nuclear-news

• A representative of an Ohio-based free-market think tank cautioned state lawmakers during a Wednesday committee hearing about adopting a measure that would subsidize two nuclear power plants that are no longer viable on their own.

“The Buckeye Institute opposes government subsidies, pure and simple,” institute Research Fellow Greg Lawson said in his testimony to the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy Generation. “Any subsidy given to one entity puts other competitors at a disadvantage. And using the power of government to disadvantage market competitors makes for bad public policy.”

House Bill 6, sponsored by state Reps. Jamie Callender, R-Concord Township, and Shane Wilkin, R-Hillsboro, is designed to boost the state’s investment in clean energy and incentivize the building and maintenance in facilities that produce few carbon emissions and reduce energy bills.

Critics of the bill have classified the legislation as a bailout aimed at saving two FirstEnergy Solutions nuclear power plants – the Davis-Besse and Perry plants. The company, which has lobbied for legislative help, has said that the plants will be shut down without financial aid from taxpayers.

If passed, the legislation would impose a $2.50 monthly fee for every residential customer, a $250 fee for industrial customers and a $2,500 fee for large users. This would generate about $170 million to keep the plants open……

Lawson’s testimony criticized the subsidies further.

“Although described as incentives, the policies … are classic examples of government subsidies being used to prop-up declining businesses…,” Lawson testified. “[The bill] deals more broadly than just FirstEnergy Solutions, leaving leftover funds for other utilities to draw down, but everyone understands that FirstEnergy Solutions, or whoever eventually buys the two nuclear power plants, will be the bill’s primary beneficiary.”…….

Several other organizations testified in the committee hearing, touching on how the legislation would affect competition as well as jobs and workers.

Luke Harms, who testified on behalf of the Ohio Manufacturer’s Association, said that the legislation would put an unfair cost on industrial consumers for the purpose of propping up two nonviable plants. He called the legislation “anti-competitive” and “anti-consumer.”

Bill Siderewicz, who testified on behalf of Clean Energy Future, said that it is inconsistent to label the bill a clean energy bill because it replaces a cheaper form of clean energy with a more expensive form through a bailout and a regressive tax…….https://www.watchdog.org/ohio/free-market-advocate-chastises-nuclear-energy-subsidies-in-committee-hearing/article_a0208772-66cb-11e9-abed-c3d999e15c7f.html?fbclid=IwAR3z3zHqrFMqarwjugRTeXRnDFjymsM7S0LU2nf-43IIyaR9XOEtWj8lbjI