The pair of 1950s-era coal plants bailed out under Ohio’s House Bill 6 law are likely to remain unprofitable even after a surge in grid operator payments to generators, experts say. 

The PJM Interconnection grid market makes capacity payments to line up power to meet expected demand in the years ahead. Aging, uneconomical coal plants are being retired at a time when data centers and manufacturers are starting to use more electricity, causing future power generation prices to rise.

But even record-high prices in PJM Interconnection’s recent capacity auction won’t cover the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies paid by ratepayers to cover Ohio utilities’ costs for the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation’s Kyger Creek and Clifty Creek power plants.

“Even with a super high price, OVEC is still going to be in the red,” said Neil Waggoner, Midwest manager for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign.

The ratepayer subsidies are a result of HB 6, the 2019 state law at the heart of the largest corruption scheme in Ohio’s history. Republican legislative leaders have blocked all efforts to repeal the coal subsidies from coming to a floor vote.

This year alone, ratepayers are on track to pay nearly $200 million to prop up the two plants, one of which is in Indiana. By 2030, total ratepayer costs from the bailout could exceed $1 billion, according to RunnerStone, a consultant for the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association.

Starting next summer, the payments for generators to be ready to supply electricity when PJM Interconnection needs it will jump to about nine times the current rate for most of the grid operator’s service region. 

“Put simply, the market pays participants for the promise to produce electricity when called upon by PJM,” said Daniel Lockwood, a spokesperson for the regional grid operator. An auction sets the levels for each year’s capacity payments, and the payments go to generators that bid the clearing price or less.

A spokesperson for the power plants did not directly answer the Energy News Network’s question about whether both cleared the latest PJM auction, although he described the auction results as “positive.”

“The auction results were a positive development for the OVEC plants and are more broadly a signal to the market that additional generation resources are needed in the PJM region,” said Scott Blake, a spokesperson for American Electric Power and Ohio Valley Electric Corp. While the HB 6 rider charges depend on multiple factors, the impact of the 2025/2026 capacity pricing “is expected to be positive for customers,” he said.

AEP is OVEC’s largest shareholder, along with other utility companies in Ohio and other states.

HB 6’s OVEC subsidies currently require Ohio’s residential utility customers to pay between $1.30 and $1.50 per month, depending on whether their utility is owned by AEP, AES Ohio, Duke Energy or FirstEnergy, according to PUCO data from spokesperson Brittany Waugaman. Businesses pay for the rider, too. The HB 6 rider’s net total costs last year were more than $148 million.

Doing the math

While capacity payments will reduce the OVEC plants’ total costs to Ohio ratepayers, the revenue won’t, in itself, make the plants profitable.

Expert testimony from a Michigan case last year found the OVEC plants would need capacity payments averaging about $418/MW-day for several years to become economical. Last month’s record-high price that will take effect next summer was about $270/MW-day.

Economic analyst Devi Glick of Synapse Energy Economics testified in the case on behalf of the Sierra Club.

“To massively oversimplify the economics of the OVEC plants, there are two categories of costs and two categories of revenues,” Glick told Energy News Network. “Costs are on one side of the equation and revenues on the other.”

Based on then-current projections for costs and energy market revenue, Glick calculated what the plants’ capacity revenues would have to be for the equation to balance out.

Several caveats would apply, Waggoner acknowledged, including any differences from last year to this year that could affect projected energy revenues. Nonetheless, he noted, a significant gap would remain.

Glick’s estimate of about $418 as a break-even capacity price for the OVEC plants is realistic and may even be conservative now, said John Seryak, managing partner for RunnerStone.

“PJM is no longer paying for a coal plant’s full power capacity anymore under new rules it created just prior to this capacity auction,” Seryak explained. “That could mean that OVEC needs even higher-priced capacity and energy to be profitable.”

“Future energy market prices, OVEC’s future coal costs, and OVEC’s environmental compliance costs will also be important factors determining the extent of its losses or profitability,” Seryak continued. “All that said, we do not anticipate OVEC operating at a profit without further price increases.”

Meeting energy demand

Blake emphasized the OVEC plants’ role as a “reliable generation resource for our customers and for our region,” adding that the HB 6 rider “ensures that customers in Ohio receive electricity from OVEC for what it costs to produce it and the funds are used to pay down debt with no proceeds going to shareholders.”

That’s not exactly correct, said attorney Kimberly Bojko at Carpenter Lipps, who represents the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association in cases at the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. “Customers pay the cost to operate and run OVEC and the power produced from OVEC is then sold into the wholesale electric market,” she said. Any revenue offsets the costs of HB 6’s coal subsidy.

The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association also has disputed the use of the HB 6 rider to pay down the OVEC plants’ debt in cases before the PUCO.

“By using ratepayer funds to pay down its debt, AEP Ohio is essentially shifting its bad debt to the Ohio ratepayers,” Seryak said. “It’s akin to if a person forced their neighbor to pay for their mortgage payment.”

