Groups oppose Proenergy Ohio initiative for green energy
As they were one year ago, environmental groups were skeptical of Proenergy Ohio LLC’S effort put place an initative on the Columbus ballot to move $87 million in city money toward what it says will be green energy programs.
“It’s hard to keep a bad idea down,” said Neil Waggoner, senior campaign representative for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign.
“There’s no accountability. I don’t even know to say about it.”
Randi Leppla, vice president of energy policy and lead energy counsel for the Ohio Environmental Council, said, “It’s the same as before, nothing new. A lot of unknowns in that piece.”
“The problem is we haven’t seen any more details after all of these attempts,” Leppla said.
Proenergy Ohio on Oct. 16 filed initiative petitions with Columbus City Council, an effort that Columbus leaders said would damage the city’s budget.
The language is similar to its effort last year, seeking to divert $57 million for an electricity subsidy program for Columbus residents. The electricity subsidy program would “further the purpose of reducing the cost of electricity for customers who live in Columbus with a subsidy to purchase electricity from only wind, solar, fuel cell, geothermal, or hydro power producers.”
It would also move $10 million each to these programs: an energy conservation and energy efficiency fund; a clean energy education and training fund, and a minority business development program.
The language also mentions an accountability and transparency requirement for the city auditor for how the funds are used.
In an email earlier this week, John Clarke of Proenergy Ohio LLC said that there weren’t many changes from the last petition effort.
“We corrected for a copy and paste issue on one of the petition pages that City Attorney, Zach Klein, and City Council used to invalidate the entire last clean energy petition,” he said.
“Please feel free to direct questions to this email, and I will reach out for answers to your questions or forward you to them,” Clarke said. “The members of the petition committee do not want reporters from the Columbus Dispatch showing up and surprising them on their doorsteps; please respect their wishes.”
Klein’s office was still waiting to receive the petitions to review. In 2019, a city attorney’s opinion said some of the petition language didn’t comply with the city charter.
In 2019, Clarke, who was listed then as Proenergy Ohio’s project coordinator and said he was an electrical engineer, said his effort “pretty straightforward.”
“You’ve got a fund for energy initiatives, energy efficiency, programs just like this. There’s nothing really mysterious,” he said then.
But Alex Fischer, president and CEO of the Columbus Partnership representing local buisness leaders, said Proenergy’s initiative lacks substance and credibility.
“There are no specifics,” Fischer said.
“I think it’s something that should concern voters in the city of Columbus. They deserve to understand the facts.
“And it’s shame that we have to waste precious time dealing with people and individuals that seem to want to feather their own nest,” he said.
“We all deserve to know the facts. If those assuptions are wrong, I’d like to know what the truth is.”
Fischer said community leaders already believe that clean energy is an important issue. He said the Columbus Partnership supports Issue 1, the Columbus ballot issue Nov. 3 that would create a green-energy electricity aggregation plan supplying all of the city’s power needs with renewable energy by 2023.
Both Waggoner and Leppla said they were focused on convincing Columbus voters to approve Issue 1.
“You have the city actually doing stuff with aggregation on the ballot,” Waggoner said. “You have more cities looking at clean energy and climate commitment.”
Leppla called Issue 1 a real gamechanger for the city.
Earlier this week, Columbus Mayor Andrew J. Ginther said in a statement that “It’s clear to me that the leaders of the repeated attempts to place this issue on the ballot are not interested in clean energy. We already have a plan to deliver renewable energy to our residents. Issue 1 will move Columbus residents and businesses to renewable energy sources and spur job creation in Central Ohio. The leaders of Pro Energy Ohio are interested in enriching themselves and their associates on the backs of Columbus taxpayers.” mferench@dispatch.com @Markferenchik