LAWMAKERS ARE MOVING CLOSER TO
HAVING ELECTRIC RATE PAIRS
SUBSIDIZE TWO NUCLEAR POWER
PLANTS IN NORTHERN OHIO, THE
SO-CALLED FIRST ENERGY BAILOUT
BILL THAT WOULD REWARD ENERGY
PRODUCERS THAT DO NOT PRODUCE
CARBON EMISSIONS.
THE GENERATES $300 MILLION A
YEAR HALF OF THAT GO TO PLANTS.
AND SKRAPT CURRENT ENERGY
MANDATES THAT REQUIRE OHIO
GENERATE MORE AND MORE POWER
FROM RENEWABLE SOURCES, COSTING
RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS $2.50 A
MONTH.
BUT THAT WOULD BE NEG EIGHTED
THEY SAY BY DROPPING OTHER FEES.
OVER OHIO ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS
WOULD PAY NOT JUST THE ONES
GETTING THEIR POWER FROM FIRST
ENERGY.
JO INGLES THIS HAS BEEN
PROPOSED.
THE DIFFERENCE IS HOUSE SPEAK
LAYER HOUSEHOLDER SUPPORTS IT
WHAT ARE THE ODDS.
>> HE DOES SUPPORT IT.
AND HE HAS EXPLAINED BASICALLY
THAT THIS IS THE WAY THAT THEY
SHOULD MOVE FORWARD, THAT THEY
SHOULD GET RID OF THE GREEN
ENERGY STANDARDS THEY HAD IN THE
PAST, AND THAT THIS WOULD BE THE
WAY, HE THINKS TO SAVE FIRST
ENERGY SOLUTIONS, THE TWO
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS UP IN
DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE STATE
NORTH OF US.
AND SO THE IDEA IS TO BRING IN
FORWARD AND TRY TO GET THE
SUPPORT TOR IT.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT, YOU
KNOW, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A
SPECIFIC AREA OF THE STATE
THAT'S AFFECTED BY THE TWO
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, NUMBER
ONE.
SO THE JOBS THERE, YOU KNOW,
THAT THEY'RE NOT AFFECTING
PEOPLE COLUMN WITH US AND SOUTH.
AND THE SECOND THING IS IT YOU
ARE TALKING ABOUT A POWER
PLANT -- YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
ALSO MAYBE IN SOME WAY THERE IS
A WAY THAT YOU COULD ACTUALLY
HAVE COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS
BEING ABLE TO COME IN AND GET
SOME OF THAT MONEY.
THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS DON'T LIKE
THIS PLAN.
IT DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT
FROM A LOT OF DEMOCRATS.
AND THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS
ABOUT IT BECAUSE THERE ARE STILL
A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE DON'T
KNOW ABOUT IT.
BUT FIRST ENERGY SAYS IF THEY
DON'T DO SOMETHING, IF THE
LAWMAKERS DON'T DO SOMETHING
SOON, THAT THESE PLANTS ARE
GOING UNDER.
>> WHITNEY, SHOULD WE BE
SUBSIDIZING UNPROFITABLE AGING
POWER PLANTS.
>> FOR ME IS DOESN'T PASS THE
SMELL TEST OF THE BAILOUT.
FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN AT FIRST
ENERGY GENERATES ABOUT 14% OF
THE ELECTRICITY FOR OHIO.
AND THIS BILL PROPOSED
ESSENTIALLY GIVES THEM $150
MILLION A YEAR WHICH IS HALF OF
THE REVENUE GENERATED FROM IN
SURCHARGE SO THAT EVERYONE IN
OHIO FACES.
IT DOESN'T SEEM TO MAKE SENSE,
THE NUMBERS DON'T SEEM TO MAKE
SENSE.
AND THEN I THINK IF YOU REALLY
WANTED A CLEAN ENERGY BILL IT
WOULD LEVEL -- MORE LEVEL THE
PLAYING FIELD FOR OTHER CLEAN
ENERGY SOURCES, SUCH AS SOLAR
AND WIND TO HELP BRING THEM IN
AND INTD OF KIND OF THROWING A
BUNCH OF MONEY AT SOMETHING THAT
IS BANKRUPT AND NOT RUNNING
FISHILY, WHICH IS WITH PROBABLY
WHY IN THE PAST WHEN THE SIMILAR
ISSUES CAME UP IT WAS NOT
PASSED.
>> DEREK ONE OF YOUR CLIENTS IS
A RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPANY WE
SHOULD SAY THAT OFF THE START.
ARE NUCLEAR PLANTS RENEWABLE
ENERGY SOURCES?
THEY ARE CLEAN BUT THEY LEAVE
BEHIND THE WASTE LASTING HUNDREDS
OF YEARS.
>> THEY DO LEAVE BEHIND WASTE.
THIS IS A VERY CONTROVERSIAL
ISSUE, AS YOU KNOW.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, ON ONE HAND WE
GOT TWO AGING PLANTS THAT, YOU
KNOW, REALLY NEED TO BE SHUTDOWN
TO BE HONEST.
BUT THE COMMUNITIES THAT THEY
LEAVE BEHIND IF KNOWS -- IF
THOSE PLANTS ARE SHUT DOWN WILL
CREATE HAVOC IN THOSE
COMMUNITIES.
SO THAT'S WHERE THE CONTROVERSY
REALLY COMES IN.
YOU KNOW, FIRST ENERGY SOLUTIONS
IS CLEARLY THE WINNER IN THIS
BILL IF IT PASSES IN ITS CURRENT
FORM.
THEY WOULD GET ESTIMATED $150
MILLION TO SAVE THE TWO PLANTS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION IS
SHOULD THE TAXPAYERS PAY FOR
THAT -- FOR THAT OR NOT.
