Ohio is one of the states that has no regulation of electricity. Our utility companies are accountable to provide electricity to your office or home. They do not generate the energy, but instead, they let consumers choose from a range of competing suppliers. The prices for this section of your bill update each year based on the results of auctions conducted by our utilities. Our utility will offer an initial price to those who do not shop for their power supply. This is called the “price-to-compare.”
Last year, when the price of power in wholesale markets went through the roof, AEP ohio edison customers were hit hard. Your summer electric bill went up because the company had to purchase costly power from the market. What was the cause? The company reverted to its policy of allowing it to transfer the costs of its own power plants, which reduced the cost of AEP’s power plants.
According to Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, the reversal is part of a series of riders and subsidy that have been pushed since 1999. Another recent example is House Bill 6, which provides subsidies to FirstEnergy’s Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear plants and two 1950s-era coal plants, as well as further weakening the state’s clean-energy standards. Former House Speaker Larry Householder championed the bill and is currently being tried for accepting bribes worth $60 million from FirstEnergy to allow it to be passed.
What’s more, the bill contains a provision that provides an insurance policy for FirstEnergy against lower efficiency savings. Glatfelter claimed that this was a pretty big oversight in the legislative analysis of the bill, particularly when you consider that efficiency programs actually produce savings of their own. For instance, a study showed that energy efficiency programs save Ohioans $2 per month on their electric bills.
The bill also allows the controversial practice of natural-gas producers who label their product as “green power.” A provision in the bill says that “energy produced by natural gas stored underground or on the sea should be deemed green energy” despite the fact that this kind of renewable energy has a much greater carbon footprint than wind and solar energy. The authors of the bill claim that they want to help large companies that use natural gas to fund ESG investments meet their requirements However, critics argue that this type of greenwashing could push up the price of energy for all Ohioans.
Additionally the bill would also prohibit the PUCO from reviewing the environmental policies of a company before approving a request to construct a new coal plant or another power project. Both of these are significant blows to the climate movement in the state. Despite these setbacks we remain hopeful that the Ohio General Assembly, will eventually return to their commitment in 1999 of deregulation and a vibrant green energy economy. Then we can turn our attention to the numerous other issues that need our help. Follow Jake Zuckerman on Twitter @JakeZuckerman.
Counsel, the reversal is part of a series of riders and subsidy that have been pushed since 1999. Another recent example is House Bill 6, which provides subsidies to FirstEnergy’s Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear plants and two 1950s-era coal plants, as well as further weakening the state’s clean-energy standards. Former House Speaker Larry Householder championed the bill and is currently being tried for accepting bribes worth $60 million from FirstEnergy to allow it to be passed.
What’s more, the bill contains a provision that provides an insurance policy for FirstEnergy against lower efficiency savings. Glatfelter claimed that this was a pretty big oversight in the legislative analysis of the bill, particularly when you consider that efficiency programs actually produce savings of their own. For instance, a study showed that energy efficiency programs save Ohioans $2 per month on their electric bills.
