By JAN LARSON McLAUGHLIN
BG Independent News
When Ohio House Bill 6 was passed last week, Bowling Green officials breathed a sigh of relief – not because the final version of the legislation will help the city, but because they knew it could have been so much worse.
The legislation still focuses on a $1 billion rescue of Ohio’s two nuclear power plants and two coal plants – but it also preserves some mandates for renewable energy.
The good news is that Bowling Green will still be able to sell the green energy generated by the city’s wind turbines and solar field.
“We have an opportunity to sell renewable energy credits,” at least till the bill sunsets its support of green energy in 2026, said Brian O’Connell, director of Bowling Green public utilities.
But the bad news is, the city will have to sell its solar power for less than it does now – resulting in a potential loss of $160,000 annually to the city. That, however, is far less than the $400,000 loss that the city predicted if the original version of the bill had passed.
Bowling Green officials fought for changes in the initial legislation. They turned to State Senator Theresa Gavarone, R-Bowling Green, after feeling their concerns about green energy were ignored by State Rep. Haraz Ghanbari, R-Perrysburg. Ghanbari voted in favor of HB 6, which would bail out two nuclear plants, support two coal-fired plants (one in Indiana), and get rid of all mandates for the state to work toward renewable energy.
That hit Bowling Green hard, since the city has invested heavily in wind and solar power, and currently gets 40 percent of its power from renewable sources. City leaders consider green energy as the wise choice for Ohio’s future.
Estimates showed that Bowling Green could lose up to $400,000 a year by not being able to sell renewable energy credits to communities that needed to meet the state green energy mandate that was being gutted by the bill.
“Senator Gavarone was really helpful,” O’Connell said. “I think she really took it to heart that there would be some hardship for Bowling Green.”
“This is the best we could have hoped for,” O’Connell said.
But it is far from perfect for Bowling Green or for green energy supporters.
Before the bill was passed, Ohio required utilities to increase their power generation from renewable sources – until they reach 12.5 percent by the end of 2026. After that date, Ohio required that level must be maintained.
But HB 6 lowered the green energy goal to 8.5 percent by 2025. After that date, the standards will cease to exist.
Backed mostly by Republicans, the legislation will hand over $150 million a year through 2026 to two nuclear plants near Cleveland and Toledo in order to keep them operating.
The final version calls for residential customers to pay 85 cents each month and for major industrial plants to pay $2,400 on their electricity bills. The legislation also allows for monthly surcharges on all bills that will prop up two coal-fired power plants, including one in Indiana.
Many Democrats and environmental groups opposed the legislation because it does away with incentives for solar and wind projects and also eliminates programs that help residents use less power through buying energy-saving appliances or upgrading heating and cooling systems.
O’Connell said as city utilities director, his primary concern was the impact on Bowling Green.
“Our customers shouldn’t pay for this,” he said.
But O’Connell also realizes that propping up nuclear and coal power is at odds with the direction many want for Ohio.
“It’s probably not the way of the future,” he said. While nuclear power has its own issues, it doesn’t generate carbon emissions. But coal power leaves a sizeable carbon footprint.
“It doesn’t make much sense to bail out coal,” he said.
