Supporters of Nuclear Energy

Supporters of nuclear energy,

Ohio legislation supporting the state’s nuclear plants is in trouble. Success of the bill (HB 6) has big implications for both New York’s largest nuclear plant (Indian Point) and our own Diablo Canyon. Its passage is considered by many to be essential to the future of U.S. nuclear power.

That’s probably why natural gas interests have mounted the largest issue-related campaign in Ohio history to kill HB 6. With $millions spent on TV commercials, they intend to convince Ohio voters the plants are old, unnecessary, and would need to be “bailed out” - fossil-fuel-speak for allowing nuclear plants to compete on a level playing field. The bill is being debated right now in the Ohio Energy and Utilities Committee, and is scheduled to either be dropped, or sent to the Senate for confirmation tomorrow (Ohio Governor Mike DeWine supports it). The Ohio legislature adjourns for the summer Thursday, and if the bill hasn’t been passed Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear plants will close.

----------------

ACTION ITEM: Please call the office of

1) The committee’s chairman, Senator Steve Wilson, and

2) Senator Larry Obhof, Speaker of the Senate

and let them know HB 6 is not only important for Ohio ratepayers (they will save money) but for New York, California, and other states with struggling nuclear plants. Even though we’re not constituents, a personal plea about what clean energy means to you, and to the environment, can make a difference.

Senator Steve Wilson

Senate Building
1 Capitol Square
1st Floor

Columbus, OH 43215

Hometown: Maineville

(614) 466-9737

Senator Larry Obhof

Statehouse
1 Capitol Square
2nd Floor

Columbus, OH 43215

Hometown: Medina

(614) 466-7505

----------------

More information below.

Carl Wurtz
Vice President
Californians for Green Nuclear Power

Zero Emission Credits (ZECs) Aren't "Bailouts." Zero emission credits for nuclear plants are being labeled "bailouts" in press reports - BS. They’re not a tax credit either, but a fee clean electricity plants are permitted to add to the wholesale cost of their electricity, as a reward, reflecting the benefit the public receives from clean air and preventing climate change. This avoided cost of carbon is based upon the EPA’s "social cost of carbon”, currently estimated at $42/ton of CO2 prevented. Most ZECs start out lower, then are increased annually.

ZECs Level the Playing Field. Ohio's proposed zero emission credit applies to both nuclear and solar energy on equal terms.

Double-Counting is Prohibited. With Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), renewable sources currently receive twice as much credit as they're due by "double-counting" the value of their generation. It works like this: for each megawatthour (MWh) of energy coming from a solar/wind farm, operators are awarded a certificate by the state which can be sold to utilities to erase an equal part of their dirty generation to help meet their clean-energy quota. By transferring credit for their clean energy, utilities would logically assume responsibility for the cancelled emissions in return - but they don't. Customers are supposed to believe the emissions they've already created vanish into thin air.

Like a Carbon Tax, but Backwards. Instead of penalizing consumption of carbon, ZECs reward non-consumption by paying generators to not use dirty fossil fuels to generate electricity. Though it adds a minor cost to customers’ bills, studies show keeping nuclear plants plants open has saved hundreds of $millions more by preventing utilities from having to buy expensive gas-fired electricity, at market rates, to meet predictable baseload demand - something nuclear does better, and cheaper, than anything else.

OHIO

Battles erupt over new nuclear 'bailout' plan

Jeffrey Tomich, E&E News reporter

With just days before the Ohio Legislature adjourns for the summer, the state Senate introduced the latest revisions to a divisive bill to subsidize the state's two nuclear plants along Lake Erie and a pair of Cold War-era coal plants.

The latest version of H.B. 6 still includes the $150 million in aid that FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. said is necessary to keep the Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear plants running and would guarantee that millions of dollars continue flowing to coal plants owned by Ohio utilities.

The new draft adds up to $20 million specifically set aside for utility-scale solar projects. But like the previous version of the bill, it would significantly water down the state's modest clean energy standards.

The funding for nuclear and solar payments would come from a surcharge on Ohio utility consumers ranging from 85 cents for residential customers to $2,400 for the largest energy users.