>> YOU MUST BE KNOWLEDGEABLE ON
THE WHOLE RENEWABLE ENERGY
STUFF.
WOULD IT BE BETTER FOR RENEWABLE
ENERGY COMPANIES TO GET THIS
MONEY IN THIS BILL, OR THE
CURRENT MANDATE THAT SAY YOU
HAVE TO HAVE 12% OF THE STATE'S
ENERGY FROM RENEWABLE SOURCES BY
2027?
WHICH IS BETTER FOR THOSE
COMPANIES RIGHT NOW?
>> WELL, I MEAN, IN THE LONG
RUN -- IN THE SHORT-TERM IF THE
BILL PASSES IT'S ESTIMATED THAT
IT WILL GENERATE CLOSE TO ABOUT
$$600 MILLION FOR THIS FUND,
RIGHT.
>> YEAH.
>> SO IF 150 IS GOING TO FIRST
ENERGY -- AND FIRST ENERGY
SOLUTIONS AND THEN YOU GOT
ANOTHER 400 AND SOME CHANGE
GOING TO OTHER RENEWABLE
COMPANIES, THEN, YOU KNOW, IT
COULD BE WIN/WIN.
BUT AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS
SHOULD TAXPAYERS BE PAYING FOR
THIS.
>> WILL THEY EXPAND SOLAR FARMS
AND WIND FARMS AND THINGS LIKE
THAT WITH THAT MONEY.
>> ALL TYPES OF RENEWABLE
ENERGY.
>> THE ENERGY MANDATES DO THEY
ALWAYS COME UP.
JO, THEY COME UP EVERY YEAR.
WE NEED TO FREEZE THEM, GET RID
OF THEM.
CUT THEM BACK.
YOU CAN SEE WHY ONLY 3% OF THE
STATE'S ENERGY NOW IS FROM
RENEWABLE SOURCES BECAUSE OF THE
UNCERTAINTY.
>> RIGHT AND THEY'VE BEEN
SCALING THESE BACK AT THE STATE
HOUSE.
THEY HAVE BEEN PULLING BACK ON
THESE.
AND THERE IS STILL TALK ABOUT
LET'S LET'S PULL BACK FURTHER.
YOU KNOW, WHAT IS HAPPENING IN
THE MARKETPLACE IF WE LOOK AT
THE MARKETPLACE WE HAVE A LOT OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE DEMANDING MORE
FUEL EFFICIENCY.
THEY'RE DEMANDING MORE SOLAR
PANELS AND MORE OF THE CLEAN
ENERGY SOLUTIONS.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE MARKETPLACE
DOESN'T EXACTLY MATCH WHAT WE SEE
AT THE STATEHOUSE SOMETIMES.
>> YEAH.
AND I WAS GOING TO- THE ONLY
THING I WAS ADDING TO THAT IS
RETAIL COMPETITION CREATES A
WIN/WIN FOR THE CONSUMER.
BECAUSE THE MORE COMPETITION
THAT YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE
PRICES WILL BE MORE MANAGEABLE
FOR THE CONSUMERS ACROSS THE
STATE.
>> WHITNEY THAT'S ONE OF FIRST
ENERGY'S ARGUMENTS IS THAT THEY
ONLY MAKE UP YOU KNOW A CERTAIN
PERCENTAGE OF THE GROID BUT THEY
ARE A SIZABLE PORTION OF THE
GRID.
IF YOU ELIMINATE NUCLEAR POWER
FROM THAT EQUATION THEN THE RISK
OF YOU KNOW UNCERTAINTY GROWS.
IF YOU RELY TOO MUCH ON COAL OR
OIL OR NATURAL GAS OR EVEN SOLAR
OR WIND.
>> THAT IS ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS
THEY'VE MADE.
BUT I ALSO THINK -- WHEN I HAS
BEEN PRETTY HEAVILY REPORTED
THAT HASN'T BEEN BROUGHT UP IS
THE AMOUNT OF CAMPAIGN DONATIONS
THAT FIRST ENERGY HAS MADE AND
THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY
HAVE SPENT LOBBYING FOR THIS.
YOU COULD SAY MAYBE I THINK ONE
OF THE ESTIMATES I READ WAS
$1.5 MILLION INTO CAMPAIGN
DONATIONS AND THEY'RE TRACKING
HOW IT'S DISTRIBUTED.
AND YOU COULD KIND OF SAY,
THAT'S REALLY QUESTIONABLE.
>> HE YES.
A LOT OF IT WENT TO LARRY
HOUSEHOLD AND HIS CAMPAIGN AND
GOVERNOR DEWINE AS WELL.
WE DON'T GET THAT MUCH WIND OR
SUN IN THE THE WINTER TIME
ESPECIALLY IN OHIO.
IS SOLAR ENERGY, WIND ENERGY A
VIABLE ALTERNATIVE AS IT IS IN
OTHER STATES LIKE SAY CALIFORNIA
WHERE THERE IS A LOT OF SUN OR
OKLAHOMA WITH A LOT OF WIND.
>> THOSE STATES WILL ALWAYS HAVE
THE ADVANTAGE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW,
SUNNY MOST OF THE TIME IN
CALIFORNIA.
AND WINDY IN OKLAHOMA.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
NORTHWESTERN PART OF THE STATE,
YOU KNOW, THERE IS A LOT OF
FLAT -- WELL OHIO IS FLAT,
PERIOD.
BUT A LOT OF FLATTER LAND THERE.
THEN WIND COULD DEFINITELY BE A
GOOD SOURCE OF ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY.
