Name: Ohio's utility bribery scandal could cost the public billions more than previously thought
Brand: grist.org
SKU: grist-org-40
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Ohio's utility bribery scandal could cost the public billions more than previously thought

preview

PublishedApr 02, 2021TopicShare/RepublishOhio’s notorious House Bill 6 was passed in 2019 as the result of a that poured $61 million into campaign contributions, bribes, and dark money groups, according to the FBI — all to ensure that four unprofitable coal-fired and nuclear energy plants could continue operating. The $1.3 billion cost of the bailout bill known as HB6 was passed on to utility customers.&nbsp;But suggests that the true public cost of HB6 is likely far higher. In addition to the nuclear and coal bailout, the bill also diminished the state’s standards requiring utilities to increase their energy efficiency. According to the new report, even if the state were to see modest gains in energy efficiency every year, Ohioans could avoid more than $2 billion in excess utility bills and $7 billion in health care costs stemming from pollution. With HB6 still on the books, however, such savings seem unlikely. Despite the nationwide scandal stemming from the legislation — and the arrest of former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder — efforts to repeal the bill have stalled, as have more voluntary efforts by utilities to implement efficiency programs.The report, which was issued last month by Gabel Associates, an energy consulting firm, calculates the statewide benefits of an annual energy savings of 1, 1.5, and 2 percent by Ohio-based utilities from 2021 to 2030. While the 1 percent scenario would save Ohioans $2 billion in utility costs and $7 billion in health care costs, the 2 percent scenario would increase those amounts to a staggering $7 billion and $19 billion, respectively. The study’s authors contend that all these possibilities are within reach for the Buckeye State.“The scenarios that we had looked at are already happening nationally, so they’re not really far out of reach,” said Brendon Baatz, vice president of Gabel Associates. “They’re very realistic and possible in Ohio.”&nbsp;To support our nonprofit environmental journalism, please consider to allow ads on Grist.The estimated health care costs are due to the effects of fossil fuel pollution on human health, including respiratory illnesses, asthma, and increased morbidity. Significant nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide emissions from power plants could all be avoided if the state had greater energy efficiency, leading to lower health care costs. In the 1.5 percent energy savings scenario, more than 140 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, 103,000 tons of sulfur dioxide emissions, and 93,000 tons of nitrogen oxide emissions would be avoided. The savings estimates didn’t include the benefits of decreased particulate matter pollution, which can have on human health.&nbsp;Even setting aside environmental benefits, the analysis found that energy efficiency programs would provide 2.7 to 3.6 times more benefit than cost for Ohio.&nbsp;The was commissioned by the Ohio Hospital Association, the Environmental Law &amp; Policy Center, the Ohio Environmental Council, Ceres, E2, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The primary authors, Brendon Baatz and Isaac Gabel-Frank, calculated the costs by using past utility energy program data, forecasts for electricity usage, and models estimating economic benefits and pollution costs.Before HB6, Ohio’s utilities were required to to reach a cumulative energy efficiency savings by 2027, but with its passage that standard was watered down in such a way that the utilities were able to meet the diminished goals in 2020, and end their efficiency programs early. Hypothetically, the utilities can still voluntarily propose energy efficiency programs to their regulator, the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, but the Commission has so far denied two utilities that have tried to do so, citing uncertainty over the future of HB6.To support our nonprofit environmental journalism, please consider to allow ads on Grist.Randi Leppla, vice president of energy policy with the Ohio Environmental Council, said that the unclear future of HB6 was no reason for the Commission to stifle voluntary programs. “In our opinion, there is the opportunity and ability for the Public Utilities Commission to approve voluntary programs,” she told Grist. “That is outside of what was repealed by House Bill 6.”The only newsroom focused on exploring solutions at the intersection of climate and justice.&nbsp;Our in-depth approach to solutions-based journalism takes time and proactive planning, which is why Grist depends on reader support. Your gifts keep our unbiased, nonprofit news site free. Donate today, and your gift will be matched dollar for dollar.&nbsp;The only newsroom focused on exploring solutions at the intersection of climate and justice. Your support keeps our unbiased, nonprofit news free. Donate today, and your gift will be matched dollar for dollar.&nbsp;To support our nonprofit environmental journalism, please consider to allow ads on Grist.Sponsored by Friends of the Columbia Gorge

PublishedApr 02, 2021TopicShare/RepublishOhio’s notorious House Bill 6 was passed in 2019 as the result of a that poured $61 million into campaign contributions, bribes, and dark money groups, according to the FBI — all to ensure that four unprofitable coal-fired and nuclear energy plants could continue operating. The $1.3 billion cost of the bailout bill known as HB6 was passed on to utility customers.&nbsp;But suggests that the true public cost of HB6 is likely far higher. In addition to the nuclear and coal bailout, the bill also diminished the state’s standards requiring utilities to...

public

Jena Brooker

Nonprofit news org providing vital reporting on our changing planet. We're keeping all aspects of the climate crisis — seen and unseen — in the public square.

Ohio's utility bribery scandal could cost the public billions more than previously thought

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS