海角破解版

By Kathiann M. Kowalski, Eye on Ohio

A has languished for more than a month so far, and signs suggest House leadership may be angling to defer or stop such efforts as Election Day draws near.

Lawmakers filed repeal bills soon after the arrest of former House Speaker Larry Householder (R-Glenford) and others in July. 

Starting in January, House Bill 6 (HB6) will require ratepayers to pay approximately $1 billion over the course of six years for subsidies FirstEnergy had sought for two Ohio nuclear plants. Yet more is at stake, even beyond the $7 average increase in monthly energy spending some advocates forecast as a result of the law.

The approximately $60 million for an alleged unlawful enterprise came from 鈥淐ompany A鈥� and affiliates 鈥渋n return for legislation that would save the operation of the Nuclear Plants鈥� in the state. Federal prosecutors have charged Householder and others with an , Householder鈥檚 rise to the speakership, the passage of HB6 and the defeat of a referendum effort last year. Federal prosecutors claim the various actions violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. 

Case materials indicate 鈥淐ompany A鈥� is FirstEnergy Corp. Its subsidiary, FirstEnergy Solutions, together with other affiliates, owned and operated the Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear plants. FirstEnergy Solutions from earlier this year and became Energy Harbor.

Only about of the total could be traced from FirstEnergy Solutions and other entities before the federal complaint was released July 21. The rest was 鈥� funding to influence political action whose origin can鈥檛 readily be traced.

State Reps. Mike Skindell (D-Lakewood) and Michael O鈥橞rien (D-Warren) introduced HB738 on July 29. Lawmakers attempted on Aug. 31 to file a motion to compel a floor vote. The effort was thwarted by the House clerk鈥檚 insistence on in-person signatures, even though electronic signatures have been accepted for other purposes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

That same day, new House Speaker Robert Cupp announced plans for a House Select Committee on Energy and Policy Oversight, to which HB738 and other bills would be referred, but without a specific timeline.

鈥淥ur goal is to have an open and thorough process for repealing House Bill 6 and replacing it with thoughtful legislation Ohioans can have confidence in,鈥� Cupp said in a press release.

Skindell, who has decried HB 6 as a 鈥� ,鈥� said the new committee creation was basically just 鈥渁 bureaucratic slowdown of the repeal process.鈥�

鈥淲e don鈥檛 need to study it,鈥� said Rep. David Leland (D-Columbus), referring to hundreds of hours of testimony on HB6 from last year. 鈥淲e need to repeal it. We need to send a strong message to everybody, loud and clear, that Ohio is not for sale.鈥� 

In this Tuesday, July 21, 2020 file photo, then-Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder leaves the federal courthouse after an initial hearing following charges against him and four others alleging a $60 million bribery scheme, in Columbus, Ohio. [Jay LaPrete, file / AP]

HB 738鈥檚 cosponsors include more than three dozen lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. Other lawmakers, however, have the bailout law, including both co-sponsor Jaime Callender (R-Concord) and House Majority Floor Leader Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati). There has also been some talk of a repeal with a delayed effective date, but Seitz said he opposes that as well.

But backers of efforts to repeal HB 6 say public integrity demands swift and decisive action from the state鈥檚 lawmakers. 

鈥淥hioans deserve honest government,鈥� said Dan Sawmiller, Ohio energy policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. 鈥淭he only way to provide confidence in that is to advance a full and complete repeal of House Bill 6 immediately.鈥�

But the bill鈥檚 costs will also certainly play a part in the repeal debate. 

鈥淗ardworking Ohioans will see their monthly utility bill increase an additional $7.01,鈥� on average, said Miranda Leppla, vice president of energy policy for the Ohio Environmental Council. Other projected costs include health burdens from pollution, lost jobs and lost economic opportunities.

Here鈥檚 a breakdown of projections.

Approximately $1 billion in ratepayer charges would subsidize the Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear plants in Ohio.

The law authorizes $150 million per year from 2021 through 2027 for the two nuclear plants now owned by Energy Harbor, the renamed company that emerged from the FirstEnergy Solutions bankruptcy in February. 

鈥淭here will be no significant impacts to FirstEnergy if HB 6 is repealed and not replaced,鈥� said FirstEnergy Corp. spokesperson Mark Durbin. The company has said it is now independent of Energy Harbor and has denied any wrongdoing related to the alleged criminal conspiracy.

Yet FirstEnergy may already have reaped huge benefits from the law. As a of FirstEnergy Solutions when the bankruptcy case began, the company presumably had a business interest in a successful reorganization. Previously, FirstEnergy said the plants would without subsidies. And HB6 arguably helped the company separate itself from most of its former financial burdens.  

FirstEnergy also has at least an indirect interest in the ongoing financial viability of the nuclear plants. Under an April 2019 revision to the plan for reorganization, there might still be some financial for if Energy Harbor fails to meet its financial obligations.

Riders could subsidize up to $450 million for electricity from one 1950s-era coal plant in Ohio and another in Indiana.

HB6 authorizes charges of up to $1.50 per month through 2030 for utilities to pay for electricity from two Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) coal plants. Customer for the OVEC plants could total as much as . 

HB6 lets utilities collect the OVEC riders starting in . Customers of , Duke Energy and Dayton Power and Light had for those plants under prior rate plans. FirstEnergy Solutions鈥� bankruptcy had let it back out of its prior OVEC obligations, but FirstEnergy鈥檚 utility customers are now as well.

A repeal of HB6 immediately invalidate the charges, according to attorneys Madeline Fleisher and Terrence O鈥橠onnell at Dickinson Wright in Columbus. Some regulatory action might be necessary to revise utility rates, and regulators鈥� response is uncertain. Anything paid so far would , based on prior Ohio Supreme Court rulings.

