Ohio lawmaker compares clean energy to the Bataan death march

Senator Bill Seitz
Senator Bill Seitz

Ohio State Senator Bill Seitz of Cincinnati (courtesy of The Columbus Dispatch)

When the Ohio GOP leadership introduced SB 310 last month, they intentionally tried to sideline Senator Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati) from the process. We know that Sen. Seitz has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth. He has previously likened the clean energy standards to “Joseph Stalin’s five-year plan,” and he routinely labels his opponents as “enviro-socialist rent-seekers.” But this time he outdid even himself.

Last Wednesday, April 9, Sen. Seitz turned a Senate Public Utilities Committee hearing on SB 310 into a three-ring circus. First, during the middle of testimony from Aaron Jewell, a US Army veteran who fought in Iraq, Sen. Seitz reportedly got up, pulled out a pack of cigarettes, and walked out of the room to take a smoke break.

He came back into the session halfway through the testimony of Dan Sawmiller, a Senior Campaign Representative for the Ohio Beyond Coal Campaign with the Sierra Club. Mr. Sawmiller also served with the Ohio National Guard from 2000-2008, during which time he worked as a combat engineer in Iraq.

Mr. Sawmiller served with 485 other guardsmen and women to clear some of the most dangerous parts of Baghdad of improvised explosive devices, in order to make way for the movement of additional troops and supplies. At least one of his fellow servicemen did not make it home.

During his testimony, he detailed the work he did in Iraq. “I explained how my combat experiences drove my passion to work on energy efficiency and national security issues,” he said. “This drove me to work with the Sierra Club.”

But rather than showing respect and gratitude for his service and simply debating the facts of the clean energy law, Mr. Sawmiller explained that Sen. Seitz made outlandish comments that are offensive to those who have served in our military.

“The Senator referred to the current law as being on the Bataan death march for clean energy,'” he explained. “The more I think about what was said, the more offended I get as a combat veteran.”

Let that sink in for a minute. According to an elected representative of the people of Ohio, a policy that has lowered electricity bills, stimulated economic growth, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and helped spark a clean energy sector that employs more than 25,000 people is on par with an internationally recognized war crime that killed 10,000 American and Filipino soldiers. Not only is such a statement utterly absurd, it insults the memory of the men who died (and those who survived) either on that march from Bataan or in the nightmarish prison camps that followed.

Did I mention that April 9 marked the 72nd anniversary of the surrender at the Bataan Peninsula and the first day of this horrific six-day march.

While Sen. Seitz may dismiss the connection, there is a reason why the United States military has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into renewable energy and energy efficiency – it saves money and, more importantly, lives.

Fossil fuel boosters love to claim that hydraulic fracturing will allow the US to drill its way to energy independence. But, as Brad Plumer explains,

Even if, one day, the United States produces enough oil to satisfy its own needs, it still won’t be entirely “independent” from the rest of the world. That is, the US economy will still be vulnerable to supply shortages or turmoil in the Middle East (for instance). There’s a reason for that. Oil is relatively easy to trade on the global markets.

Because oil is fungible international commodity, the US military will continue to maintain a vital interest in it. In a 2010 article, Roger J. Stern estimated that the US spent at least $6.8 trillion to secure oil reserves from 1976-2007. He calculated that the military costs of securing oil supplies from the Persian Gulf “exceeds the value of Gulf petroleum exports in all years except 1990 and the value of US petroleum imports from the region by roughly an order of magnitude.”

In other words, the US government is spending substantially more money to secure Middle Eastern oil reserves than the oil itself is worth. Stern concluded that, rather than trying to increase the supply of oil, we should curb demand by investing in energy efficiency, as this strategy “would address the core problem.”

Our reliance on fossil fuels has a direct impact upon the performance and flexibility of the armed forces. At least 70% of all tonnage on the battlefield is fuel, leaving the military highly vulnerable to energy market volatility. According to the Department of Defense, the military spent $13.2 billion on fuel for its operations in 2010. Due to the difficulty of delivering fuel to forward operating bases, fuel costs can often exceed $400 per gallon.

