Ohio utility retracts energy-efficiency plan despite potential savings
Duke Energy Ohio quietly dropped plans late last year to roll out a broad portfolio of programs that would have boosted energy efficiency and encouraged customers to use less electricity during times of peak demand. The plans, which would have saved ratepayers nearly $126 million over three years after deductions for costs, were part of a regulatory filing last April that sought to increase charges on customers' electric bills.
The move came after settlement talks with other stakeholders, including the state's consumer advocate, which opposes collecting ratepayer money to provide the programs to people who aren't in low-income groups.
State regulators are now weighing whether to approve the settlement with a much smaller efficiency program focused on low-income neighborhoods.
The case is the latest chapter in a struggle to restore utility-run programs for energy efficiency after House Bill 6, the 2019 nuclear and coal bailout law that also gutted the state's renewable energy standards and eliminated requirements for utilities to help customers save energy.
Studies show that utility-run energy-efficiency programs are among the cheapest ways to meet growing electricity needs and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Lower demand means fossil-fuel power plants can run less often. Less wasted energy translates into lower bills for customers who take advantage of efficiency programs. Even customers who don't directly participate benefit because the programs lower peak demand when power costs the most.
Energy efficiency can also put downward pressure on capacity prices — amounts paid by grid operators to electricity producers to make sure enough generation will be available for future needs. Due to high projected demand compared to available generation, capacity prices for most of the PJM region, including Ohio, will jump ninefold in June to about $270 per megawatt-day.
'At a time when PJM is saying we're facing capacity shortages, we should be doing everything we can to reduce demand,' said Rob Kelter, a senior attorney for the Environmental Law & Policy Center.
Since 2019, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio has generally rejected utility efforts to offer widely available, ratepayer-funded programs for energy efficiency. Legislative efforts to clarify that such programs are allowed under Ohio law have been introduced but failed to pass.
In the current case, Duke Energy Ohio, which serves about 750,000 customers in southwestern Ohio, proposed a portfolio of efficiency offerings that would have cost ratepayers about $75 million over the course of three years but created net savings of nearly $126 million over the same period.
The package included energy-efficient appliance rebates, incentives for off-peak energy use, education programs for schools, and home energy assessments. The company also proposed incentives for customers who let it curtail air conditioning on hot days through smart thermostats.
In November, Duke Energy Ohio filed a proposed settlement with the PUCO staff, the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, industry groups, and others. The terms drop all the programs for energy efficiency, except for one geared toward low-income consumers at a cost of up to $2.4 million per year. The Environmental Law & Policy Center and Ohio Environmental Council objected, as did a consumer group, the Citizens Utility Board of Ohio.
The PUCO will decide whether to approve the settlement plan by evaluating whether it benefits ratepayers and the public interest, whether it is the result of 'serious bargaining' among knowledgable parties, and whether it violates any important regulatory principles or practices. Witnesses testified for and against the settlement at a hearing in January. Parties filed briefs in February and March.
Duke Energy Ohio argued in its brief that the settlement will still benefit customers and serve the public interest, even without the energy-efficiency programs for consumers who aren't low-income. It also suggested that cutting out most of the energy-efficiency measures was needed to reach a deal with other stakeholders and the PUCO.
Staff at the PUCO said the settlement would benefit customers by cutting some projects and limiting how high other charges could go. They dismissed objections about dropping broadly available programs for energy efficiency. '[T]he standard is whether ratepayers benefit, not whether they could have benefitted more,' state lawyers wrote in their brief.
The Environmental Law & Policy Center, Ohio Environmental Council, and Citizens Utility Board of Ohio all argued there is no evidence to support dropping the energy-efficiency programs. They questioned the approach by a Consumers' Counsel witness of counting only avoided rider costs as benefits, without considering the projected savings from energy efficiency.
The Consumers' Counsel defended its perspective in an email to Canary Media. 'We oppose subsidizing energy efficiency programs through utility rates when those products and services are already available in the competitive marketplace,' the office's statement said. 'And when the programs are run by the utility, there are added charges to consumers, such as shared savings and lost distribution revenue.' The statement also noted that other PUCO decisions have refused to allow energy-efficiency programs that would serve groups other than low-income households.
Last year, for example, the PUCO allowed FirstEnergy to run a low-income energy-efficiency program but turned down its proposal to include generally available rebates in a rider package. Those are 'better suited for the competitive market, where both residential and non-residential customers will be able to obtain products and services to meet their individual needs,' the commission's opinion said. The commission did, however, say the company should develop a rebate program for smart thermostats to help customers manage their energy use. FirstEnergy included that in its latest rider plan filed on Jan. 31.
Ohio has been particularly devoid of programs like those dropped in Duke's settlement since HB 6 took effect, said Trent Dougherty, a lawyer for the Citizens Utility Board of Ohio. Calculations as of 2019 estimated the law's gutting of the state's energy-efficiency standard costs each consumer savings of nearly $10 per month.
