11
At about the same time, the CRS Green Pricing Accreditation Board, which met
twice in late May and early June 2002, rejected the proposed North Carolina criteria
document. The Board noted that the range of comments on the North Carolina criteria
document demonstrated that the North Carolina stakeholder group had additional work to
complete in achieving consensus on criteria for the State. The Board indicated that it
would look to see significantly greater consensus in support of the final proposed criteria.
Similar comments were received by the Commission in writing and at the Raleigh,
Greenville, and Asheville public hearings held in July 2002.
On September 10, 2002, the Public Staff requested that the Commission defer
ruling on the green power programs and tariffs filed on May 31, 2002, noting that further
meetings were taking place among the parties in September and early October. Moreover,
the Public Staff stated that the parties were continuing to explore the best structure for
NC GreenPower so that it could be accredited and attract maximum participation.
To gain additional support for NC GreenPower, AEC revised its proposed program
plan to include two distinct products: (1) a “mass-market” product to be offered primarily to
residential customers that is comprised of higher-priced renewable resources, and (2) a
“large-volume” product to be offered to large-volume customers that is more price
competitive in comparison to out-of-state green tags. In addition, AEC proposed to
separately seek accreditation of the mass-market product through CRS and the large-volume
product through ERT. This revised proposal was presented to the Advisory
Committee at its September 12, 2002, meeting and to the accreditation stakeholders on
October 4, 2002. As a result of this revised proposal, the CRS Accreditation Board
approved a final North Carolina criteria document. (Criteria document, attached as
Appendix A.)
On November 22, 2002, AEC filed the revised administrative and operational plan to
implement NC GreenPower. (Program plan, attached as Appendix B.) CP&L, Duke, and
Dominion, in addition to several of the State’s electric membership cooperatives, filed
revised green power pricing tariffs to support the implementation of NC GreenPower. AEC
stated that the revised proposal attempts to balance the interests of all stakeholders by
narrowing the types of renewable resources included in the mass-market product while
incorporating a broader spectrum of resources in the lower-cost large-volume product.
AEC further stated that although no single interest or representative group may be
completely satisfied with the revised plan, it believed that the revised proposal comes
much closer than the initial May 31, 2002, filing to gaining the necessary support for the
program. AEC, however, noted that at least one issue, that of the use of wood waste in the
large-volume product, remained contentious. The Commission, therefore, allowed
interested persons until December 31, 2002, within which to file dissenting comments on
any aspect of the revised NC GreenPower proposal and utility tariffs.
Of the five comments received in response to the Commission’s December 11,
2002, Order, three expressed support for the inclusion of biomass and waste wood energy