This dependence on fossil fuels also creates operational challenges. Infantry soldiers in Afghanistan carry 26 pounds of batteries on missions to power their equipment. This weight hinders their mobility and increases the physical strain on their bodies. That’s why Tremont Electric, a Cleveland-based clean energy company, is working with military contractors to integrate their kinetic energy device, the nPower Peg, into body armor.

And just as Napoleon once said that an army marches on its stomach, today’s military runs on its fuel and water convoys. These convoys are highly vulnerable, however, and became a favorite target for militants in Afghanistan and Iraq. The DoD reports that at least 3,000 US soldiers and military contractors were wounded or killed in raids on such convoys from 2003-2007. This breaks down to roughly one casualty for every 24 convoy trips.

Veterans like Dan Sawmiller and Aaron Jewell are well aware of this intimate connection between energy security and national security, as they saw it every day on the streets of Baghdad. But Sen. Seitz has chosen to demean their service and ignore their voices, because he serves the interests of ALEC and its funders in the fossil fuel industry.

“Clean energy has proven to be a great deal for Ohio’s homeowners and businesses,” Mr. Sawmiller said. In a letter sent yesterday to Senate President Keith Faber (R-Celina), he called on the GOP leadership “to demand respect for the sacrifices that Ohio’s soldiers have made for generations” asking for a more dignified way to debate legislation.

If you are also tired of the Bill Seitz’s continued insults and bloviating, take a stand. Call Sen. Seitz’s office at (614) 466-8068 or send him an email demanding that he apologize to our veterans and stop his mindless attacks on Ohio’s clean energy standards.

GOP beware: Ohio overwhelmingly supports clean energy

ohio statehouse
ohio statehouse

The Ohio Statehouse (courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).

Well, the Ohio GOP is at it again. After Senator Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati) failed to even get the support of his own caucus for SB 58, his bill to mangle Ohio’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards, the GOP leadership has decided to pursue a new course – just letting FirstEnergy decide what to do.

On Friday, Senator Troy Balderson (R-Zainesville) introduced SB 310, a bill to immediately and indefinitely freeze the efficiency and renewables standards at 2014 levels, which would cap them at roughly one-tenth and one-fifth of the final numbers, respectively. The bill looks an awful lot like one that FirstEnergy tried to sneak through the lame-duck legislature under the cover of night in November 2012.

I won’t dive too deeply into the details of the bill or the parade of horribles it will unleash on Ohio, as it has been covered pretty effectively by other outlets; I want to focus on a different perspective, instead. Midwest Energy News has a thorough, useful primer, and the PD was actually ahead of the game by denouncing the bill as “misbegotten” and noting it would take Ohio backwards into the dark, coal-stained days of its past.

Plunderbund goes into great detail on the history and benefits of SB 221, the bill that established the state’s energy standards in 2008, and the likely consequences of SB 310 – higher energy bills, billions in lost economic activity, thousands of jobs foregone, air and water pollution, etc. As the post rightly notes,

Senator Faber made it clear that he hopes to rush this bill through the legislature and have it on the Governor’s desk before the May recess. The GOP is counting on the idea that you aren’t paying attention to this issue or that you will buy into the misinformation they are spreading. The opponents of SB 221 are not looking out for the interests of Ohioans. They are simply defending the economic interests of the fossil fuel industry and electric utilities…

The Ohio GOP is not targeting SB 221 because it has failed to work; they’re targeting it precisely because it has worked so well. In order to defend the well-being of economy, environment, and the people of our state, Ohioans need to protect SB 221.

As the French say, précisément.

But as I said, I wanted to focus on a different angle to this story. Proponents of SB 221, including Senators Seitz and Faber, continue to claim that they are standing up for the interests of ordinary Ohioans, not just their utility company benefactors. Sen. Faber claimed this bill is “based on evidence and science,” while Sen. Seitz, who loves to call his opponents “enviro-socialist rent-seekers,” repeatedly argues that the existing standards “constitute a hidden electricity tax on consumers.”

One would assume that if the standards were truly nothing more than a hidden green tax to benefit a bunch of socialist treehuggers, ordinary Ohioans would be universally opposed to it and happy to call for its appeal. Not quite.

