This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

Ohio Needs a Clean Energy Future, Not a No-Strings-Attached Bailout

It’s understandable that FirstEnergy’s hometown newspaper, the Akron Beacon Journal, supports its own utility monopoly. Yet justifying that support and advocating for FirstEnergy’s proposed nuclear bailout on environmental grounds is a surprise…and misdirected.

FirstEnergy’s proposal merely is yet another attempt to force customers to prop up its uneconomic power plants. Blanket subsidies for nuclear without any additional considerations will only delay the transition to a cleaner energy future, and we can’t afford to delay.

Background

FirstEnergy made numerous bad business decisions when it doubled down on coal-fired and nuclear power plants around the same time the cost of Ohio-based natural gas was falling. Since those old and uneconomic units can no longer compete in regional electricity markets, the utility has sought subsidies from Ohio legislators and regulators, as well as the federal government. Rather than trim its executive bonuses or shareholder dividends, FirstEnergy wants help from taxpayers or its customers.

Despite federal regulators blocking FirstEnergy’s original bailout attempt, the whack-a-mole utility keeps coming back with new ways to secure handouts. Its latest plea to the Ohio legislature features a $4-billion bailout for two uneconomic nuclear reactors. And although the utility has been fined repeatedly for environmental infractions, it suddenly has discovered an interest in fighting carbon pollution.

Lacking compromise

It’s certainly great to see FirstEnergy and the Akron Beacon Journal recognize the urgency of climate change and the importance of low-carbon energy to help us avoid the worst effects. Yet, that does not mean FirstEnergy’s nuclear proposal is the answer.

FirstEnergy has stubbornly refused to consider compromising or incorporating forward-looking elements like energy efficiency programs and solar job training into its nuclear proposal.

FirstEnergy points to zero-emission credits that Illinois legislators approved last year. Those credits, however, were part of a clean energy economic development package of monumental size, which is set to double the state’s energy efficiency portfolio and provide hundreds of millions for solar job training programs.

FirstEnergy has stubbornly refused to consider compromising or incorporating forward-looking elements like energy efficiency programs and solar job training into its nuclear proposal – instead insisting on a bailout that Ohioans must pay for years to come.

Clean energy promise

Ohio would be wise to prioritize other low- or no-carbon energy sources, rather than subsidize old nuclear plants. A 2016 report by Environmental Defense Fund and The Nature Conservancy showed that ramping up clean energy resources in Ohio would significantly enhance the economy, potentially leading to over 100,000 new jobs and over $5 billion in net benefits.

A recent report from the Government Accountability Office concluded that climate change already is costing U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars every year, and costs are expected to increase. The Akron Beacon Journal is right to suggest Ohio should be taking the realities of climate change into account when making energy decisions. But there are many other pathways – like advancing markets for energy efficiency and low-carbon renewable power – to take action. Ohio should pick a clean energy future, rather than granting FirstEnergy a no-strings-attached nuclear bailout that will raise electricity bills.

By Dick Munson

Original Post

Discussions

Engineer- Poet's picture
Engineer- Poet on Nov 10, 2017

On the contrary, Ohio would be insane to double down on “renewables”.  The troubles of Davis-Besse and Perry come from legislation and over-regulation.  The plants themselves are fine.

The price pressures affecting nuclear power in Ohio come in large part from the very same “renewable” forces now calling for nuclear’s demise.  Ohio has a Renewable Portfolio Standard, not a Clean Portfolio Standard.  Nuclear is clean and generates 24/7 as renewables cannot, but it is not allowed to compete in that market.  It is up against subsidized generators which can sell at below-zero prices and still make money.

The other half of this problem is low natural gas prices (which appear to be produced at a loss in many cases).  Natural gas emits about half as much CO2 per kWh as coal, while nuclear emits practically none.  A modest carbon tax would raise the price of gas-fired power and make nuclear competitive again.  This is why none of the “renewables” legislation or Obama’s “Clean” Power Plan called for a carbon tax; all these initiatives were written by the natural gas industry, with the main goal of pushing nuclear and coal off the grid to obtain monopoly pricing power.

It’s very important for the people of Ohio (and elsewhere) to frustrate this effort and keep energy diversity on the US electric grid.  This goes double for diversity of CLEAN energy.  Nuclear must stay!

EDF  Energy Exchange's picture

Thank EDF for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »