By JAN LARSON McLAUGHLIN
BG Independent News
A bill passed by the Ohio House last week could pull the plug on Bowling Green’s renewable energy efforts.
The nuclear power bailout bill may result in the city’s green energy efforts costing local electric customers more green. And some fear it sends the signal that Ohio is no longer willing to invest in renewable energy.
“Bowling Green is being negatively impacted by that version of the bill,” City Council President Mike Aspacher said last week. “We feel like we’re collateral damage in this.”
But State Rep. Haraz Ghanbari, R-Perrysburg, who voted in favor of House Bill 6, said last week after the vote that he expects more legislation to come forward regarding renewable energy sources.
“I’m going to make sure Bowling Green has a seat at the table,” in those discussions, Ghanbari said. “Just because H.B. 6 has passed doesn’t mean that Bowling Green’s concerns won’t be addressed.”
But in the meantime, H.B. 6 provides subsidies for nuclear and coal power – while gutting subsidies for green power like hydroelectric, solar and wind.
The legislation classifies nuclear power as “clean energy.” While nuclear power doesn’t leave a carbon footprint, critics point out it does leave behind centuries of deadly contaminants.
Supporters of renewable energy see H.B. 6 as a step backwards for Ohio. And Bowling Green leaders see it as the state changing the rules after encouraging communities to invest in green energy.
After putting in wind turbines and the largest solar field in Ohio, Bowling Green now receives 40 percent of its energy from renewable sources. City officials have been committed to doing right by the environment – as long as it was also affordable for residents.
Any concerns about the cost of investing in green energy were erased years ago when Bowling Green realized the solar and wind power were actually a savings for electric customers. Further helping was the state mandate that allowed the sale of extra clean energy to communities that weren’t producing green energy on their own.
So H.B. 6 is a double whammy against Bowling Green, since it not only ends subsidies for green energy, but it also tosses out state mandates that by 2027 utilities must get 12.5 percent of their power from renewable sources.
Bowling Green would welcome a chance to be heard, Aspacher said, in response to Ghanbari’s guarantee that BG would be part of talks on energy legislation in the future..
“That’s quite encouraging,” Aspacher said.
Aspacher and other city officials traveled to Columbus last week to meet with legislators about the impact of the bill. They tried to convince state officials that Ohio could salvage the Davis Besse and Perry nuclear power plants without sacrificing green energy efforts.
“They can accomplish the bailout without reducing the sustainable energy mandates,” Aspacher said.
Bowling Green officials met with State Senator Theresa Gavarone, R-Bowling Green, since the bill passed by the House will proceed there next.
“We had an opportunity to talk about their concerns,” Gavarone said last Thursday.
Gavarone said she would have to review the version of the bill passed by the House last week. “The bill will undergo intense scrutiny in the Senate,” she said.
Though a former Bowling Green City Council member, Gavarone said she is now in a different position since she not only represents Bowling Green, but her district also includes Davis Besse nuclear power plant.
“I’m hearing from constituents all over,” she said.
While in Columbus, the Bowling Green officials did not meet with Ghanbari.
“Folks from Bowling Green had mentioned to me they were going to be coming down,” Ghanbari said on Thursday. “But none of the BG delegation reached out to me yesterday,” though he did receive a phone call from BG Councilman Greg Robinette on Wednesday.
Aspacher said Bowling Green officials hoped to meet with Ghanbari, but as a member of American Municipal Power, their meetings were scheduled by that organization. AMP is a nonprofit wholesale power and services provider which works with several Wood County municipalities including Bowling Green, Bloomdale, Bradner, Custar, Cygnet, Haskins and Pemberville.
But Bowling Green officials had already made their concerns about H.B. 6 known to Ghanbari.
During a Bowling Green Chamber of Commerce gathering last month, Mayor Dick Edwards told Ghanbari that the bailout bill would cost the city $400,000.
The mayor had also written a letter to Ghanbari explaining Bowling Green’s long-term financial decisions regarding its power supply resources, and its substantial efforts to add renewable resources to its power supply portfolio. Those decisions were made with the understanding that extra green power could be sold to other Ohio communities that needed to meet clean energy standards.
But H.B. 6 would eliminate the need for communities to buy renewable energy credits.
“As a result, Bowling Green will need to increase its electric rates to replace the lost revenue,” the mayor wrote in his letter to Ghanbari.