“Customers pay for more than just OVEC’s debt, though,” Seryak added. “Customers also pay for losses in the energy market OVEC incurs. When this occurs, it means the electric grid does not need OVEC for reliability. Instead, OVEC is burning coal pointlessly at a loss and charging it to Ohio’s ratepayers.”

Ohio coal plant subsidies still a bad deal for ratepayers despite growing generation demand, experts say is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Five years after Gov. Mike DeWine signed House Bill 6 into law, Ohio citizens and ratepayers are still paying the price. 

Ohio lawmakers still haven’t taken steps to repeal the rest of the nuclear and coal bailout bill, which is the focus of what prosecutors say was a roughly $60 million bribery scheme by utility FirstEnergy and its affiliates. Cases continue to wind through the courts, and two men implicated in the scandal have apparently taken their own lives. 

“It’s been really painful, and we’re still living with the consequences of House Bill 6,” said Catherine Turcer, executive director of Common Cause Ohio.

Shepherded by former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, the bill swept through the legislature in 2019, passing just 3 and a half months after its first introduction and despite massive opposition from consumer advocates, environmental groups, renewable energy interests and others.

The law called for more than $1 billion in subsidies for two nuclear plants for which FirstEnergy had been seeking bailouts since 2014. Additional provisions included subsidies for two 1950s-era coal plants known as the OVEC plants, along with gutting of the state’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards. A referendum effort that would have let voters reject the law under Ohio’s constitution was ultimately thwarted amid claims of misleading ads, harassment of signature collectors and other problems.

One year after the bill passed, federal agents arrested Householder and others on charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO. The complaint outlined a $60 million criminal enterprise scheme funded by dark money, most of which came from FirstEnergy or its affiliates — roughly four times as much as the Energy News Network and Eye on Ohio had been able to track before the arrests.

Sam Randazzo resigned his position as chair of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio months later, following an FBI raid on his home in November 2020. In July 2021, FirstEnergy entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice, admitting it had bribed Householder and Randazzo.

Neil Clark, a lobbyist indicted in the scandal, apparently committed suicide in Florida in March 2021. Randazzo did the same in a Columbus warehouse he owned in April of this year, as he faced indictments on both federal and state criminal charges, along with loss of his license to practice law.

Calls for a full repeal of HB 6 came immediately after the 2020 arrests, but languished for months. Months after the next election, lawmakers finally repealed the law’s nuclear subsidies and a provision for guaranteed utility revenue, but left the rest of the law intact.

Bills to repeal the coal plant subsidies still have not gotten a full vote, and the state’s clean energy standards remain gutted. And full information about the corruption scandal has yet to come out, including answers to questions about Gov. Mike DeWine’s and Lt. Gov. Jon Husted’s involvement.

“The legislature hasn’t done anything to create greater transparency, to address dark money, to ensure we aren’t ripped off,” Turcer said.

“There’s this interesting intersection of dark money and gerrymandering and general decision-making and accountability at the statehouse,” Turcer continued.

Dark money refers to political spending that can’t be readily traced, and gerrymandering is the drawing of voting districts to advantage one political party over another. Together, both can undermine democracy and have delayed progress on climate change.

Still subsidizing coal

“The fact that we’re still bailing out the coal plants is just insane to me,” said Neil Waggoner, Midwest campaign manager for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal program. The Kyger Creek plant is in Cheshire, Ohio, and the Clifty Creek plant is in Madison, Indiana. Both plants consistently lose money.

“Those coal subsidies are costing consumers $500,000 per day,” said Ohio Consumers’ Counsel Maureen Willis. Her office estimates Ohioans have paid more than $330 million since January 2020. RunnerStone, a consultant for the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association Energy Group, projects the HB 6 coal subsidies could reach $1 billion by 2030.

The utilities that own the plants defend their continued operation.

“Customers in Ohio receive electricity from OVEC for what it costs to produce it and the funds are used to pay down debt with no proceeds going to shareholders,” said Scott Blake, a spokesperson for American Electric Power, which owns the largest share of OVEC, with other utilities inside and outside ofn Ohio owning shares. More than 500 employees work to make sure the plants operate as efficiently as possible, he added.

Since 1999, however, Ohio law has generally let consumers choose their electricity supplier. “And recent testimony by Duke executive [Amy] Spiller confirms the coal plants will continue to operate even if the subsidy ends,” Willis said.

The question comes down to whether the companies that made bad business decisions to keep noncompetitive plants running should pay their expenses, “as opposed to the public eating the cost,” Waggoner said.

Higher bills

HB 6 not only added subsidies to consumers’ electric bills. It also axed clean energy standards whose net savings for Ohioans had been about $9 per month.

“The elimination of the energy efficiency programs never made sense because they helped customers reduce their electricity usage,” said Rob Kelter, an attorney with the Environmental Law & Policy Center. “They lowered their bills. And they reduced pollution.”

Yet a legislative analysis claimed cutting those programs to pass HB 6 could save Ohioans’ money, a position that was further buttressed by testimony from then-PUCO chair Randazzo. Those arguments left out customers’ savings from avoiding wasted energy and lower overall capacity costs, Kelter said.

