Before the Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee June 5, 2019 Prepared Statement of Sam Randazzo Good afternoon Chair Wilson, Vice Chair McColley, Ranking Member Williams and Members of the Committee. My name is Sam Randazzo. On April 11, 2019 I began serving a five year term as a Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) commissioner. Governor DeWine also appointed me to serve as the chair of the PUCO and my chair status at the PUCO also makes me chair of the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB), an agency that resides within the PUCO. Prior to my current positions and over a period spanning five decades, I worked on issues affecting the wholesale and retail price and availability of energy, communications and other services. Through my appearance today, I hope to provide information that may be useful to you as you begin your review and consideration of Substitute House Bill 6 (HB 6). Simplified History of Ohio’s Portfolio Mandates/Standards As you may know, Ohio substantially altered the legal framework within which the bulk of the intrastate and retail electric sector resides. Some people prefer to call this legislative change “deregulation”. I believe that it is more accurate to describe the legislation as “restructuring” legislation. In any event, most of Ohio’s legal framework changes for the electric sectors were designed to fit with changes at the federal level. And as in the case of the communications and natural gas sectors, the federal level electric sector changes were focused on remedying an anti-competitive industry structure. Most of the Ohio electric legal framework changes went into effect on January 1, 2001. Among other things, Ohio’s “deregulation” or “restructuring” legislation assumed that the wholesale electric market (which is exclusively regulated at the federal level) would develop and mature at a much faster pace than actually occurred. Because of this mismatch between expectations and actual conditions, the General Assembly enacted 1    course-correction legislation in 2008 [Amended Substitute Senate Bill 221 (SB 221)]. SB 221 went into effect in July, 2008. The main focus of and motivation for SB 221 had to do with the statutory process by which the PUCO authorizes pricing for generation supply for customers that are not served by a competitive retail electric services (CRES) supplier. This supply is sometimes referred to as “default supply” or the standard service offer (SSO). But SB 221 also included supply-side and demand-side compliance requirements that were either imposed, at customers’ expense, on electric distribution utilities (EDUs) and CRES suppliers (supplyside) or on EDUs (demand-side). The SB 221 supply-side compliance requirements originally called for a specified percentage of the kilowatt hours supplied to a customer by an EDU or CRES to come from “alternative energy resources”; this compliance obligation was subsequently modified to confine the entire compliance obligation to supply from “renewable energy resources” (a defined term). The SB 221 demand-side compliance obligations involved two categories of compliance; an “energy efficiency” (EE) category and a “peak demand reduction” (“PDR”) category. As with the supply-side compliance structure, compliance with the EE requirement was tied to specified and escalating reductions in the annual quantity of kilowatt hours distributed by an EDU to its Ohio retail customers. And, similarly, compliance with the PDR requirement was tied to specified and escalating reductions in the annual quantity of the kilowatt demand of retail