In a poll conducted during February 2013, Ohioans demonstrated their support for the state’s energy mandates. Almost 80% of respondents expressed support for existing policies to require that at least a portion of electricity be generated from clean energy sources, while 65% indicated that they specifically support increasing renewable energy generation as a replacement for coal and natural gas.

Last November, Small Business Majority surveyed Ohio’s small businesses to get their views on the subject. They found that 53% of the state’s small businesses support SB 221 in its current form, while just 43% stood opposed. Moreover, 65% of those surveyed said that renewable energy “can have economic benefits for small business owners, such as lowering utility bills and providing new business opportunities for entrepreneurs.” Ohio’s small businesses know that the mandates have helped drive the development of a vibrant clean energy sector in the state, which already employs more than 25,000 people.

But even more surprising were the results of a survey last July from the Yale Project on Climate Communications. While the main headlines included the fact that 70% of Ohioans believe climate change and occurring, and 49% believe it is manmade, there was some information buried in the report that is germane to this debate. According to the study,

A majority (59%) supports requiring electric utilities to produce at least 20% of their electricity from wind, solar, or other renewable energy sources—even if it costs the average household an extra $100 a year. Comparatively few (35%) would oppose this policy.

Rather than fearing the potential economic impacts of SB 221, Ohioans have embraced them with open arms. That’s because they know that the benefits of the state’s energy mandates far exceed any potential costs. In the same survey, 43% of respondents felt that switching from fossil fuels to clean energy would increase employment and economic growth. And Ohioans want their leaders to act now. Majorities – 54% and 56%, respectively – want Governor Kasich and the state legislature to do more to address climate change, including ramp up clean energy generation.

So the Ohio GOP and their friends at the big utility companies can continue to delude themselves that writing love letters to coal-fired power plants is a winning campaign strategy. But if they sow these seeds of discontent this spring, they’re going to have to reap them in November.

If you care about water, you need to worry about energy production

lakeshore power plant
lakeshore power plant

FirstEnergy’s Lake Shore power plant, which is slated to close this fall, sits along the shore of Lake Erie on Cleveland’s east side. Thermal pollution from the plant has historically prevented the waters near the site from freezing over in winter (courtesy of WKSU.org).

This article is cross-posted from Drink Local. Drink Tap., Inc.

Saturday was World Water Day 2014. This year’s theme centered on the water-energy nexus, a topic which has become increasingly important in recent years.

According to the United Nations, energy production currently accounts for 15% of global water use, a number which is projected to grow to 20% within the next two decades. In the US, this number is significantly higher; the US Geological Survey estimates that electricity production alone makes up 49% of all water use.

Unfortunately, people tend too often to overlook the water-energy nexus until a catastrophic event happens. Water plays a vital role in the entire lifecycle of energy production, and it remains extremely vulnerable to the deleterious consequences that may arise from each step in the process – from extraction to refining to generation to distribution and beyond.

We know, for instance, than at least 20% of streams in West Virginia are heavily degraded due to mountaintop removal mining, an incredibly destructive form of coal extraction. In addition, we have seen several recent mishaps at other stages the process, whether it was the massive Freedom Industries chemical spill on the Elk River (refining), Saturday’s oil tanker spill outside of Houston (distribution), or the major coal ash spill on the Dan River.

Thermal pollution and water quality

But there exists another, less understood impact of energy production on freshwater resources – thermal pollution. The US gets 91% of its electricity from thermoelectric power plants; this category largely includes nuclear power plants and plants that run on fossil fuels. Thermoelectric plants generate massive amounts of heat during electricity generation process. This heat builds up within the plant and forces plant operators to draw in huge amounts of freshwater to cool the generators.

water withdrawals for power production

Daily water withdrawals for power production by state. As the map shows, water use is particularly high in the Great Lakes region (courtesy of the US Geological Survey).

Once-through cooling systems, which take in water once for cooling and then discharge it back into waterways, make up 31% of the US’s power plant fleet. These systems require 20,000-60,000 gallons of freshwater for cooling per megawatt hour (MWh) of energy produced. As a result, the Sierra Club estimates that power plants suck up more than 135 trillion gallons of water (PDF) each year for cooling alone.

