COLUMBUS, Ohio — House Bill 6, recently revealed to be at the center of a federal corruption investigation into the Ohio Statehouse, is best known as a $1 billion bailout for two Ohio nuclear plants.
But aside from the corruption that federal prosecutors have said fueled the nuclear portion of the bill, HB6 also provided tens of millions of dollars for a few designated solar projects in Southwest Ohio, including at least one with politically prominent backers.
When fully operational, the projects, the first large-scale solar farms in Ohio, will generate 650 megawatts per year, enough to power almost 200,000 homes. Their inclusion allowed bill sponsors to accurately claim the bill funded renewable energy.
However, the projects’ funding vexed Ohio’s community of renewable energy advocates and environmentalists, since HB6 gutted a larger requirement for power companies to provide a certain percentage of their electricity through renewable sources, and also eliminated a ratepayer fee that financed energy efficiency programs.
“It didn’t do anything good for the industry as a whole, but it did do good for these few projects,” said Randi Leppla, vice president of energy policy for the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund, which supports repealing the bill.
Where the projects stand
The nuclear and solar funding is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, financed through new fees on Ohioans’ electricity bills.
With that in mind, the projects have been moving toward construction. But now that lawmakers are debating repealing HB6 due to its alleged corrupt origins, the proposed solar farms’ financing calculations could be in flux.
“We need to get financing for the project, and that’s up to the financial markets,” said Stephanie Williams, a lobbyist for Innergex, the developer behind the Hillcrest solar project in Brown County that’s more than halfway through construction and slated to be complete in December. “And the more HB6 is brought up and the repeal is talked about, the less financial markets want to look at a place like Ohio to put money.”
Craig Sundstrom, a lobbyist for RWE Renewables, said the company’s Willowbrook project in Highland County will go forward “with or without” House Bill 6. Construction hasn’t yet begun, and it’s not scheduled to be complete until 2022.
But he said it’s hard to tell how the repeal legislation could affect the broader market for solar projects. Legislators are considering whether to reinstate renewable energy standards, which would provide a boost to the industry. Republican critics on the other hand have described renewable energy as heavily subsidized and relatively unreliable, and have said the mandates gave it an artificial advantage over more traditional energy sources.
“We don’t really know where things are going. But our interest really is in a robust market that encourages clean energy development in the state to the extent that we can achieve that goal,” Sundstrom said.
Officials with Hecate Energy, the developers behind a third solar farm in Highland County slated for HB6 subsidies, didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Solar developers have eyed southern Ohio in part because of the abundance of flat land and relatively low energy consumption, which leaves excess capacity within the system.
In general, there is an increased market demand for solar power in Ohio as more companies set benchmarks to obtain their power from renewable sources, according to Jason Rafeld, the executive director of a new professional association called the Utility Scale Solar Energy Coalition of Ohio, whose members include the three projects funded through HB6. Industry backers on Monday released an Ohio University study that depending on the level of construction, solar projects could power between 500,000 and 1.5 million homes and prompt $3.2 billion to $9.6 billion in economic activity over the next 40 years.
Rafeld said he currently doesn’t anticipate any direct impact to ongoing projects funded through HB6.
“However, as the future of HB6 and any possible replacement is unclear, so is any potential impact on projects covered by the legislation,” he said.
Rep. Shane Wilkin, a Highland County Republican and co-sponsor of House Bill 6, said in an interview the three funded projects will deliver millions of dollars in property tax revenues to local schools once they’re up and running. The area otherwise is rural with little developed property tax base, he said.
“It’s a huge deal for them to see those solar projects come through,” he said.
Legislative history
Then-House Speaker Larry Householder tapped two House members, Wilkin and state Rep. Jamie Callender, as bill co-sponsors shortly after he got his leadership position in January 2019.
The bill initially was touted as a “clean-energy” bill. An original draft version would have created a $300 million a-year “clean air” fund, financed by a fee charged to Ohio ratepayers, half of which was to have gone to the two nuclear plants previously owned by FirstEnergy. The other half would be available to “clean air” projects, including wind and solar projects.
But on May 22, House leaders overhauled the bill to reduce the “clean air” fund to $190 million, and make it mostly available to the nuclear plants, cutting out wind and solar.
The following week, a House committee that normally plays a perfunctory role in sending legislation to the House floor first made the unusual move of adding $20 million of solar funding in as an amendment to the bill. The next day, the bill was approved by the full House.
Eligibility was carved out to narrowly apply to six large-scale projects in more advanced levels of state approval. The three previously mentioned projects — owned by Innergex, RWE Renewables and Hecate Energy — ended up getting funding.
After the solar funding was added, David Wilhelm, a Hecate Energy partner and former Democratic National Committee chairman, became a rare voice in Ohio renewable energy circles to testify in favor of the bill.
He told members of the state Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee in June 2019 the bill would “trigger the launch of a new utility-scale solar industry” in Ohio.
“HB6 is a game changer when it comes to the primacy of clean electricity in the State of Ohio,” he said, according to a written copy of his testimony. “Can the legislation be improved? Sure, we are only in the first quarter of the game. But as far as I’m concerned, the right point of departure is not HB6 versus some hoped-for nirvana, but rather HB 6 versus current law. And HB6 is a much better platform than current law, when it comes to the development of solar power plants.”
Wilhelm was not the only politically prominent voice who spoke in favor of the solar projects.
In December 2019, a group of advocates held a press conference to promote the two Highland County solar projects ahead of a key regulatory vote by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
At the time, the projects were backed by American Electric Power, which had recently been denied by the PUCO its request to charge customers for the costs of building the projects.
Among the speakers was Matt Evans, president of Boich Companies, a politically active coal company that was a key supporter of Householder’s run for House Speaker.
Evans presented himself at the press conference as an advocate for Appalachia and rural Ohio. He’s also described himself elsewhere as an “advocate for utility-scale solar development with a focus in southern Ohio.” He urged PUCO commissioners to vote for the project.
“I believe quite frankly Columbus has ignored this part of the state for the last several years. And I believe this is an opportunity starting now to give some good news to Appalachia. This project is just one step in the right direction for economic development in this part of the state,” he said.
Mike Dawson, a Boich Companies spokesman, said Friday neither Evans nor Boich is invested in any of the solar projects that got funded through HB6.
The current debate
HB6 survived a heated referendum campaign last year, and the nuclear and solar subsidies it will generate were set to begin in January.
But the legislation’s future was upended last month after federal officials arrested Householder, the legislation’s key backer, in what they described as a $60 million bribery scheme. Prosecutors said FirstEnergy and allies spent the money to help Householder become speaker.
In exchange, Householder helped push HB6, which will send more than $1 billion two nuclear plants owned by a former FirstEnergy subsidiary, through the legislature. The money also was used to defend the legislation against a subsequent repeal campaign.
State lawmakers are now debating whether and how to repeal the legislation. Those who have called for its repeal include two key Ohio Republicans: Gov. Mike DeWine and Senate President Larry Obhof.
Part of the debate: whether to repeal the bill entirely, or whether to just target the part containing the nuclear bailout.
“We’re going to have internal discussions… about whether it’s a repeal in its entirety or whether it will be specifically targeted at the [nuclear] subsidy since there were a lot of other policy issues in that bill as well,” Obhof told reporters last week.