customers served by Ohio EDUs. The escalating annual supply-side and demand-side compliance requirements were not based on any studies or analysis. They were and are arbitrary. But more importantly, the compliance obligations were proposed and considered based on some assumptions about the future; assumptions that sharply conflict with our current reality. For example, at the time the General Assembly was considering SB 221’s provisions, conventional wisdom held that: the nation was running out of natural gas; the available natural gas supply would increasingly be supplied from foreign nations; an “overheated” economy would continue without interruption by such things as the Great Recession; 2    relatively high growth rates in the demand for electricity would continue without regard to such things as the Great Recession; and, the cost of electricity produced by conventional technologies would sharply increase thereby producing “rate shock” for customers. Based on these scarcity-oriented assumptions, one might see some wisdom in the General Assembly’s adoption of the supply-side and demand-side requirements that found their way into SB 221. But these assumptions failed to materialize after SB 221 went into effect. For example, our current reality includes an abundant domestic supply of relatively lowpriced natural gas; Ohio’s plentiful natural gas is being produced at prices that are among the lowest in the world. Our current reality includes an abundant supply of electricity at relatively low prices. Our current reality includes a significantly expanded electric grid that has increased import and export capabilities within and between regions and the opportunity for more electric generators to compete with each other for market share. There is currently a long line of new electric generating projects seeking an opportunity to enter the market (a line the length of which is also influenced by the preferences extended to some technologies and denied to others). The growth rate in the demand for electricity is relatively flat and has been negative in some cases. Wholesale electric prices did not rise to rate shock levels; instead they dropped and have been relatively stable. In summary, the energy scarcity and rate shock forecasts that were behind the supplyside and demand-side portfolio requirements embedded in SB 221 are at odds with our current reality as well as present-day forecasts of energy supply and pricing. In any event, the combination of these supply-side and demand-side compliance obligations works to incent entry by generating technologies preferred by the compliance requirements while the demand-side requirements work to reduce the size of the overall electricity market. In so doing, it is reasonable to expect that the potential market share available to non-preferred technologies (supply and demand-side) will be reduced. And the force of this squeeze is not confined to the Ohio compliance requirements. Indeed, similar requirements have been established by other states and regional transmission organizations. And of course, when you add things like the fundamental force of a plentiful supply of relatively cheap natural gas to this picture and the increased import and 3    export capability of the transmission grid, it is reasonable to expect that the financial stress on legacy and non-preferred technologies will grow. So, from these government-imposed and fundamental forces and regardless of what may be “right” or “wrong”, it is not surprising to see state and federal proposals to grant non-preferred technologies financial assistance so that they