Oct. 24--Ohio has an energy problem, and it stems from the backward approach of those in power at the Statehouse.
Lawmakers serve the interests of powerful utilities above those of consumers, the environment and the future. That translates to subsidies for electric companies -- out of ratepayers' pockets -- and not just neglect, but outright hostility toward efforts to develop clean and renewable alternatives to coal and gas.
The result is electricity bills higher than necessary, carbon emissions higher than necessary and the strangulation of what should be a growing Ohio industry.
Recent weeks and months have provided ample and depressing proof of Ohio's energy folly.
Exhibit A is House Bill 6, the new law that will force electricity customers statewide to pay extra on their bills to bail out FirstEnergy Solutions. It will raise more than $1 billion over 10 years -- money FirstEnergy says it has to have to keep its two nuclear plants operating.
The bill's worst feature is its wholesale assault on clean energy development. Technically, the nuke plant bailout comes in the form of credits for producing carbon-free energy. But equally carbon-free solar and wind projects, with a few token exceptions, aren't eligible for the same credits.
Moreover, the law actually bails out two coal plants, too.
Lawmakers also tucked in language that guts the state's requirement that utilities increase their use of renewable energy sources. This comes as prospects for wind-energy development in Ohio already were severely stunted by unreasonable windmill-setback requirements, enacted in 2014 by renewable energy foes.
More bad news for clean energy came last week when the Ohio Power Siting Board unexpectedly derailed approval of an 80-megawatt solar project proposed for Brown and Clermont counties. The distinct departure from standard practice raised alarm and eyebrows among renewable energy supporters because Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Chairman Sam Randazzo, who also heads the siting board, has had a long career prior to his PUCO appointment advocating for fossil fuel companies and opposing clean energy initiatives.
That same PUCO has tended to favor utilities and disfavor clean energy since long before Randazzo's appointment as chairman earlier this year. In 2017, it allowed Akron-based FirstEnergy to begin collecting $168 million to $204 million per year in extra charges from customers. It ostensibly was to encourage the company to modernize its distribution system, but the ruling didn't require FirstEnergy to actually do such work with the money.
The Ohio Supreme Court struck down the surcharges earlier this year but allowed FirstEnergy to keep the $400 million-plus it already had collected, without undertaking any distribution-system improvements.
Another 2017 PUCO ruling undermined clean energy development by limiting how much FirstEnergy could recover from customers for energy efficiency projects -- in other words, limiting how much the utility would invest in such projects.
The Supreme Court turned that one aside last week. Allowing more energy efficiency investment would be a win for clean energy, except that HB 6 cancels the state's energy efficiency targets after 2020, meaning that unless HB 6 is overturned, FirstEnergy likely won't bother with more energy efficiency.
As other states embrace the jobs and carbon savings that can come from a clean energy industry, Ohio continues to march backward, propping up bankrupt nuclear plants and dirty coal plants at the expense of a nascent industry with unlimited potential.
Voters should demand better.
Source: INACTIVE-Tribune Regional
(October 24, 2019 - 5:27 AM EDT)
News by QuoteMedia
www.quotemedia.com
