 In line 1846, delete all before the final underlined period 7 and insert 11 (D) The pu~lic utilit:i,.es commissi9n m0y authorize a 8 shared savings incentive to be included in the complian9e plan of each electric distribution utility. The incentiye shall measure ~ost sayings using the utility In line 1917, before 11 test" 11 In line 1922, after 11 incentive 11 insert In line 1924, after 11 ~ 11 11 rn 11 • 12 11 if one is" insert an underlined comma 11 ~ 11 In line 1959, after "incentive" insert In line 1968, after 10 11 shared 11 insert In line 1931, delete the second 9 .Q,f 11 insert ".fillY" and insert ".QJ:" "2.llY" 13 14 15 16 17 1305858-1359/AT AM1359 Page 2 The motion was agreed to. 1 SB -1 35$!th Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:17 PM Dunlap, Dana RE: SB 58 Amendment imageOOljpg; image002.jpg It's no problem!! I just wanted to make sure we were considering the right one! Thanks! Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Dunlap, Dana Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:16 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Subject: FW: SB 58 Amendment Today I'm not very smart. Tomorrow will be better! AM1359 • Removes guaranteed, statutory shared-savings from the bill but provides shared-savings incentive authority to the PUCO at its discretion in keeping with the negotiated rate-making structure under current law. This is the only amendment Senator Jones is submitting. I apologize for providing the incorrect description. Thank you! DD From: Dunlap, Dana Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 2:46 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Cc: Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Amendment JamieAttached you will find Senator Jones' proposed amendment for SB 58. It is the same amendment she submitted last go-around, but simply redrafted to the -8 version of the bill. Please contact me with any questions. AM1359 • Amends shared-savings provisions to provide PUCO with permissive authority to authorize shared savings program. 58 • Includes school districts that participate in group purchasing for electricity to be among the limited customers who may participate in the streamlined opt-out process. Thank you, Dana Dunlap Office of State Senator Shannon Jones Ohio's 7th Senate District 614-466-9737 dana.dunlap@ohiosenate.flOY 59 Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Lynch, Jamie Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:13 PM Chrisy Wright; Dave Boehm; Denny Larr; John Keaton; Michael Carey; Mike Brello; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Steve Lake; Tom Raga; Ty Pine FW: SB 58 Amendment 130SB58-1359-shared savings incentive.pdf; image005jpg; image006Jpg See enclosed. Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov From: Dunlap, Dana Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 2:46 PM To: Lynch, Jamie Cc: Nielson, Stephen Subject: SB 58 Amendment JamieAttached you will find Senator Jones' proposed amendment for SB 58. It is the same amendment she submitted last go-around, but simply redrafted to the -8 version of the bill. Please contact me with any questions. AM1359 • • Amends shared-savings provisions to provide PUCO with permissive authority to authorize shared savings program. Includes school districts that participate in group purchasing for electricity to be among the limited customers who may participate in the streamlined opt-out process. Thank you, Dana Dunlap Office of State Senator Shannon Jones Ohio's 7th Senate District 614-466-9737 dana.dunlap@ohiosenate.gov 60 AM1359 Sub. S.8. 58 LSC 130 0592-8 Topic: Shared savings incentive at PUCO's discretion - - - - -- -- - - -- - - moved to amend as follows: In line 1816, after the underlined semicolon insert "and" 1 In line 1819, delete"; and" and insert an underlined period 2 In line 1820, c:ielete all after "i.Ql." 3 Delete lines 1821 through 1836 4 In line 1837, delete ".illL" 5 Delete lines 1641 through 1845 6 In line 1846, delete all before the final underlined period 7 and insert "(Rl The public utilitiee, may authorize a colll!Pi~sion shared saving§ incentiye tQ be ,inclyded in ~he 8 compliance plan of 9 each electric distribution utility. The incentiye shall measure 10 savings using the utility cost teet" 11 In line 1917, before "§hareg" insert "any" 12 In line 1922, after 11 13 In line 1924, after "~" incentiye 11 insert "· if one is" insert an underlined comma In line 1931, delete the seconQ. "~" In line 1959, after "i~centiye" insert "QI:" In line 1968, after 11 .Q.f. 11 insert "ru;uc" and insert "~" 14 15 16 17 1305858-1359/AT AM1359 Page 2 The motion was agreed to. 1303358435th Nielson, Stephen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Sam Randazzo Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:02 PM Lynch, Jamie Chrisy Wright; Dave Boehm; Denny Larr; John Keaton; Michael Carey; Mike Brello; Scott Elisar; Steve Lake; Tom Raga; Ty Pine Please See Enclosed 20131203144855764.pdf; 2013_12_03_13_32_58.pdf Importance: High Per your request, comments on the OMA/Jacobsen handout are attached - I did this quickly so please excuse my typos. I have also attached (second attached file) the Jacobsen handout. The foregoing message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. Sam Randazzo McNees Wallace & Nurfck LLC (founded 19:;5) E_. State Street, 17th r=1001-, Columbus, Ohio +?215 (611-) 71 9-l8-'!