can “stay in the game”. The Out-of-Pocket Compliance Costs of Ohio Retail Electric Customers The cost of complying with the supply-side and demand-side requirements fell and still falls on Ohio’s retail electric customers served by EDUs and CRES providers (municipal and cooperative customers do not help pay for the compliance programs although their electric suppliers do obtain benefits from the portfolio requirements). This cost began to hit electric bills as Ohio citizens were dealing with the financial stress which started with the collapse of the housing market and continued through the Great Recession. I asked the PUCO’s dedicated technical staff to assemble some information to show how these compliance requirements are affecting retail electric bills in Ohio. I will share that information now. Based on the PUCO’s staff’s review, the estimated out of pocket customers’ cost for the supply-side compliance requirements for the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 was $205,361,838, an average of about $51 million per year. The build up of this amount is shown in Schedule 1 which is attached to my prepared statement. But for some post-SB 221 changes the General Assembly made to the measurement of the supply-side compliance obligation, this out of pocket cost would have likely been higher. I believe that it is also clear that but for the competitive pressure supplied by the CRES providers’ compliance strategies, the total cost of compliance would have been much greater. The estimated customers’ out of pocket cost for the demand-side compliance requirements for the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 was $1,157,959,550 or an annual average of about $289 million. The build up of this amount is shown in Schedule 2 which is attached to my prepared statement. Again, but for some post-SB 221 changes the General Assembly made to the measurement of the demand-side compliance obligation, this out of pocket cost would have been higher. Going forward, it is important to note that 4    the current EE annual compliance obligation of 1% of the baseline quantity jumps to 2% starting in 2021 (see Schedule 3 attached to my prepared statement). Combining the total out of pocket cost of the supply-side and demand-side requirements, produces a four-year total of $1,363,321,338 or an annual average of $340,830,347. For reasons I will not go into here, the EDUs have been over-complying with the statutory demand-side compliance requirements. This over-compliance is reflected in the EE “compliance banks” that have been accumulated by each EDU. Schedule 4, which includes 2018 compliance information, shows the current status of each EDU’s compliance bank. Based on past experience and the incentives that each EDU presently is receiving, it is reasonable to expect that this over-compliance trend will continue into the future. Nonetheless, if we assume that future compliance occurs at the current statutory levels, the current compliance banks are sufficient to hit the statutory compliance quantities prior to 2027 when the annual escalation in the compliance requirement ends (stays at 22.2%). For example, it appears that Duke Energy Ohio’s compliance bank may be sufficient to allow it to discontinue incremental compliance in 2020 and still meet the 22.2% compliance requirement in 2027. And based on the compliance through 2018, every electric distribution utility will hit the 22.2% compliance target in 2024 or before even if you assume that there is no overcompliance in 2019 and beyond. Of course, continuing the demand side compliance requirements would also