This staggering total exacts a serious toll upon aquatic environments. Dicharged water temperatures are, on average, 8-12ºC warmer than the intake temperatures. As Madden, Lewis, and Davis noted in a 2013 study,

Aquatic organisms are highly dependent on specific thermal conditions in aquatic environments; water temperatures above or below optimal thermal regimes can cause stress or even death.

Such thermal pollution can negatively alter aquatic ecosystems in a number of ways. It can reduce the solubility of oxygen, stymie animal growth rates, change nutrient cycling processes, and increase the toxicity of chemicals like heavy metals and pesticides. Accordingly to Madden, Lewis, and Davis, increasing water temperatures by 7ºC has been shown to halve key biological processes, such as growth and reproduction. It’s no surprise, then, that power plants are responsible for the deaths of trillions of fish each year.

How water quality affects energy production

Interestingly enough, however, elevated water temperatures can also harm the efficiency of thermoelectric power plants. As water temperatures increase and stream levels drop, both the suitability and availability of cooling water decreases. During the severe heat wave that struck Western Europe in the summer of 2003, France saw its nuclear energy capacity fall by 7-15% for five consecutive weeks. This event marks a harbinger for our future in a warming world.

Climate change will reduce thermoelectric power production

According to a 2013 article in the journal Global Environmental Change (paywall), climate change will ensure that river temperatures increase significantly for a large swathe of the planet, while low river flows (lowest 10th percentile) will decrease for one-quarter of the global land surface area. Throughout much of the US, mean river temperatures are projected to increase by at least 2ºC, while high water temperatures will climb by 2.6-2.8ºC.

This spike in high water temperatures will be particularly critical for power plants, as they will occur during the period at which both water temperatures and energy demand are highest – the peak of summer. The Clean Water Act sets restrictions on the maximum temperature of water withdrawn and discharged by power plants; while the specific thresholds may vary by state, the temperature is commonly set between 27ºC and 32ºC. Research shows that more than half of all power plants with once-through cooling systems already exceed these numbers, demonstrating the vulnerability of the electricity system to global warming.

Using these numbers, van Vliet et al projected the impact that climate change will have on thermoelectric power plants (paywall) due to the combination of higher water temperatures and decreased river flows. They found that summer capacity for these plants will fall by 4.4-16% from 2031-2060. Moreover, these plants appear extremely sensitive to major reductions (greater than a 90% drop) in output as a result of global warming; the same study concludes that these events will increase nearly three-fold.

The Great Lakes region appears particularly vulnerable to falling electric output in a greenhouse world due to its heavy reliance on an aging fleet of coal-fired power plants. The National Climate Assessment notes that 95% of the Midwest’s electricity generating infrastructure (PDF) will likely see declines in output due to higher temperatures. As climate change increases stress simultaneously on aquatic ecosystems, drinking water supplies, and electricity production, potential conflicts over water uses will almost certainly increase among stakeholders.

Those of us who wish to protect our vital freshwater resources, like the Great Lakes, cannot afford to focus solely upon this sector, given its inextricable links to other areas. We need to worry as well about the stability of our climate and the makeup of our energy system. Renewable energy technologies use substantially less water than fossil fuel plants and will help shift us away from carbon-intensive energy sources. A 2012 study shows that if the US invests heavily in energy efficiency and renewable energy production, by 2050, water withdrawals and water consumption for energy production would fall by 97% and 85.2%, respectively. This shift would save 39.8 trillion gallons of water.

If we want to truly be stewards of our freshwater resources, we need to act as stewards for our climate.

FirstEnergy: The Grinch Who Stole from Ratepayers

firstenergy grinch

Image courtesy of @darth, who is a freaking national treasure.

In this season of giving, FirstEnergy seems intent to give its customers the finger.

