Ohio’s new bill could constitute a de facto statewide ban on solar and wind energy

It’s not just federal issues that threaten to limit renewable energy development. State and local restrictions on solar and wind energy are also spreading across the United States.

Few states highlight this fact as well as Ohio. The Buckeye State poses additional hurdles for solar and wind farms that don’t apply to fossil fuel or nuclear power plants, including the possibility for counties to ban the projects. The local authorities did this as well postponed Down local opposition for renewable energy, while granting opponents little to say over places where drilling platforms and fracking waste may end up.

A bill currently working its way through Ohio’s Republican-controlled Legislature threatens to raise even more barriers to wind and solar farms. The Ohio Senate Energy Committee held its third hearing on Tuesday Senate bill 294. His unclear whether the commission will hear additional testimony, so in accordance with Art state law the bill may be withdrawn from committee at the next meeting.

The bill would state that this is state policy“in all cases” for new electricity generating plants in order to“apply affordable, reliable and neat energy sources.”

However, the definitions contained in the draft act not only deviate from common apply in a way that excludes renewable energy sources, but also threatens to completely block the development of wind and solar energy.

“If Senate Bill 294 were enacted, the Ohio Power Plant Siting Board would be unable to support renewable energy projects under the bill’s restrictive definition. “It would put Ohio at a disadvantage,” Evangeline Hobbs, deputy director of the American Clean Power Association, said in joint testimony for the group and another industry organization MARCH Action. ​“At precisely a time when Ohio needs every energy source available, this bill will tie the state’s hands.”

Based on model law from the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, SB 294 is sponsored by Republicans George Lang of West Chester and Mark Romanchuk of Ontario.

Louisiana passed a similar bill Last year, the priority was natural gas. Pending Bill in New Hampshire claims energy sources““should” be reliable, meaning it is not subject to routine, daily weather fluctuations.

Lang praised natural gas during his October speech. 28 supporter testimony, noting that the bill targets the apply of fossil fuels. However, he claimed that it was about renewable energy“it doesn’t meet the criteria of being cheap. He lacks reliability… And he’s not really clean yet.” In February 10 hearing, however, stated that solar and wind energy were not in fact excluded and emphasized that“there are definitions that must be followed.”

These definitions apply equally to renewable energy sources.

SB 294the definition of a reliable energy source would require it to be:“easily accessible” with minimal interruption during periods of heavy use and to ensure 50% efficiency factor. It is the ratio of the actual output power to the potential maximum. This condition would exclude virtually all land-based wind and solar energy generation.

High efficiency factor“does not mean that the energy source will be available during extreme weather conditions or even generally available during peak hours,” said Michelle Solomon, electricity manager at Energy Innovation, an energy and climate policy think tank. In practice, network operators ​“consider how combinations of resources in the network can work together to meet needs.

Rather than ensuring the reliability of the entire system, focusing solely on the high efficiency factor will distort markets and raise costs for consumers, noted Brendan Pierpont, director of electricity at Energy Innovation.

In fact, high renewable energy penetration may reduce intensity of blackouts and susceptibility to extreme weather conditions, in accordance with A 2024 peer-reviewed study in Nature Energy. Generally speaking, a portfolio of resources for power generation is more reliable than being dependent on just a few sources.

“Reliability is not really a feature of a specific technology,” said Diane Cherry, MARCH Deputy Director of Action. ​“And so taking things out of‘“all of the above” is a problem.”

SB 294The prospect of what counts as neat energy is even more questionable than its definition“reliability.”

According to the regulations, natural gas is called“clean energy,” and language in the bill could potentially even deem some coal-fired power plants neat. Solar and wind power, meanwhile, are only implied to be neat by reference in the bill to federal law that deems them so. Nuclear energywhich is emission-free at the time of production, but produces radioactive waste before AND After this point is also called“clean.”

Definition““inexpensive source of energy” also deviates from the common meaning of these words.

Data published by consulting firm Wood Mackenzie in October last year show that onshore solar and wind installations have lower average operating costs, called their“levelized cost” compared to other types of energy. Since then, storage costs have also dropped significantly 2020and it will probably happen autumn even more.

Still“the bill appears to require energy that is cheaper than renewable energy, which does not actually exist,” Solomon said.

Ultimately, consumers would pay within the rules at a time when utility bills are already rising rapidly. Failure to add more neat energy sources to PJM The interconnection region will cost the average Ohio customer approximately $6,500 more by 2035 than they would otherwise pay, American Clean Power said in a February report. 6 information sheet.

Generally, SB 294 adds uncertainty to the industry and investors at a time when they want to build projects, Cherry said. Many companies do under the gun start construction in July 4 or put projects into operation until the end 2027 to obtain federal tax credits.

The draft bill also does not mention energy storage, which may require permits from the authority responsible for locating the power plant. Combining storage with renewable energy sources raise their efficiency factor.

““Energy storage will be increasingly important to grid reliability and cost control,” said Nolan Rutschilling, managing director of energy policy at the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund, calling for amendments to the bill to include storage so that the board ​“has a full suite of design assessment tools that can ensure reliability without increasing fuel price volatility or long-term costs for customers.”

For their part, representatives ALEC and the Heartland Institute provided testimony last fall from supporters of the bill.

They both are“is among the most prominent climate change denial organizations funded by fossil fuel interests,” said Dave Anderson, policy and communications manager at the Energy and Policy Institute. But they also ​“pretend to be completely free-market and libertarian,” he added, which is ironic given the bill’s potential to distort the market in favor of fossil fuels.

For this purpose SB 294 ​“will destroy competition by declaring renewable energy unreliable and picking winners and losers,” said Janine Migden-Ostrander, who previously served as a consumer advisor in Ohio and is a fellow at the Pace Energy and Climate Center. ​“The legislator should not decide about this. Let’s let the market decide. If the projects prove uneconomical, they will not be built.”