continue to impose compliance costs on customers. Illustrations Before I attempt to respond to any questions you might have, I would like to direct your attention to some illustrations that I have also attached to my testimony. Schedule 5 illustrates the locations of various types of renewable energy resources that have been certified by the PUCO. This certification authorizes these resources to obtain renewable energy certificates or RECs that can be sold and are available to satisfy the supply-side compliance requirements. For what it may be worth, HB 6 does not interfere with the opportunity for existing or new renewable energy resources to obtain RECs. It 5    may change the business case based motivation for seeking certification from the PUCO so as to receive RECs. Schedule 6 provides a more quantitative look at the renewable resources that have already been certified by the PUCO. Schedule 6 also identifies the electricity production technologies that Ohio law prefers through inclusion within the “renewable” definition. Schedule 7 A graphically illustrates the location of solar electric generation projects that have been either approved by the OPSB or are currently pending at the OPSB. It also provides the information on the size of each project (stated in megawatts). Schedule 7 B identifies the OPSB case number, approved date or filing date, county and size (stated in megawatts) of each project. As you may know, the OPSB has jurisdiction over solar electric generation projects that are 50 megawatts or larger. HB 6 provides an opportunity for solar electric projects certified by the OPSB prior to June 1, 2019 to obtain $9.00 per megawatt hour. The solar electric generating projects that obtained a certificate from the OPSB prior to June 1, 2019 have a combined nameplate rating of about 1,020 megawatts. Schedule 8 A graphically illustrates the location of wind-powered electric generation projects that have been either approved by the OPSB or are currently pending at the OPSB. It also provides information on the size of each project (stated in megawatts). Schedule 8 B identifies the OPSB case number, approved date or filing date, county and size (stated in number of turbines and megawatts) of each project. This schedule does not include the “behind the meter” wind-powered generation facilities that have been installed or proposed to the extent these projects are less than 5 megawatts. Schedule 9 A illustrates the location of natural gas fired electric generation projects that have been either approved by the OPSB since 20101 or are currently pending at the OPSB. It also provides information on the size of each project (stated in megawatts). Schedule 9 B identifies the OPSB case number, approved date or filing date, county and size (stated in megawatts) of each project.                                                              1 Schedule 8 A does not show the natural gas fired electric generating stations that were constructed in Ohio between 1999 and 2010. 6    Before construction can commence on projects that are subject to the OPSB’s jurisdiction, the OPSB must issue a certificate in accordance with the requirements in Section 4906.10 of the Revised Code. Certificate applications filed at the OPSB do not necessarily mean that the projects will be built. The same is true for projects that have received certificates from the OPSB. Electric generation projects that are not subject to the OPSB’s jurisdiction and certification are subject to local land use regulation and control. The OPSB’s current jurisdiction over wind-powered electric generation projects