·0 (omce), (611·) +69-+65? (fax) (6 J 4·)? 95-4268 (cell) sam@mwncmh.com (e-mail) 21 From: Lynch, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:34 PM To: Chrisy Wright; Dave Boehm; Denny Larr; John Keaton; Michael carey; Mike Brello; Sam Randazzo; Scott Elisar; Steve Lake; Tom Raga; Ty Pine Subject: Please See Enclosed Please see enclosed per the Chairman's request and he is requesting your comments. Thank you, Jamie Lynch Senator William J. Seitz Senate District 8 Phone: (614) 466-8068 Fax: (614) 466-4250 Email: Jamie.Lynch@ohiosenate.gov ** This message has been scanned by a BARRACUDA SPAM & VIRUS FIREWALL and verified virus free ** 62 ··- . ~---~ .......... . . . . . . . . . ............... ~~.... . ' .... . ....... . . -- ·-............ ········-·-· ·-i.. . .--- ·· ·-· ·-..r-- ...·• • .. · .·.·.-.-~-.t. This latest OMA handout contains the same false claims and misleading descriptions of SB 58 that have been the feature of the OMA's effort to block ANY reforms of current law. The OMA's do~nothing campaign even conflicts with the recommendations it made during the Committee hearings (such as a cost cap for energy efficiency that protects consumers and addressing the problems that the mandates impose on Ohio'>far~ter energy users). What the OMA does not bother to let legislators or the public know is that it has taken payments totaling $2.970 million dollars over the last couple years in exchange for signing settlements that have increased Ohio electric bills by hundreds of millions of dollars. (see attached list). The OMA claims that SB 58, legislation which proposes to establish a limit on the mandate compliance costs (including shared savings) that can be passed on to customers as a result of the 2008 vintage portfolio mandates, will somehow increase electric bills. It is a big lie. The OMA claims that the PUCO not the general assembly sets rates based on its discretion. This OMA claim is also wrong. Where the PUCO sets rates, it does so according to a formula specified by the General Assembly and the PUCO must act within a specified period of time or the utility's proposed rates can go into effect because that is what the General Assembly put in the law. It is the General Assembly and not the PUCO that gave consumers choices to select their supplier of competitive energy services. Regardless of what the Pl,JCO can or cannot do in the rate setting context, it was the General Assembly that made the portfolio mandates part of Ohio law and the PUCO has no discretion to ignore the mandates simply because the mandates are based on a set of assumptions that are out of touch with reality. If there are problems with current law, the only way they get fixed is by the General Assembly changing the law. Under current law, the OMA and other stakeholders have agreed to settlement agreements that provide utilities with incentives (including shared savings) that they think other customers should pay for. It seems to be OK for the OMA to enable a utility to collect shared savings so long as the OMA and not the General Assembly gets to decide. It seems OK for the OMA to agree to give the utilities something for which there is no explicit legal authority vested in the PUCO but not OK if the General Assembly wishes to make it clear that the PUCO has such authority. It is the OMA that wants the discretion to determine when and how utilities are rewarded, at customers expense, for complying with the mandate law which was enacted by the General Assembly not the OMA. Look at the list of businesses (small and large) and business organizations representing small and large business customers that have spoken up in support of SB 58. The history of the OMA's flip flopping on whether portfolio mandates are a good idea, the OMA's bogus claims and assertions and the large population of Ohio businesses that have spoken against the OMA's position make it clear that the OMA is trying to keep current law in place to keep its settlement-payment gravy train rolling. {C42231 : } -.;.!. ."':.-. •• I PUCO Case Number Ublity/C..5e Type OMA Received Period Collected St