Based on Ohio law – SB221, which was passed nearly unanimously in 2008, to be exact – the state’s investor-owned utilities must provide a portion of their electricity from advanced energy sources. By 2025, when the state’s renewable portfolio standard is set to expire, the utilities are required to source at least one-quarter of their electricity from such sources; of this amount, at least half of this total must come from renewable energy sources, like solar and wind.

But recognizing the constraints of quickly ramping up green energy production in a state where it was largely nonexistent before 2009 – along with a wise desire to take advantage of economies of scale – SB221 allowed utilities to buy renewable energy from other providers or to purchase renewable energy credits (RECs) from those providers when sufficient energy is not available. These RECs are an essential component of any renewable energy program.

Unfortunately, FirstEnergy, which rejects the value of energy efficiency/renewable energy and continues to fight aggressively against the mandates, has consistently failed to meet its obligations under the law. Environment Ohio, which grades each of the state’s four major utilities based on how well they abide by the mandates, gave FirstEnergy an F in year 1 and a D- in year 2. FE has come into compliance with the mandates since this point.

But as FE continued to fight the law with one hand and tread water with the other, it decided to purchase a number of RECs to meet its renewable energy mandates. In doing so, however, it drastically manipulated the REC market, allowing it to extract millions of dollars in excessive charges from ratepayers. As Plain Dealer energy reporter John Funk writes:

In a kind of reverse Robin Hood maneuver, FirstEnergy managed to pay the highest known rates for the credits when it bought them in those early years, including some from its affiliate, FirstEnergy Solutions…

[A] management audit by Exeter Associates of Columbia, Md.,found that FES paid up to 15 times more for credits than the Illuminating Co., Ohio Edison and Toledo Edison would have spent had they just paid the fines for not buying the credits.

In fact, the cost of those renewable energy credits was higher than RECs bought anywhere in the country, before or since, the audit noted.

A consultant to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) calculated that FE’s actions allowed it overcharge customers by at least $100 million. NRDC looked at the numbers and came up with $130 million in overcharges. In August, the PUCO called out FE’s malfeasance and required it to return $43.4 million to ratepayers for its manipulation of the REC market.

But rather than acknowledge its wrong doing, FE has decided it won’t go down without a fight. Instead of returning the money back to its customers, the company has filed an appeal of the PUCO’s ruling to the Ohio Supreme Court. It apparently thinks that, as long as you have the money, two wrongs make a right.

So as we approach Christmas, let’s hear it for FirstEnergy, Ohio’s largest private utility and The Grinch Who Stole $100 Million from Ratepayers.

Please pardon my awful parody of Dr. Seuss:

While all Ohioans seemed to like renewable energy a lot, FirstEnergy, who lives above downtown Akron, does not.

The company hated green energy, everything in the sector. It had no good reasons, just some straw men and specters. It could be that it was concerned about costs. It could be, perhaps, that it feared about jobs being lost. But I think that the most like reason for its tantrums and fits may have been that the policy didn’t fit its ideological interests.

Happy holidays.

Cleveland’s Climate Action Plan marks a good first step, but it can get better

Downtown Cleveland, as seen from the Ohio City Farm (courtesy of the Sustainable City Network).

Downtown Cleveland, as seen from the Ohio City Farm (courtesy of the Sustainable City Network).

On Wednesday and just in time for the Independence Day long weekend, the City of Cleveland Office of Sustainability released its long-awaited (by me, anyways) draft Climate Action Plan. As one would expect with a draft report, the city is welcoming public comments, so I went through the document with a fine-toothed comb yesterday. Here are my major takeaways/comments:

  • Methodology: The report really calls out for a detailed methodology section. Part of sustainability is transparency, and failing to provide a clear picture of how you have reached your conclusions undercuts this goal. This methodology could take many forms, such as a complete section at the start of the report or a shorter section at the beginning with a detailed technical appendix at the end. However it is done, this piece is an essential component. It’s important for people reading and tracking the Climate Action Plan to know what emissions scenario was used, where the temperature and precipitation projections are coming from, and whether a sensitivity analysis was completed. I understand the desire to make this easily approachable to the general public, and I laud that. Perhaps the technical annex would be the better alternative.
  • Methodology Part 2: On page 12 of the draft, the report discusses the costs and benefits of the proposed action plan. However, once again, it demands a methodology for how this cost-benefit analysis was completed (provided one actually was). What were the assumptions and parameters that went into this calculation? What was the discount rate (for a good primer on discount rates, read David Roberts’ piece) used? Did it include a sensitivity analysis?
  • Business As Usual Projections: On page 20, the report describes future projections and how its authors put together the Business As Usual (BAU) baseline that was used. Clearly, as with all medium- to long-term climate plans, these projections carry a high level of uncertainty. The report discusses this issue by saying:

Due to the high level of uncertainty associated with this type of forecasting exercise, a flat line BAU forecast was assumed for now. However, this assumption of no growth or decline in emissions can be adjusted in the future to account for changing conditions.

I have to question the decision to approach uncertainty in this manner, however. It seems to me that the best practice for approaching uncertainty is to internalize that uncertainty and attempt to manage the associated risk. Accordingly, I would prefer to see the flat line forecast used as just one of a few different BAU models. It could constitute a mid-range analysis to be supplemented by low-range (conditions improve significantly in the region) and high-range (conditions significantly deteriorate in the region) analyses.

  • Parking Minimums: In Focus Area 3, Sustainable Mobility, the report notes the City’s desire to “reduce single occupancy vehicle mode share from 69% to 62% by 2020, 55% by 2030.” Logically, one action step noted to address this goal is to “review parking space requirements and prioritize advanced parking strategies.” Unfortunately, the report never directly mentions the issue of minimum parking standards. As Matt Yglesias from Slate has discussed on many occasions, minimum parking standards are a major urban planning boondoggle that waste valuable public space, lower economic production, and reduce tax revenues. Cleveland is considerably overbuilt currently, and our abundance of parking is not something we should be proud of. The city was recently included as one of 16 cities in Streetsblog’s “Parking Madness” competition. We should be lamenting the fact that the Warehouse District has undergone this transformation since the 1970s:
Animated GIF showing the transformation of Cleveland's Warehouse District from a vibrant downtown are in the 1970s to a black hole of surface parking lots currently (courtesy of Streetsblog and Rust Wire).

Animated GIF showing the transformation of Cleveland’s Warehouse District from a vibrant downtown area in the 1970s to a black hole of surface parking lots currently (courtesy of Streetsblog and Rust Wire).

  • Plastic Bags: Page 55 of the Climate Action Plan (part of Focus Area 4: Waste Reduction & Resource Conservation) alludes to the challenge of properly managing plastic bag waste:

An organized and coordinated approach to waste reduction and diversion across the Cleveland community, starting with policies that restrict certain materials, such as plastic bags, or divert others, such as organic waste, are important tools in encouraging waste reduction both at the residential and commercial level.

Interestingly, despite noting the issue, the plan never goes so far as to propose implementing a plastic bag tax. It stops short of this approach, calling instead for implementing an “approach that significantly reduces the use of disposable plastic bags, including a public education campaign.”

While I understand that you don’t want to promote a specific approach without studying alternatives, the Climate Action Plan could have at least suggested conducting a study of the extent of plastic bag waste in our watercourses and landfills. This was the first step Washington, DC took prior to implementing its bag tax. The District’s study found that plastic bags accounted for 21% and more than 40% of total waste in the Anacostia River and its tributaries, respectively. Within just the first five months of its program, which applies a $0.05 tax on bags, DC saw plastic bag waste fall by 60% and raised $2.5 million in revenues. Surely a similar program could help reduce Cleveland’s waste stream and improve its paltry 9.25% recycling rate.

Plastic bag pollution has formed an artificial dam in the Anacostia River.

Plastic bag pollution had formed an artificial dam in the Anacostia River in this 2001 photograph.

Overall, I’m pleased with the draft Climate Action Plan, and I think it represents a good first step in the right direction. The City assembled an impressive working group of diverse stakeholders and fielded input throughout the process. That said, I definitely think it can be better, and I hope they will consider my comments. I have also submitted a copy of marked-up version of the plan directly to the Office of Sustainability for their review.