A bill to allow some permissive energy efficiency programs finally passed in the Ohio House last month, but passage in the state Senate isn’t guaranteed.

Regulatory scrutiny

Randazzo not only played a key role in shaping HB 6 and getting it passed. He also shaped the PUCO’s piecemeal response after Householder and others were arrested. That approach has continued, even after criminal charges were brought against Randazzo in federal and state court.

“Even after the revelations of what former PUCO Chair Sam Randazzo did for FirstEnergy in the halls of the PUCO, the agency itself has not had to answer to the public,” Willis said. “Case decisions issued while the former Chair led the agency have not been examined.”

“Why has there not been a management audit at the commission?” asked Ashley Brown, a former PUCO commissioner who subsequently headed the Harvard Electricity Policy Group. “Something clearly went wrong. We know that the chairman was bribed. We know that the other people went along.”

Agency spokesperson Brittany Waugaman noted the PUCO has four ongoing investigations in cases relating to FirstEnergy, but did not respond to questions about whether regulators plan to conduct an internal review of its own operations or otherwise review decisions in which Randazzo had participated.

Moreover, “the PUCO too often has made it difficult to get to answers for consumers,” Willis said. “Adverse discovery rulings, unrealistic case schedules, and limited audits, are a few of the problems for consumers.”

Who else?

The federal Department of Justice asked for three delays in discovery for the state regulatory cases, but after the initial 2020 arrests Randazzo was the only additional individual to face federal criminal charges, and he is now deceased. Meanwhile, Ohioans remained on the hook for charges. So in Brown’s view, the delays made sure consumers continued to be victimized by the crime.

The state did file criminal charges earlier this year against former FirstEnergy executives Chuck Jones and Mike Dowling, along with Randazzo and companies he controlled, as well as Householder. Company lawyers previously identified Jones and Dowling as having paid the bribes behind HB 6. But it remains unclear whether they or others will ever face federal criminal charges, said Dave Anderson, policy and communications manager for the Energy and Policy Institute.

Anderson and others also have questions about the involvement of American Electric Power, which paid $900,000 to dark money groups that supported HB 6.

Blake, the AEP spokesperson, said “management does not believe that AEP was involved in any wrongful conduct in connection with the passage of HB 6.” 

Anderson rejects that notion.

“While AEP has not been charged with any crime in connection with HB 6, disturbing new details about the financial relationship between Householder and the utility emerged during the convicted former Ohio House Speaker’s trial last year,” Anderson responded. And the company also has acknowledged it may face civil penalties from a SEC investigation, he added.

“I don’t how AEP defines wrongdoing, but common sense should tell AEP’s customers and regulators that something stinks here,” Anderson said. “AEP owes ratepayers answers, and unfortunately the PUCO has completely failed to investigate AEP’s role in the HB 6 scandal.”

Some bright spots

As consumers continue to face consequences from HB 6, so do Householder and lobbyist Matt Borges, Turcer said. Both are in federal prison while they appeal their criminal convictions in federal court from last year.

FirstEnergy might have to allow some credits or pay penalties as a result of the four pending PUCO cases, Anderson noted. That would be in addition to a $230 million penalty paid to the federal government and class action settlements in a few court cases.

Quarterly reporting requirements under the deferred prosecution agreement of donations to nonprofit groups also may have reined in some of FirstEnergy’s political influence in Ohio, Anderson said. FirstEnergy spokesperson Jennifer Young said the company plans to continue reporting donations, even after the deferred prosecution agreement’s term ends.

Young also highlighted other company reforms including enhanced controls, separation of functions for its top ethics and legal officers and better transparency to stakeholders.

“Today, FirstEnergy is a different, stronger company with a sound strategy, a highly effective compliance program and a companywide culture of ethics, integrity and accountability,” Young said.

Yet the company’s claims about transparency have fallen short, Willis said. “Lawyered-up FirstEnergy… continues to block efforts to publicly disclose their internal investigation reports produced in the wake of the HB 6 scandal.”

Energy policy

Ohio’s energy policy continues to feel impacts from HB 6 as well.

“It does make me wonder where we would be with renewable energy if HB 6 had been completely repealed, or if there hadn’t been this orchestrated campaign, not just to bail out nuclear plants or subsidize coal plants, but also to diminish our commitment to renewable energy and our funding for renewable energy,” Turcer said. Yet now, “the air we breathe is actually dirtier.”

HB 6 “cast such a long shadow over energy policy in Ohio,” said Tom Bullock, executive director for the Citizens Utility Board of Ohio. The energy industry is going through the greatest change in a century, with technological innovations in how energy is produced and stored, as well as new business models, he noted.

“We need to be thoughtful, so that we can grow industry and keep prices affordable and convert to clean and smart and distributed energy,” Bullock said. Otherwise, “We’ll be the last in the Midwest to get there if the way we make energy policy decisions is based on the wish list from traditional energy interests.”

Consequences continue as bill at center of Ohio utility corruption scandal marks fifth anniversary is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.