'Continuing a pattern of wish-casting, that the market will provide the savings that HB 6 took away, is not a solution,' Dougherty said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
5 hours ago
- CBS News
ComEd customers seeing bills double amid rising electric cost
Temperatures are soaring, and so are the bills for ComEd customers, who are feeling the impact of the sticker shock. Experts, however, said the anger directed toward the electric company is being misplaced. Triple-digit jumps in some electric bills have customers seeing red. The main culprit isn't ComEd. The real driver is a higher supply charge, which the grid operator sets, not the utility, and unfortunately, it will get worse. "Mine doubled! That's kind of garbage," customer Drew Marinelli said. His ComEd bill for his Albany Park apartment went from around $80 per month to $167 last month. "It is a little frustrating to see that it jumped up that aggressively for what felt like no reason," he said. Marinelli wasn't the only customer to gasp. "The increase went into effect on June 1 and is expected to be about 10 to 15 percent per household," Mohammad Abdullah said via TikTok. The issue is baked into the "electricity supply charge," and it's not the company's fault. "Big power generators, the companies that own the power plants. They are laughing all the way to the bank this summer as we pay these high bills," Citizens Utility Board Communications Director Jim Chilsen said. Chilsen said the cost of electricity on the wholesale market went up thanks to PJM Interconnection, the electric grid operator. He said they have been slow to adopt low-cost clean energy resources and battery projects to help bring down prices. ComEd said the spike, combined with an unseasonably warm June, raised the average bill by more than $67. "Rising energy prices have a real impact on the families and customers that we serve," ComEd's director of revenue policy, Brad Perkins, said. Perkins said they knew it was coming and launched a $10 million relief fund earlier this month to help struggling customers pay these rising bills. "Thus far, we've seen a lot of interest in this. Thousands of customers have applied for relief on this, and customers will start experiencing the credits associated with this relief fund in a few weeks," he said. CUB Executive Director Sarah Moskowitz said in a statement, in part: "While we are relieved that the negotiated price cap prevented capacity costs from soaring even higher, this record price spike is unacceptable. CUB is deeply concerned that ComEd customers will continue to bear painfully high costs for another year, largely because of policy shortcomings from PJM. The power grid operator's policy decisions too often favor outdated, expensive power plants and needlessly block low-cost clean energy resources and battery projects from connecting to the grid and bringing down prices. This extended price spike was preventable. It ramps up the urgency of implementing long-term reforms at PJM and comprehensive energy legislation in Illinois, such as the Clean and Reliable Grid Affordability Act, to protect customers from price spikes that serve only to give power generators windfall profits." ComEd also offers bill support and ways customers can manage the rise in cost on their website.
Miami Herald
13 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Electricity Prices Are Soaring Under Donald Trump
Electricity prices across the United States have been climbing in 2025, despite President Donald Trump's repeated pledges to reduce energy costs. Ahead of last year's election, Trump said in an opinion piece for Newsweek that his administration would "cut energy and electricity prices in half within 12 months" for both businesses and American families. He has blamed former President Joe Biden's administration for contributing to energy price hikes. Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment via email on Wednesday. According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, the average price of electricity per kilowatt-hour has risen from $0.179 in January to $0.190 as of June-an increase of around 6 percent. Between January and February, prices remained steady, according to BLS data. But between February and April, prices rose slightly to $0.181, and then marginally again in May to $0.182. According to the BLS's data, prices then jumped noticeably in June to $0.190. Analysts previously indicated that a spike in natural-gas prices, surging loads from artificial intelligence-driven data centers triggering multibillion-dollar capacity charges, and an aging, congested grid were among the reasons Americans could see higher energy and electricity prices this summer. Analysis by Reuters noted that household energy costs have risen at a rate more than twice that of overall consumer price inflation between June 2024 and 2025. The Financial Times reported that electricity costs in the U.S.'s largest power market are set to hit a record high, driven by surging demand for AI data centers and delays in new power plant construction. Grid operator PJM reported a 22 percent increase in procurement costs to $329.17 per megawatt-day, totaling $16.1 billion for the period from June 2026 to May 2027, representing a 10 percent annual rise, it said. Consumers may see their energy bills increase by one to five percent, depending on how utilities and states pass on the costs, theFinancial Times reported. "Economic growth is driving a massive uptick in electricity demand. Existing supply has been leaving the system due primarily to state and federal decarbonization policies and some economics," a spokesperson for PJM told Newsweek. "As to new supply, PJM has studied and approved 46,000 MW (enough to power about 40 million homes) that have been slow to construct due to reasons outside of PJM's control, including global supply chain, state/federal permitting and financing challenges. "As of June 2025, there are approximately 63,000 MW in projects that will be studied and approved over the next 18 months that we hope will actually construct. In any market, when demand is up and supply is down, there will be an increase in pricing. PJM has been warning of this eventuality for several years now, specifically as it relates to the impact of these supply/demand fundamentals on our ability to reliably operate the power grid." President Donald Trump, in a Newsweek opinion piece published October 1, 2024: "We will cut energy and electricity prices in half within 12 months-not just for businesses but for all Americans and their families, and we will quickly double our electricity capacity, which we need to do to compete with China and other countries on Artificial Intelligence. With the lowest energy prices on earth, we will attract energy-hungry industries from all over the planet and millions of blue-collar jobs." January 2026 will mark the first anniversary of Trump's second term as president. Whether energy and electricity prices fall dramatically by then remains to be seen. Related Articles Five Things Causing Electricity Prices to SpikeWorld's Largest Power Station Could Provide Energy for Half of US HomesEmerald AI Has a New Approach to Meeting AI's Energy DemandGOP Budget Could Increase Energy Bills for Millions of Americans 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Chicago Tribune
16 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Soaring ComEd bills have us all on edge. Springfield must confront our electricity woes head-on.
