CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Ohio House Bill 6 bailed out two FirstEnergy power plants and gave subsidies to coal plants, while dismantling mandates designed to move Ohio’s clean energy landscape forward.
The controversial bill, passed last year, is now the centerpiece of a federal bribery investigation, which implicates Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, one of the most outspoken supporters of HB6, and four associates.
The corruption scandal is now prompting groups that already opposed HB6 because of its implications for the economy or environment to call for a re-examination of the bill, or its total repeal. Both the Sierra Club and American Wind Energy Association issued statements on the case Tuesday evening.
“The legislative push to bail out legacy generation and roll back Ohio’s renewable energy commitments was always against the will of Ohioans, who overwhelmingly support renewable energy,” American Wind Energy Association Eastern State Affairs Director Andrew Gohn said in a statement. “It now appears that the passage of this bill was not just against the will of the people, but also may have involved serious and possibly criminal impropriety.”
Supporters of the bill claimed the bailout would save jobs in nuclear energy and reconfigure surcharges to Ohio customers to save money. But those fighting against it, including environmental groups, balked at the changes which effectively “gutted” energy-efficiency and renewable-energy mandates for utilities.
The bill changed Ohio’s renewable-energy goal from a maximum of 12.5 percent by 2027 to 8.5 percent by 2026. Under Ohio requirements introduced in 2008, utilities must reduce customers’ power usage by 22 percent by 2027.
Under House Bill 6, these standards would end after utilities companies reached a 17.5 percent drop in customer power use.
The bill also included subsidies for coal power plants.
Neil Waggoner, the Sierra Club Ohio’s Beyond Coal Campaign representative, said this year the group has seen utilities companies petitioning the state’s public utilities commission to end energy efficiency programs, because companies are already hitting the lowered standard.
“There’s a reason why people called HB6 one of the most regressive energy bills in the United States,” he said.
The bill also had economic implications for renewable energy projects, like wind and solar, that might have expanded jobs in the clean energy space. It’s difficult to discern the effect of the bill so far on those jobs because the clean energy market was also hit hard by the coronavirus.
One in six Ohio workers employed in clean energy are now out of work because of the pandemic, according to a report released in June from business group Environmental Entrepreneurs, or E2.
But clean energy advocates were also concerned that companies looking to start renewable energy projects in Ohio would be scared off because of the legislature’s attitude toward the environment.
Jane Harf, the executive director of Green Energy Ohio, said businesses might not commit because of the instability of the clean energy sector caused by HB6. Companies want to know, when they start projects, that the state’s guidelines on clean energy aren’t going to change over the course of the project.
“(Ohio is) a state that has not had that consistent policy profile,” she said.
A lack of jobs could also cause the state to lose young professionals who want to combat climate change or work in clean energy. Before the coronavirus hit, clean energy jobs were growing 5 times faster than the overall economy, according to Clean Jobs Midwest.
It’s also a position that might alienate young professionals who list a dedication to renewable energy as a priority when choosing somewhere to live, Waggoner said.
“If you’re looking at Ohio and you’re seeing what we’re doing to fight climate (change) here is bailing out coal plants and making it harder to build clean energy, that’s not a particularly attractive policy view,” he said.