reaches much smaller projects (5 megawatts and above) than is the case with any other generating technology (50 megawatts and above). HB 6 seeks to raise the OPSB’s wind-powered electric generation jurisdiction to 20 megawatts and above while providing an opportunity for local control following the OPSB’s issuance of a certificate for a wind-powered electric generation project located in an unincorporated area of a township. Closing I hope the information I have provided in my prepared statement is useful. From this point forward, I will do my best to respond to your questions. 7    Schedule 1 Total Annual RPS Compliance Costs 2014 2015 2016 2017 EDU Totals $42,304,039 $22,923,130 $21,352,174 $20,922,432 $107,501,775 CRES Totals $30,361,710 $24,201,631 $23,559,274 $19,737,448 Grand Totals $72,665,749 $47,124,761 $44,911,448 $40,659,880 $97,860,063 $205,361,838 Schedule 2 Actual Program Costs and Shared Savings All EDU Total for 2014 - 2017 Program Costs Shared Savings ELR Program Discounts Capital Costs IRP-D Credit Market Offset Total $ $ 670,198,213 233,717,878 123,308,420 207,950 19,337,934 (59,348,057) 1,157,959,550 Schedule 3 Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Statutory Compliance Escalation Annual Reduction Cumulative Reduction 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.8% 0.7% 1.5% 0.8% 2.3% 0.9% 3.2% 1.0% 4.2% 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 4.2% 1.0% 5.2% 1.0% 6.2% 1.0% 7.2% 1.0% 8.2% 2.0% 10.2% 2.0% 12.2% 2.0% 14.2% 2.0% 16.2% 2.0% 18.2% 2.0% 20.2% 2.0% 22.2% Schedule 4 First Energy Benchmark Achievement Bank 2017 Baseline AEP Ohio Benchmark Achievement Bank 2017 Baseline Duke Benchmark Achievement Bank 2017 Baseline DP&L Benchmark Achievement Bank 2017 Baseline 2017 197,555 440,760 2,393,602 19,755,498 2017 385,295 533,440 2,220,902 38,529,489 2017 473,203 697,217 2,405,184 47,320,328 2018 127,408 206,784 1,255,300 2018 197,554 606,640 2,802,688 2018 377,466 537,100 2,380,536 2018 455,757 903,000 2,852,427 2019 127,408 127,408 1,255,300 2019 197,554 197,554 2,802,688 2019 377,466 377,466 2,380,536 2019 455,757 455,757 2,852,427 2020 127,408 127,408 1,255,300 2020 197,554 160,622 2,765,756 2020 377,466 377,466 2,380,536 2020 455,757 455,757 2,852,427 2021 254,816 254,816 1,255,300 2021 395,108 2,370,648 2021 754,932 754,932 2,380,536 2021 911,514 911,514 2,852,427 2022 254,816 254,816 1,255,300 2022 395,108 1,975,540 2022 754,932 754,932 2,380,536 2022 911,514 911,514 2,852,427 2023 254,816 18,780 1,019,264 2023 395,108 1,580,432 2023 754,932 754,932 2,380,536 2023 911,514 911,514 2,852,427 2024 254,816 764,448 2024 395,108 1,185,324 2024 754,932 639,192 2,264,796 2024 911,514 793,629 2,734,542 2025 254,816 509,632 2025 395,108 790,216 2025 754,932 1,509,864 2025 911,514 1,823,028 2026 254,816 254,816 2026 395,108 395,108 2026 754,932 754,932 2026 911,514 911,514 2027 254,816 0 2027 395,108 0 2027 754,932 0 2027 911,514 0 Annual EE Compliance Data (through 2018) 2017 126,587 200,759 1,175,924 12,658,728 Annual benchmarks calculated from 2017 baselines, which excluded opt-out customers 2018 data as reported in each EDU compliance filing. *Assumes EDUs will achieve the mandated requirement until bank will satisfy remaining cumulative mandates * Assumes zero mandate in 2015/2016 per SB 310 * All reported in MWH Schedule 5 All Certified Renewable Energy Facilities - Map As of April 30, 2019 “Other fuels” includes abandoned coal mine methane, fuel cell, heat, solid waste, compressed natural gas, and waste energy recovery. Source: PUCO Rencert Database Schedule 6 Certified Renewable Energy Facility Summary