To read the report yourself and submit your comments, visit the Climate Action Plan page at SustainableCleveland.org.

 

Bill Seitz has sure changed his tune on Ohio’s Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard

sb 221 energy efficiency benchmarks

On May 1, 2008, then-Governor Ted Strickland signed Substitute Senate Bill 221 (SB 221), making Ohio one of 29 states (plus DC) in the country to establish energy efficiency resource standards (EERS).

The bill mandates that the state’s investor-owned utilities (IOUs) reduce their energy consumption by 22.2% by 2025. This mandate is broken down into yearly increments – each utility is supposed to meet each annual goal on the path to the overall reduction. For 2013, IOUs must reduce the annual electricity consumption of their customers by 0.9%.

Annual energy efficiency benchmarks for Ohio's investor-owned utilities, as specified by SB221 (courtesy of Mark Rabkin).

Annual energy efficiency benchmarks for Ohio’s investor-owned utilities, as specified by SB221 (courtesy of Mark Rabkin).

The bill also required IOUs to generate at least 25% of their electricity from advanced energy sources by 2026. Of these “advanced energy sources,” at least half must come from true renewable energy sources, like wind and geothermal (the bill includes a 0.5% carve out for solar energy). The other half can come from alternative sources, including “clean coal” (carbon capture and sequestration) and, as of Fall 2011, combined heat and power.

To date, the bill has largely delivered on its promises. According to Environment Ohio, the standards have saved enough energy (negawatts) to power 267,000 houses for a year. Additionally, the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) has sparked the installation of enough solar and wind generation capacity to power 95,000 houses for a year. Furthermore, the bill has contributed to the growth the renewable energy industry in Ohio, making good on the promises of job creation from its proponents. In 2011, Ohio ranked 5th in the country for green jobs, with 137,143. This industry – which had the highest growth rate of any sector in the US economy from 2010-2011 – has contributed significantly to Ohio’s economic recovery. Green jobs account for 2.8% of Ohio’s total workforce, higher the national average (2.6%).

Despite the success of this legislation, the bill has come under attack recently by a group of conservative lawmakers and industry interests. As a part of its broader effort to fight renewable energy at the state level, ALEC has placed SB 221 squarely in its sights. Two conservative state senators – Sen. Kris Jordan and Bill Seitz – are leading this charge. This effort is also the latest assault on energy efficiency and renewable energy in Ohio from FirstEnergy, the electric utility whose incompetence brought you the 2003 East Coast blackout.*

FirstEnergy's failure to properly maintain its Davis-Besse nuclear power plant in Northwest Ohio led to the development of a football-sized hole in the reactor lid. According to a review, the reactor could have been 60 days away from a meltdown (courtesy of The Plain Dealer).

FirstEnergy’s failure to properly maintain its Davis-Besse nuclear power plant in Northwest Ohio led to the development of a football-sized hole in the reactor lid. According to a review, the reactor could have been 60 days away from a meltdown (courtesy of The Plain Dealer).

Last week, Sen. Seitz told the Wall Street Journal that that mandates in SB 221 reminded him of “Joseph Stalin’s five-year plan.” Setting aside the absurdity of this statement, it represents a remarkable shift for Seitz on the bill in just 4 years (he initially proposed to scrap the EERS & RPS entirely in 2011; that bill never made it out of committee). Seitz has conveniently failed to mention that he voted for SB 221 in 2008. In fact, the bill sailed through the Ohio State Senate unanimously. And it passed through the Ohio House by a 93-1 vote. During the debate on the bill, Seitz never offered any opposition to it on the record, nor did he try to amend it in any substantial way.

This is an awfully big change from a legislator who tried to paint himself as a reasonable moderate during the contentious debate over SB 5. Yet, I guess it’s not surprising from a man who has served on the Board of Directors for ALEC and has received nearly $63,000  in campaign contributions since 2000 from industries ALEC represents, including oil and gas.

 

*FirstEnergy has been pushing to kill SB 221, even as it promotes its own rebate programs for energy efficiency made possible by the legislation. Hillariously, as I was writing this post, I received an email from the company promoting their new round of rebates for energy efficient appliances.