Redactions shield plan for energy systems

Today is the day for six teams to turn in bids to lease and operate Ohio State University’s energy systems under a 50-year deal with a massive upfront payment for the university.

Based on what the bids say, Ohio State officials will decide whether to pursue such a deal.

The idea is opposed by groups concerned about the loss of union jobs and public control over how the university uses and conserves energy. Opponents have disrupted an appearance by OSU President Michael V. Drake and held at least two campus protests.

Last week, OSU released a redacted copy of the “request for proposals” it sent to bidders. Bidders got to see the whole thing, but the public can’t learn much about the potential deal. After the university redacted phrases, sentences and whole pages that it considers to be trade secrets, so much is blacked out that what remains is hard to follow, even by the standards of a complex technical proposal.

“I found it impossible to understand. I would call it Swiss cheese without the cheese,” said Jeff Vardaro, an attorney representing a party that he said is “concerned about potentially selling off a chunk of the university’s operations to private energy companies.”

Vardaro doesn’t believe Ohio’s open-records law allows Ohio State to keep the document secret, especially by claiming a trade secret. “If you’re looking at selling off a large chunk of an industry or an enterprise, it’s one where the university doesn’t have any competitors,” he said.

“No university that I’m aware of has done anything like this. It’s very hard to justify OSU’s use of the trade-secrets exception, and I don’t believe that’s a valid exception here.”

OSU spokesman Rob Messinger said an unredacted copy of the bid request will be released after bidders’ responses have been received.

Ohio State wants bids in hand before revealing all details, Messinger said, because other entities like OSU are considering similar energy deals and may be communicating with the same bidders. The university doesn’t want competing projects to know the nuances of its proposal or to try to poach bidders.

The OSU document requires bidders to supply information in four areas:

A detailed explanation of how their corporate teams are organized.

What they would pay upfront and how they would finance the operation.

How they would collaborate with and support academic departments.

Their plans for major energy-conservation projects.

It warns bidders that their proposals will be subject to open-records law, and it says that if they want to shield any part from public view, they will have to pay the costs of any resulting litigation.

Bidders are required to explain how they would, if chosen, interact with students, faculty members, employees and the public to explain the plan. They aren’t explicitly required to hold an open public meeting. Messinger said the requirement is “an open question that encourages teams to put forward a strong plan.”

Ohio State has been considering an energy lease since 2015. The idea is for a large upfront payment to help fund the $250 million in new equipment and energysaving measures needed to meet a goal of improving Ohio State’s energy efficiency by 25 percent within 10 years. The proceeds also would help pay for scholarships and for teaching and research projects.

If top officials decide it is worth striking a deal with one of the bidders, they’ll take the proposal to Ohio State’s Board of Trustees at its April 7 meeting.