As of April 30, 2019 These facilities represent the compliance supply pool for the renewable portfolio standard (RPS). Certification in Ohio does not guarantee that the facility’s renewable energy credits (RECs) or solar RECs (SRECs) will go toward compliance with the Ohio RPS. Renewable Generation Type Biomass/Biogas Landfill Gas Total Count 46 CERTIFIED 14 Outside Ohio 32 Ohio CAPACITY (megawatts) Capacity Ohio 416.5 130.8 Outside Ohio 267.9 Biomass - Co-fired* 10 8 2 - - - Anaerobic Digestion 9 5 4 10.5 5.3 5.2 Food Processing 5 5 - 2.6 2.6 - Other 4 4 - 3.5 3.5 - Wastewater Treatment 2 2 - 2.0 2.0 - Paper Manufacturing 1 - 1 31.0 - 31.0 Biomass/Biogas Total 77 Total Count 9,669 38 466.1 144.2 Capacity Ohio 2,673 39 Outside Ohio 7,026 628.0 209.3 321.9 Outside Ohio 418.7 Wind 75 44 31 4,327.4 653.8 3,673.6 Hydroelectric 11 3 8 514.8 76.2 438.7 Non-Biomass/Biogas Solar Photovoltaic Ohio Heat 8 8 - 6.0 6.0 - Waste Energy Recovery 4 2 2 164.0 54.4 109.6 Solid Waste 3 2 1 97.8 42.8 55.0 Coal Mine Methane 2 2 - 50.0 50.0 - Compressed Natural Gas 1 1 - 1.0 1.0 - Fuel Cell 1 1 - 1.0 1.0 - Not Entered 1 1 - 2.3 2.3 - Non-Biomass/Biogas Total 9,805 2,737 7,068 5,792.2 1,096.8 4,695.5 Grand Total 9,882 2,775 7,107 6,258.3 1,241.0 5,017.3 *Co-fired means simultaneously using multiple fuels in the generation of electricity. For co-fired facilities, the proportion of energy input comprised of a renewable energy resource shall dictate the proportion of electricity output from the facility that can be considered a renewable energy resource. Co-fired renewable sources include woody biomass, biodiesel and switch grass. Source: PUCO Rencert Database Schedule 7A Power Siting Solar Case Status As of 5/17/2019 Lake Erie 20 £ ¤ FULTON 90 OTTAWA 24 £ ¤ WOOD HENRY PAULDING 75 PUTNAM I N D I A N A HURON SENECA HARDIN AUGLAIZE 33 £ ¤ 23 £ ¤ 71 § ¦ ¨ DELAWARE 70 § ¦ ¨ MONTGOMERY 75 § ¦ ¨ 35 £ ¤ Angelina Solar Facility 80 MW 27 £ ¤ 74 § ¦ ¨ BUTLER WARREN CLARK Hillcrest Solar Farm CLERMONT 125 MW Nestlewood Solar Facility 80 MW MADISON GREENE § ¦ ¨ CLINTON 50 £ ¤ 70 BROWN Hecate Energy Highland ADAMS Solar FarmSCIOTO 300 MW 52 £ ¤ K E N T U C K Y GUERNSEY 250 £ ¤ 40 £ ¤ BELMONT 77 § ¦ ¨ 22 £ ¤ NOBLE PERRY MONROE MORGAN WASHINGTON Vinton Solar Energy Facility 125 MW ATHENS VINTON Willowbrook Solar I PIKEMW 150 HARRISON § ¦ ¨ MUSKINGUM ROSS HIGHLAND COLUMBIANA JEFFERSON TUSCARAWAS COSHOCTON HOCKING 62 £ ¤ MAHONING CARROLL 62 £ ¤ KNOX FAIRFIELD FAYETTE 224 £ ¤ STARK HOLMES PICKAWAY 71 22 £ ¤ HAMILTON 76 § ¦ ¨ SUMMIT ASHLAND FRANKLIN 40 £ ¤ 42 £ ¤ 68 £ ¤ PORTAGE LICKING Alamo Solar Facility MIAMI 69.9 MW PREBLE § ¦ ¨ WAYNE RICHLAND 36 £ ¤ CHAMPAIGN DARKE 71 § ¦ ¨ TRUMBULL 422 £ ¤ 80 SUMMIT MEDINA Hardin Solar MARION Energy Facility MORROW 150 MW UNION § ¦ ¨ 42 £ ¤ £ ¤ LOGAN SHELBY 250 £ ¤ 322 £ ¤ 77 CUYAHO GA 6 £ ¤ 6 £ ¤ GEAUGA CUYAHOGA LORAIN CRAWFORD Hardin Solar Energy Facility II WYANDOT 170 MW 30 ALLEN MERCER 224 £ ¤ HANCOCK VAN WERT 127 £ ¤ 80 § ¦ ¨ SANDUSKY § ¦ ¨ ERIE ASHTABULA LAKE § ¦ ¨ LUCAS WILLIAMS DEFIANCE 20 £ ¤ P E N N S Y L V A N I A M I C H I G A N 33 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ MEIGS JACKSON 35 £ ¤ W E S T V I R G I N I A GALLIA 23 £ ¤ LAWRENCE Project Status Pending Approved Notes: Project locations are provided by applicants. Case and construction status is determined by the case filings. The nameplate capacity shown is the maximum capacity that could be built based on the number of approved photovoltaic panels and the highest nameplate capacity of the approved panel models. Map produced on 5/17/2019. Schedule 7B 1 Operational Solar Facilities NA