The politics of energy in Illinois are hot this summer. And they're only going to get hotter. Residents throughout the Chicago area only now are opening their electric bills and seeing the effect of our sweltering June, combined with substantially higher electricity rates, on their household budgets. With inflation top of mind for everyone, you can add the cost of keeping the lights on and the air conditioners humming to food, insurance, housing, health care and more items making it harder for ordinary folks simply to pay their bills every month. A spike in the cost of energy that took effect June 1 along with higher usage in one of the hottest Junes Chicago has experienced resulted in a $67.28 increase in the average June 30 household electric bill, according to Commonwealth Edison. So far, July has been no picnic either in terms of heat and humidity, so next month's bills aren't likely to provide relief. And, adding to the electric-bill angst, there was news Tuesday that next summer's electric bills will see more upward pressure after the results of a power auction just completed by PJM Interconnection, the power-grid manager for a multistate territory running from northern Illinois east to the mid-Atlantic. The details of that auction are somewhat technical; PJM solicits bids from power generators and others for what the industry calls 'capacity' and what effectively are promises from those power-plant operators to produce energy during high-demand periods over a year. The amount paid to those selected operators for those promises comes from power consumers throughout the PJM region — that is, virtually all households and businesses — and is embedded in the overall price they pay utilities or other suppliers for energy. Much of the reason for this summer's increase in ComEd rates is due to a spike in the current cost of capacity. That capacity cost will rise another 22% in the year beginning in June 2026 after PJM's latest auction. ComEd says that change by itself will hike ComEd rates another 2%, raising the average residential bill by $2.50 per month. Politicians and environmental groups, among others, are castigating PJM for the increases and blaming the grid operator for being too sluggish in approving high-voltage connections of renewable power sources such as wind farms to population centers. PJM, an organization that has operated largely in obscurity for many years despite its centrality to ensuring power is available when most needed, has become a convenient scapegoat for governors across the PJM footprint, including JB Pritzker and Pennsylvania's Josh Shapiro. But at least in Illinois, where Pritzker spearheaded the 2021 Climate & Equitable Jobs Act (CEJA), the governor owns these electricity woes whether he likes it or not and whether it's entirely fair. He and fellow Democrats in Springfield (with some GOP backing) undertook a monumental reordering of the state's power industry, preserving existing nuclear plants through ratepayer subsidies and phasing out all carbon-emitting sources such as coal and natural gas no later than 2050. Environmentalists insisted that a large chunk of those gas-fired plants — which for years have been critical to meeting demand during intense heat waves — shutter by 2030. CEJA in short was an audacious bid by a governor with presidential ambitions to boast the nation's most progressive clean-energy statute. Now, CEJA's mandates appear overly inflexible in light of legitimate concerns about whether enough power will be available during heat waves and cold snaps, especially once more of the many planned data centers — intensely power-hungry facilities — are built in Illinois. PJM's capacity prices aren't soaring for no reason. When demand begins to outstrip supply, prices go up. We warned in September that state policymakers seemed asleep at the switch in the face of a coming electricity crisis. If we're still not quite at a crisis point, we're considerably closer now than we were even nine months ago. Environmental groups and others in the spring pushed for substantial new energy legislation meant in part to address the growing concerns over cost and reliability. No action was taken. Speaking earlier this week at a climate conference in Chicago, Pritzker said, 'We've got legislation that's teed up. … When we get to the new legislature, I'm committed to getting this passed. It includes energy storage, it includes expanding the opportunity within solar and wind, and there are ways we can tweak the already really, really great CEJA bill.' We will have more to say in the future on that bill, which likely will further increase costs for ratepayers in order to incentivize favored energy technologies. If by 'tweaking' CEJA, the governor means making the existing law more flexible in order to confront the growing challenge of reliably furnishing reasonably priced power, we're glad. We're not sure that what he means, though, given that his closest and most influential allies on energy matters — environmental groups — are staunchly opposed to any changes that could be perceived as 'backsliding' on CEJA's mandates. We'll see when debate begins in earnest. Here's another warning for Springfield: The growing public dismay over power bills should be a sign to policymakers that now is not the time for litmus tests and winning plaudits from activists. It's a time for hardheaded pragmatism. Nothing will erode public support for groundbreaking clean-energy policies faster than rolling blackouts and punishing electric bills.