A handful of grandfathered solar projects would get $140 million.

HB6 authorizes up to $20 million per year for a of solar projects that had already gotten permits. Charges for those projects don鈥檛 kick in until 2021. Other new solar or wind projects do not get any funds.

HB6 adds decoupling provisions to help make utilities 鈥渞ecession proof.鈥�

Separate provisions in HB6 allow utilities to ask regulators to let them collect revenues pegged to 2018 levels 鈥� at least until their next major rate plan. The 2018 rates generally included a rider for lost profits that utilities would otherwise have given up due to energy efficiency. But now utilities aren鈥檛 required to provide those programs after this year. 

鈥淔rom the standpoint of businesses and households affected by this, they could end up getting charged for energy efficiency and not receiving it,鈥� said Noah Dormady, an energy and economic policy analyst at The Ohio State University. 鈥淚n other words, they could be paying for efficiency but not receiving any of the benefits.鈥�

Utility rate plans, including those from 2018, also have some built-in , which may flow to unregulated parent or affiliate companies.

The average additional decoupling charge for FirstEnergy customers is about $0.67 per month, according to the Ohio Environmental Council. FirstEnergy President and CEO Chuck Jones acknowledged the decoupling provision helped of the 2020 pandemic when he gave this year鈥檚 first quarter results. 

Charges for Ohio鈥檚 clean energy standards are removed, but so are cost savings.

HB6 remove any additional energy efficiency requirements after 2020. It also scales back the renewable energy portfolio standard so the top target to be achieved by 2026 is now 8.5 percent of annual electricity generation, instead of 12.5 percent. However, the baseline for calculating each year鈥檚 total generation now won鈥檛 count various large industrial users.

A May 22 memo from economist Russ Keller at the Ohio Legislative Service Commission claims the cumulative cost savings from cutting customer charges for the clean energy programs would be about through 2030. The memo was addressed to advisor Pat Tully of the House Majority Caucus.

鈥淢ore charges were cut than were added,鈥� , in defense of HB6. Seitz has long sought to Ohio鈥檚 renewable energy and energy efficiency standards.

The Keller memo鈥檚 calculations left out any benefits that would have been gained from keeping the standards in place. Prior law imposed a cost-effectiveness requirement on charges for utilities鈥� energy efficiency programs. The programs had to save consumers more overall than their cost.

So, focusing only on the cost of those programs gives a 鈥渟kewed and inaccurate view鈥� of energy efficiency, Sawmiller said. 鈥淓nergy efficiency has saved Ohioans over $7 billion to date. It鈥檚 a no-brainer.鈥�

The Ohio Environmental Council and Environmental Law & Policy Center found those savings averaged based on 2017 utility reports. And that amount doesn鈥檛 include additional savings due to energy efficiency鈥檚 impacts on the electricity market, which averaged another , according to a 2019 report prepared for the organizations.

Using just the $7.71 savings figure, the Ohio Environmental Council estimates the average residential customer鈥檚 net spending for electricity will be $7.01 more per month with HB6 than without it. 

Repeal backers say HB6 will cause Ohio to lose jobs and economic opportunities.

鈥淗B6 threatens the gains we鈥檝e made in adding more than 114,000 good-paying clean energy jobs and the economic livelihood of Ohioans working in those jobs,鈥� said Leppla. That number comes from released in June by Environmental Entrepreneurs and the Clean Energy Trust.

The law 鈥渁lso threatens of this critical sector and our fight against the ever-increasing impacts of climate change on Ohio communities,鈥� Leppla continued. Companies in the clean energy sector would invest instead, advocates say. 

The law also discourages investments from other companies that as part of their business goals, repeal backers say. since 2012 have also had negative impacts, including a that tripled property line setbacks for wind turbines.

If Ohio鈥檚 policies were welcoming to clean energy, the state could add and attract in investments over the course of two decades, according to a 2018 report by Synapse Energy Economics of Cambridge, Mass., which was funded by the Environmental Defense Fund, with input from various businesses and research groups.

HB6 comes with some health and environmental costs.

鈥淚f Ohio鈥檚 renewable energy and efficiency standards aren鈥檛 reinstated, Ohioans will experience dirtier air, and we won鈥檛 receive the projected health benefits that these standards provide 鈥� prevention of o and more 鈥� all attributable to coal-plant pollution.鈥� Leppla said. 

The figures come from a 2015 report prepared for the Natural Resources Defense Council, Ohio Environmental Council, Environmental Law & Policy Center, and the League of Conservation Voters. Leppla noted the subsidies make it easier for the coal plant to past 2022. 

What鈥檚 next?

For now, the timeline to repeal HB6 鈥� if at all 鈥� remains uncertain. And it鈥檚 unclear whether any definitive action will take place before in-person and mail-in starts in Ohio on Oct. 6. 

If a repeal doesn鈥檛 come before voting starts, Leland said, 鈥渋t sends a message that corruption is okay in Ohio.鈥�

鈥淥hio, and the rest of the world, continue to grapple with a pandemic that is having devastating impacts on our economy, as well as our health,鈥� Sawmiller said. 鈥淭he state鈥檚 clean energy workers 鈥� and their families 鈥� should not be made to suffer in an effort to protect this legislation, which was passed through a process now mired in criminal investigations.鈥�

An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the federal indictment against Larry Householder alleged "Company A" had spent $600 million in an unlawful enterprise. The correct amount is $60 million.

This article is provided by , the nonprofit, nonpartisan Ohio Center for Journalism, in partnership with the nonprofit Joining their  , or the mailing list for , this helps provide more public service reporting.