Related Cases Hardin1 Project Name 9/20/18 2/15/18 Approval Date Vinton Hardin County 125 150 MW 1,324.9 Potential Solar Facilities (Approved and Pending) Potential Megawatts (MW): Case Number NA Vinton Operational Megawatts (MW): 17-0773-EL-BGN NA Approved Solar Facilities (50 MW or greater) 17-0774-EL-BGN 9/17/18 Highland Brown, Highland Brown 170 300 150 200 2/15/18 Willowbrook I 5/16/19 Hardin 17-1152-EL-BGN NA Hecate Energy Highland 5/16/19 Project Name 12/14/18 Filing Date Preble Brown, Clermont County TOTALS: 80 69.9 80 MW 1095 2/21/19 18-1024-EL-BGN NA Hardin II1 Hillcrest 18-1334-EL-BGN NA 18-1267-EL-BGA 18-1360-EL-BGN Case Number Nestlewood 12/10/18 Preble OPSB certifcates merged 5/16/19 18-1546-EL-BGN Alamo 12/3/18 Pending Solar Facilities (50 MW or greater) 18-1578-EL-BGN Angelina 229.9 18-1579-EL-BGN TOTALS: Schedule 8A WILLIAMS 127 £ ¤ Timber Road I 18 turbines, 37.8 MW DEFIANCE FULTON 24 £ ¤ Timber Road IV 37 turbines, 125.1 MW Timber Road III 30 turbines, 63 MW 80 § ¦ ¨ HENRY 30 £ ¤ 36 £ ¤ CLARK 23 £ ¤ 68 £ ¤ 80 § ¦ ¨ OTTAWA SANDUSKY SENECA MARION Republic 50 turbines, 200 MW Seneca 77 turbines, 212 MW 23 £ ¤ WYANDOT MADISON Buckeye II 56 turbines, 140 MW Buckeye I 54 turbines, 135 MW UNION Scioto Ridge 105 turbines, 231 MW Hardin 200 turbines, 300 MW Hog Creek I and II 30 turbines, 66 MW HANCOCK § ¦ ¨ 75 WOOD LUCAS 224 £ ¤ HARDIN CHAMPAIGN LOGAN 33 £ ¤ 20 £ ¤ Northwest Ohio Putnam 42 turbines, 100 MW Timber Road II 55 turbines, 99 MW PUTNAM AUGLAIZE SHELBY § ¦ ¨ 75 ALLEN Blue Creek 152 turbines, 304 MW PAULDING VAN WERT 127 £ ¤ MERCER DARKE MIAMI 6 £ ¤ Lake Erie 20 £ ¤ Emerson Creek 71 turbines, 297.7 MW 250 £ ¤ HURON 80 § ¦ ¨ MEDINA 71 § ¦ ¨ MUSKINGUM COSHOCTON Map Area 322 £ ¤ 422 £ ¤ § ¦ ¨ 77 As of 4/18/2019 77 § ¦ ¨ SUMMIT 76 § ¦ ¨ STARK HOLMES Operational 40 £ 22 ¤ £ ¤ § ¦ ¨ 77 250 £ ¤ Under construction WAYNE Approved Pending Project Status 224 £ ¤ 42 £ ¤ CUYAHOGA Icebreaker 6 turbines, 20.7 MW 90 § ¦ ¨ LORAIN 62 £ ¤ 30 £ ¤ ASHLAND Greenwich 25 turbines, 60 MW KNOX Black Fork 91 turbines, 200 MW RICHLAND 36 £ ¤ LICKING 6 £ ¤ Power Siting Wind Case Status ERIE MORROW CRAWFORD 42 £ ¤ 71 § ¦ ¨ DELAWARE FRANKLIN Notes: Project area boundaries are provided by applicants. Case and construction status is determined by the case filings. The nameplate capacity shown is the maximum capacity that could be built based on the number of approved turbines and the highest nameplate capacity of the approved turbine models. Map produced on 4/18/2019. Prepared by: Adam Bargar Schedule 8B 1 Potential Wind Facilities (Approved, Pending and Pre-application) Potential Megawatts (MW): 1,921.5 Potential Turbines: 772 Paulding, Van Wert County 18 152 Turbines 37.8 304 MW 669.8 327 Project Name 6/14/12 Paulding Operational Wind Facilites Online Date Related Cases Blue Creek 12/8/16 County TOTALS: Paulding Hardin 54 Turbines 327 42 30 300 135 MW 669.8 100 66 99 Champaign 200 200 55 Hardin 91 140 Paulding Crawford, Richland 56 60 7/19/11 Champaign 25 231 Timber Road II Huron 105 125.1 1,191.1 63 Hardin, Logan 37 568 30 12/19/17 Paulding TOTALS: MW 20.7 200 212 297.7 730.4 Paulding Hog Creek I Hog Creek II withdrawn 9/10/18 withdrawn 9/10/18 Approved Wind Facilities Approval Date 3/22/10 2/18/14 pending 3/22/10 12/5/16 withdrawn 2/2/17 3/2/17 6/21/2018 1/23/12 8/27/15 12/7/17 pending 5/28/13 pending 8/25/14 5/19/16 3/17/14 11/12/15 5/19/16 10/25/16 7/6/17 3/15/18 withdrawn 2/21/2019 Pending Wind Facilities Filing Date 2/1/2017 2/2/2018 7/16/2018 1/31/2019 Turbines 6 50 77 71 204 12/8/16 Timber Road I 15-2031-EL-BGA 10-3128-EL-BGA 15-2030-EL-BGA 11-0757-EL-BGA 