Critics say the energy standards freeze includes a 'nuclear
bomb' for investors.
Advocates for alternative energy are voicing their opinion on
a provision that was slipped into the most recent version of the energy
standards freeze bill. As Statehouse correspondent Andy Chow reports, they fear
it could dramatically change the energy landscape in Ohio.
Experts say a clause in the energy bill would deliver a
major blow to alternative energy investment in Ohio.
“It is essentially a nuclear bomb to all renewable
development and projects in this state moving forward,” says Jereme Kent. He’s
the general manager of Findlay-based One Energy, which helps develop renewable
projects for private customers
He’s worried about a complicated provision that would affect
contracts signed after the energy standards freeze passes. He says it could
void those contracts on future energy projects if lawmakers decide to change
the energy law again down the road.
According to Kent, that would make Ohio very unattractive in
the eyes of potential investors.
Developers will say no way
“There’s not a developer out there who’s going to sign that—there’s not a
developer out there’s who’s going to invest $100 million or half a billion
dollars when they know that it’s subject to future legislative changes. And
it’s a burden that’s never been placed on any technology anywhere in the U.S.
as best I can find right now.”
Dayna Baird Payne is a lobbyist for the American Wind Energy
Association, which represents companies that might be thinking about investing
in Ohio. That includes two wind farms that already invested more than $775
million in the state.
Baird Payne, who says these contracts are often long-term
agreements, believes the bill sends a bad message to energy developers around
the country.
‘Ohio might not be a good place to do business’
“I mean there are many provisions in the bill that actually send that signal,
but this one is probably one of the more blatant signs of why Ohio might not be
a good place to do business if you’re in the renewable energy industry.”
Baird Payne adds that this means the government would be
interfering between two private parties trying to reach a contract agreement.
It’s not completely out of the realm of possibility that
lawmakers could revisit this issue—repeatedly—in the future. That’s what
Republican Sen. Bill Seitz from Cincinnati indicated last year when he was
asked if changing the law messes with the long-term business plans of
alternative energy companies.
A new business plan
“You show me a business that adopted a 20-year business plan in 2008 and never
revises it over the next 20 years and I’ll eat my hat. This is what happens all
the time in the real world. Plans—be they business plans or government
plans—are constantly being revised to account for changes in circumstances that
have occurred in that time.”
In the months it took to debate this issue in the Senate,
supporters insisted the bill would do nothing to impact current contracts. But
Kent says this provision means that won’t be the case if and when the
Legislature tries to change the law again.
“This single paragraph is worse than cancelling the RPS
overall because it means that wind and other technologies that are renewable
technologies cannot even compete without having this clause in there and this
clause is an absolute showstopper for any sort of project financing.”
The sponsor of the bill, Republican Sen. Troy Balderson of
Zanesville, could not be reached for comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment