Energy supplier reassessing nuke plants’ future
COLUMBUS — Firstenergy Solutions said it may reconsider its plan to keep its two nuclear power plants on the shore of Lake Erie in operation given the uncertainty over the fate of the state’s new bailout law.
“Unfortunately, any additional negative news from the courts or the successful submission of petitions to put a referendum on the ballot will destabilize the financial situation of those plants,” reads a statement released by the company on Wednesday.
“This will force the company to move back on a path to deactivation if alternative measures to provide needed financial support do not arise quickly,” it said.
This occurs as a petition effort seeks to subject House Bill 6 to a voter referendum on the November 2020 ballot.
Monday marks the deadline for petitions containing at least 266,000 valid signatures of registered voters to be filed with the secretary of state’s office. But the group behind it is in federal court seeking a deadline extension, given the time it lost in getting the attorney general’s prior approval of petition language.
If the Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts is successful in getting the required signatures, it would prevent House Bill 6 from taking effect until at least the vote more than a year away.
The law would surcharge electricity customers to create a $170 million-a-year fund — $150 million for the Davis-besse plant in Oak Harbor and the Perry plant east of Cleveland, and $20 million for five utility-scale solar fields, all but one in southern Ohio.
The nuclear plants, which directly employ about 1,400 people, have been unable to compete economically against cheaper natural gas.
On Wednesday, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to expedite its consideration of Firstenergy Solutions' lawsuit seeking to block the referendum from the 2020 ballot. The suit argues that the nuclear and solar surcharge is actually a tax and, therefore, not subject to referendum.
Referendum backers filed briefs on Tuesday with U.S. District Court, challenging the constitutionality of restrictions on petition efforts.