11-5542-EL-BGA 16-1422-EL-BGA 11-5543-EL-BGA 16-1423-EL-BGA 17-0627-EL-BGA Northwest Ohio Project Name 16-0343-EL-BGA 16-1687-EL-BGA 17-1099-EL-BGA Related Cases Buckeye I Scioto Ridge1 Greenwich Buckeye II Black Fork Hardin1 13-0360-EL-BGA 17-2516-EL-BGN 11-3446-EL-BGA 14-1030-EL-BGA 16-0469-EL-BGA 16-2404-EL-BGA 18-0677-EL-BGA 14-1591-EL-BGA 17-1148-EL-BGA 18-1346-EL-BGA 17-2517-EL-BGA 15-1921-EL-BGA 14-1557-EL-BGA 16-0725-EL-BGA 16-1717-EL-BGA 17-0759-EL-BGA 17-2108-EL-BGA 18-1473-EL-BGA Timber Road IV1 Project Name Icebreaker Republic Seneca Emerson Creek County Cuyahoga Seneca, Sandusky Seneca Erie, Huron TOTALS: Timber Road III 11-1995-EL-BGA 11-3644-EL-BGA Operational Wind Facilities Operational Megawatts (MW): Operational Turbines: Case Number 09-1066-EL-BGN 09-0980-EL-BGN 10-0369-EL-BGN 10-0369-EL-BGN 09-0277-EL-BGN 10-0654-EL-BGN 13-0197-EL-BGN Case Number 08-0666-EL-BGN 09-0479-EL-BGN 10-2865-EL-BGN 12-0160-EL-BGN 13-0990-EL-BGN 13-1177-EL-BGN 18-0091-EL-BGN under construction Case Number 16-1871-EL-BGN 17-2295-EL-BGN 18-0488-EL-BGN 18-1607-EL-BGN Schedule 9A OPSB Gas Generation Case Status As of March 29, 2019 M I C H I G A N DEFIANCE Oregon 960 MW OTTAWA WOOD PUTNAM I N D I A N A HARDIN UNION CLARK MONTGOMERY Middletown 540 MW WARREN PORTAGE GUERNSEY PICKAWAY FAYETTE ROSS NOBLE BELMONT Harrison 1050 MW Hannibal Port 485 MW MONROE WASHINGTON ATHENS VINTON HIGHLAND PIKE CLERMONT JEFFERSON MORGAN HOCKING CLINTON HAMILTON Guernsey 1650 MW PERRY + HARRISON MUSKINGUM FAIRFIELD GREENE ) " CARROLL LICKING MADISON MAHONING COLUMBIANA Carroll 742 MW COSHOCTON FRANKLIN ) " Trumbull 940 MW South Field 1105 MW STARK TUSCARAWAS DELAWARE CHAMPAIGN MIAMI WAYNE KNOX LOGAN DARKE SUMMIT HOLMES MORROW SHELBY ) " RICHLAND ASHLAND MARION AUGLAIZE BUTLER CRAWFORD WYANDOT ALLEN PREBLE MEDINA Lordstown 940 MW HANCOCK VAN WERT MERCER TRUMBULL LORAIN HURON SENECA GEAUGA CUYAHOGA ERIE SANDUSKY PAULDING ASHTABULA LAKE ) " LUCAS HENRY Lake Erie P E N N S Y L V A N I A FULTON WILLIAMS Oregon 2 955 MW W E S T MEIGS JACKSON V I R G I N I A BROWN ADAMS GALLIA SCIOTO LAWRENCE Project Status OPSB Certificate Approved K E N T U C K Y + OPSB Under Construction ) Operational " Notes: Facility locations are provided by applicants. Case and construction status is determined by the case filings. The capacity shown is the highest nameplate capacity of the approved units in the original case and any amendments. Map produced on March 29, 2019. Schedule 9B 1 Approved Gas Generation Facilities Potential Megawatts (MW): Carroll Oregon Project Name 5/18/2018 1/10/2018 7/1/2017 Operational Date Butler Carroll Lucas County 540 742 960 MW 5,135 Middletown 940 3,182 Trumbull Total MW 9/30/2018 County 1,105 Lordstown Operational Gas Generation Facilities (50 MW or greater) 3,182 Operational Gas Generation Facilities 16-0076-EL-BGA 16-0062-EL-BGA 17-0925-EL-BGA 16-0841-EL-BGA 14-2085-EL-BGA 18-1466-EL-BGA 16-0518-EL-BGA 15-0853-EL-BGA 15-0297-EL-BGA 14-1396-EL-BGA Related Cases Operational Megawatts (MW): Case Number 12-2959-EL-BGN 13-1752-EL-BGN 14-0534-EL-BGN 14-2322-EL-BGN 16-0131-EL-BGA 16-0494-EL-BGA Columbiana 1,650 16-0494-EL-BGA Guernsey 940 16-2443-EL-BGN 16-2444-EL-BGN 18-0090-EL-BGA NA Approved Gas Generation Facilities (50 MW or greater) Trumbull 955 17-0530-EL-BGN 17-2512-EL-BGA South Field1 Guernsey Trumbull Oregon 2 5/17/2018 12/7/2017 10/5/17 3/15/18 10/5/17 pending 9/22/16 Approval Date Lucas 485 Project Name Monroe Related Cases 7/28/2017 1,050 Case Number Hannibal Port Harrison 15-1716-EL-BGN NA 6/21/2018 19-0638-EL-BGA 17-1091-EL-BLN Harrison 5,135 NA Total 17-1189-EL-BGN under construction