The energy debate in Ohio has been simmering since Ohio legislators introduced a proposal in April to keep the FES nuclear plants running and weaken or eliminate the state's clean energy mandates (Energywire, April 15).

Unlike Illinois or New York, which paired nuclear subsidies and ambitious plans to add more wind and solar generation to help curb carbon emissions, Ohio legislators want to help both nuclear and coal plants — provisions that have raised the ire of renewable energy developers and the fossil fuel industry.

The American Petroleum Institute has challenged H.B. 6 because the measure would weaken the business case for new natural gas-fired generation in Ohio, the eastern part of which sits on the Utica and Marcellus shale formations.

Yesterday, generator LS Power said it would pull the plug on a 500-megawatt, $500 million expansion of its plant in Troy, Ohio, if the bill passes.

"The handouts to nuclear plants jeopardize the economics of the other already economic generators, including the Troy facility, which could chill investment and lead to the unintended consequence of reduced reliability for Ohio's electric generation fleet," LS Power said in a statement.

Environmental groups, too, remain opposed, saying the latest Senate draft offers no improvement.

"We're bailing out nuclear and bailing out coal plants built in the 1950s, and we're paying for that by diverting money from new renewable energy projects and energy efficiency programs," said Dan Sawmiller of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Sawmiller said the $20 million for five utility-scale solar projects already approved by the Ohio Power Siting Board is helpful, but the bill also would eliminate the solar carve-out provision in the state's renewable energy standard, which hurts rooftop solar.

The bill would also weaken Ohio's energy efficiency standard. Advocates said the latest bill would even prohibit utilities from running customer-funded efficiency programs once existing programs reach a certain energy savings threshold.

Trish Demeter of the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund said the Legislature continues to miss on its stated goal of proposing energy policy that helps Ohio's economy, creates jobs and improves air quality.

"The best-case scenario is they pump the brakes in a major way and really get serious about comprehensive energy legislation," Demeter said.

Environmental advocates, consumer groups and the natural gas industry also aligned in their opposition to a provision in H.B. 6 that would lock in subsidies for two coal plants along the Ohio River for the next decade.

H.B. 6 would provide a $1.50 monthly surcharge on residential customers ($1,500 for large industrial energy users) to support the plants owned by the Ohio Valley Energy Systems Corp.

The coal plants are already being subsidized for the next three years under orders approved by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). But several Ohio utilities, including OVEC's largest owners AEP, Duke Energy Ohio and Buckeye Power Inc., have lobbied lawmakers for years to ensure the subsidies by putting them in statute.

Akron-based FES, which is trying to emerge from Chapter 11 reorganization, has kept the pressure on lawmakers to act.

FES initially said it needed legislation by June 30 to provide enough lead time to order $50 million of fuel for the David-Besse plant. But the company backed off the deadline when lawmakers failed to pass a bill last month.

A company spokesman couldn't be reached for comment yesterday afternoon.

And the nuclear deadline coincides with an even bigger deadline for Ohio lawmakers, who face mounting pressure to pass a budget this week after missing a June 30 deadline. The legislature passed a 17-day temporary budget, which expires tomorrow.

The state Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee didn't vote on the substitute bill. The committee is set to meet again tomorrow morning; just the full Senate meets for a possible vote on the budget.

If the latest bill version is passed by the Senate, the House would have to approve it or the chambers would have to reconcile differences in the bills.

The House is scheduled to meet Thursday, if necessary, before adjourning for the summer. And passing a bill to subsidize the nuclear reactors is a priority for state House Speaker Larry Householder (R).

Gov. Mike DeWine (R) met with Householder and state Senate President Larry Obhof (R) last week to discuss the budget and nuclear bill.

DeWine maintained his support for keeping nuclear plants open in a way that doesn't increase electric rates.

"I think it's important that Ohio be able to have carbon-free energy that we produce," DeWine told news service Gongwer. "Ninety percent of that carbon-free energy come from nuclear power plants today. They employ a lot of people. It's important that these nuclear power plants continue."