The Ohio Chamber of Commerce testified in front of the Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee and the House Public Utilities Committee as an opponent to Senate Bill 52 and House Bill 118. There were hundreds of written opponent testimonies and dozens of in-person witnesses who testified against these companion bills.
SB 52 and HB 118 creates new barriers to entry for solar and wind projects by subjecting them to a new layer of local government regulation in addition to the existing state process by including a township-by-township referenda. Further, HB 118 would apply retroactively to pending certificate and certificate amendment applications, which were filed under a regulatory regime that did not contemplate a local vote.
The Ohio Chamber has long been an advocate for an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy policy that does not hinder Ohio’s ability to develop any of its many energy resources. This is important because as Ohio’s economy evolves, our energy portfolio cannot remain static. Government regulation should not hinder energy innovation.
The bills introduce tremendous, new political risks to energy infrastructure projects that will deter investors and lenders from providing the upfront capital needed to build projects. Thus, the bill acts as an effective moratorium. As a result, under SB 52 and HB 118, at a time when private sector demand for solar and wind energy continues to grow, government intervention into the marketplace would choke supply, raise prices and hurt Ohio’s business climate
No other sources of generation are subject to a similar public referendum. Such a requirement would kill almost every solar and wind project moving forward in the state and reverse the regulatory certainty developers and investors rely on to make business decisions and investments in Ohio.
Presently, there are numerous opportunities for residents and concerned citizens to have a voice in the power siting process. Before filing an application to build a new facility, a developer is required to hold a public informational meeting. The public is encouraged to submit informal written comments to the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB). Members of the public can provide sworn testimony at a formal public hearing conducted by OPSB. Individuals have the right to intervene in case proceedings, including the adjudicatory hearing, and may file for rehearing or appeal a Board decision to Ohio Supreme Court. As you can see, there is no shortage of opportunities.
However, if the legislature believes these opportunities are insufficient, a more balanced approach is needed than is proposed in SB 52 and HB 118.
Last General Assembly when I gave testimony on similar legislation that only subjected wind projects to township referenda, I warned the committee of the slippery slope that the bills presented when it came to other sources of generation. Fast forward to today, SB 52 and HB 118 now includes solar generation, and we are now seeing the beginning of the slippery slope in motion. This is not only concerning to wind and solar developers, but this is also concerning to other Ohio Chamber members in the energy and agricultural space.
Proposals such as SB 52 and HB 118 do not create a friendlier business climate in Ohio. In fact, they do just the opposite. If passed, this bill could give solar and wind developers cold feet and prevent them from ever doing business in the state, depriving Ohio of economic development opportunities that could generate millions of dollars of tax revenue, create both construction and long-term jobs and contribute to diversifying our overall economy.
The Ohio Chamber of Commerce urges the Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee and the House Public Utilities Committee to vote “no” on SB 52 and HB 118; however, we will continue to keep an open dialogue with lawmakers on this legislation.