COLUMBUS — Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder (R., Glenford) on Friday rolled out a bill that he said would reward cleaner electricity generation to the tune of $300 million a year, roughly half of which could prop up two struggling nuclear power plants on Lake Erie.
It would mean surcharges of $2.50 a month on the bills of all residential electricity customers in the state, $20 for commercial users, $250 for industrial users, and $2,500 for big industrial users of 45 million or more kilowatts a year to fund these credits for zero-carbon-emission power.
But Mr. Householder said customers would ultimately save money because the new Ohio Clean Air Program would eliminate current mandates that utilities find more of their power from renewable sources and reduce energy usage over time. Those costs would be removed from customers’ bills.
“At the end of the day, we’re not lowering our carbon footprint in the state of Ohio with these mandates,” Mr. Householder said. “If that was the intent, they’re failing miserably.”
The bill, sponsored by Reps. Jamie Callender (R., Concord) and Shane Wilkin (R., Hillsboro), will be the subject of hearings beginning next week. Mr. Householder said he hopes to get it to Gov. Mike DeWine’s desk by the end of June, before lawmakers recess for the summer.
Neither the governor nor the Senate has weighed in yet on the proposal, he said
Wind, solar, and other renewable sources of power could compete with the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant 30 miles east of Toledo, and the Perry nuclear plant 40 miles east of Cleveland, for credits of $9.25 per megawatt hour of zero-emissions electricity produced.
There would be no disqualifiers for generators of renewable power, the speaker said.
But there would be wiggle room in the bill for the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority, which would administer the program, to provide credits of an unknown amount to polluting power sources, such as coal-fired power plants, if they can reduce the emissions they produce.
In recent years lawmakers have openly sympathized with the plights of the Ottawa and Lake county communities around the two nuclear plants but would not sign on to bills that would have propped them up through surcharges on FirstEnergy customers or a captive market for the plants’ more expensive power.
The Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund called the plan a “taxpayer-funded bailout” for FirstEnergy Solutions.
“Adding insult to injury, the proposed bill would dismantle one of the only state policies that reliably deliver electric bill savings to customers, decrease air pollution, and create new jobs in Ohio,” said Trish Demeter, OEC’s vice president of energy policy, referring to the renewable energy mandates.
“The OEC Action Fund rejects the notion that this bill is for the benefit of cleaner air,” she said. “The bailout tax will not create any new jobs and is just another short-term fix to a long-term problem.”
Frank Szollosi, Great Lakes climate policy director for the National Wildlife Federation, also said the plan comes up short.
“Lawmakers had the opportunity to significantly scale up clean, safe, and affordable renewable energy from wind and solar while reducing energy waste through strong energy efficiency programs,” he said. “Instead, the proposed legislation misses the mark by prioritizing the bailout of two old, economically uncompetitive nuclear power plants rather than creating jobs and protecting our natural habitats in Ohio through clean energy investment.”
Mr. Householder said saving the nuclear plants was not the driving factor of this plan.
“This is not about nuclears,” he said. “It’s not about wind, and it’s not about solar, and it’s not about hydro. It’s not about gas. It’s not about coal. It’s about all of the above. I’m a believer that we need various energy sources in the state of Ohio.”
The authority, to be expanded from seven to 11 members, would be appointed by the governor and legislative leaders.
FirstEnergy Solutions, the power generation subsidiary of the Akron-based utility, is currently in federal bankruptcy proceedings. If it can’t find a buyer, it has said it would close the 41-year-old Davis-Besse and 32-year-old Perry plants that have struggled to compete economically with cheaper and abundant natural gas.
Davis-Besse is Ottawa County’s largest employer with about 700 workers and is slated to close no later than May 31, 2020.
Rep. Steve Arndt (R., Port Clinton), whose district includes Davis-Besse, had been working on a parallel track focused more on developing advanced energy sources. He said he hasn’t seen the final bill but will likely support it.
“I believe we need a forward-looking energy policy with things most Ohioans would value, a carbon-free footprint,” he said. “Solar, wind, and other renewables are not dispatchable 24-7. Nor are they drivers of Ohio’s economy.”
Guy Parmigian, superintendent of the local Benton-Carroll-Salem School District, generally likes where things are headed.
“No legislation is perfect, but my greatest interest is to see state legislators find a solution to keep the two nuclear power plants running. Period,” he said. “I’m not an expert. I can’t say what the solution is, but I’m encouraged that the conversation has started.
“It’s April 12,” he said. “We’ve heard from First Energy’s nuclear operating company that if we don’t have a solution by June, they’re not going to order fuel.”
PJM, the organization coordinating the transmission of electricity through Ohio and 12 other states, has said the plants are not critical to maintaining reliable and affordable power in the region.
Beyond citing the plants’ local economic benefits, supporters argue that they generate reliable and carbon-free power that could be critical in weather emergencies or in responding to future environmental regulations.
The nuclear plants generate about 16 million megawatt hours of electricity a year, about 90 percent of the zero-emissions power generated in Ohio. That would be enough for about $148 million of the total $300 million annual pot of credits.
To be eligible, a utility’s power must be generated by a plant in Ohio, making FirstEnergy Solutions’ Pennsylvania-based plants ineligible, Mr. Householder said.
While saying renewable energy sources like wind can fairly compete for the credits, the bill does not address the ongoing dispute over property setback distances for wind farms. The wind industry has argued that more restrictive setbacks enacted several years ago have made it more difficult for them to place enough turbines on properties to make wind farms economically feasible.
Mr. Householder said the cost of the mandates that utilities meet rising thresholds each year to add renewable power and reduce overall electricity usage will continue to climb for consumers over time. The annual increase in cost, however, has never bumped up against the 3 percent cap included in the original 2008 mandate law.
“Everybody wants to save money, don’t they?” Mr. Householder said. “If I said you could go from $4.39 to $2.50 a month [for a residential customer’s bill] — save $1.89 and have cleaner air possibly and maybe have more jobs in the state of Ohio, I’d take that risk if I was a residential customer. I’d do it in a heartbeat.”
The bill does not take nuclear waste generated by the plants into consideration.
First Published April 12, 2019, 3:30 p.m.