At the chamber of commerce gathering, Ghanbari said while he is concerned about his Wood County district, he also has to look out for the rest of the state, the employment that comes from nuclear power and the manufacturers who depend on it.
Last week, Ghanbari said AMP’s push for its green energy efforts showed the provider wanted the benefits of Ohio’s energy subsidies without having to make investments. “They have no skin in the game,” Ghanbari said.
“I’m definitely not opposed to solar, and I’m not opposed to wind,” Ghanbari said.
However, Davis Besse and Perry nuclear power plants provide 15 percent of the state’s energy – while wind and solar create 2 percent.
The nuclear bailout will “lower the bills for customers in the state of Ohio and in Wood County,” he said.
But Bowling Green officials dispute that statement.
Ghanbari also said that while green energy creates some jobs, it’s far fewer than the jobs in nuclear power.
“We are saving jobs in the state of Ohio,” he said.
But H.B. 6 may be costing Ohio more jobs than it is saving.
First Solar, which is building its second plant in Wood County, is opposed to H.B. 6.
According to Becky Campbell, the manager of government affairs at First Solar, the company is the largest and one of the last remaining U.S.-based solar panel manufacturers.
“If adopted, the bill’s rollback of the existing AEPS would signal to project developers and investors that Ohio is turning its back on renewable energy instead of encouraging the growth of the fastest growing source of clean energy in the country,” Campbell said.
First Solar was born in Perrysburg more than two decades ago.
“During this time, most U.S. solar manufacturers shrank, failed or left the U.S. due to intense competition – primarily from heavily subsidized Chinese manufacturers,” Campbell said. “However, First Solar has tripled down on its commitment to Ohio and continues to invest in its research and development, and manufacturing efforts in this market. Since the company’s birth, we’ve contributed well over $3 billion to Ohio’s economy.”
First Solar’s Perrysburg manufacturing operation employs more than 1,250 people.
Last summer, First Solar broke ground on a new $400 million manufacturing facility in Lake Township. That site will create 500 full-time jobs with an estimated annual payroll of $30 million.
“These investments are critical to keeping advanced manufacturing in Ohio competitive with Chinese and other foreign manufacturers,” Campbell said.
Bob Clark-Phelps, group leader of the Perrysburg-Toledo chapter of Citizens’ Climate Lobby, questioned H.B. 6 title as Ohio’s “Clean Air Program.”
It is true, he said, that nuclear energy is a low-carbon source of electricity, and a shut-down of the nuclear power plants in the near future would likely result in higher carbon emissions because the shortfall of electricity generation would most likely be replaced primarily by natural gas.
However, the title is deceptive, Clark-Phelps said.
“It not only effectively prevents any new subsidies from supporting energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, it also guts the current support for these energy sources. And, the bill allows utilities to charge fees to support two coal-fired plants – the dirtiest source of energy,” he said. “The effect of all these changes could well be an increase in carbon emissions.”
Clark-Phelps also questioned the job-saving claims of the bill.
“Because efficiency and renewables are creating new jobs at a faster pace than any other industry in Ohio, the net effect over time will likely be a net loss of jobs as well,” he said.
The Citizens’ Climate Lobby group supports a different approach of continuing the existing efficiency and renewable programs, eliminating the subsidy for coal plants, and putting wind and solar on an equal footing with nuclear for new subsidies.
The Green Party of Ohio shares the same concerns.
“H.B. 6 specifically defines nuclear power as ‘clean’ energy. This is the equivalent of the Ohio state legislature repealing the law of gravity so that we can all have flying cars,” Joe DeMare, political director of the Ohio Green Party, stated in a letter to BG Independent News.
The bill is not only opposed by environmental organizations, but also by many business and industry groups since it eliminates Ohio’s efficiency and alternative energy programs.
According to DeMare, of Bowling Green, the efficiency program has saved Ohio businesses more than $5 billion by providing loans to add insulation to buildings or buy energy efficient lighting or equipment.
“The alternative energy portfolio standard has created a boom in solar installations. Together, they have created over 100,000 jobs, all wiped out if HB6 passes,” DeMare said.
The Green Party is opposed to bailing out nuclear power plants, and taking steps backward on clean energy. The bill will result in higher electric bills and a slower switch to renewable energy, he said.
“Perhaps worse in the long run is the clear signal the law would send to businesses that Ohio is a state opposed to new technology and ideas, not a place for innovative, technologically advanced companies to locate,” DeMare wrote.
