BOWLING GREEN — Critics of a controversial bill aimed at saving Ohio’s commercial nuclear industry did more than just argue over the merits of splitting atoms and the challenges of managing radioactive waste on Monday.
They rallied around a pig.
Not just any pig, mind you. A giant, inflatable pig named Pignelope on loan to activists at Ohio Citizen Action, who used it as a prop for rallies in Cincinnati and Bowling Green. The group has plans for a third and final rally on Tuesday in Medina, Ohio, all in anticipation of the Ohio Senate launching into discussions about the legislation that day.
Known as House Bill 6, the bill is viewed by many as a bailout for the struggling Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear plants that FirstEnergy Solutions, a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., owns and operates along the Lake Erie shoreline in Ottawa and Lake counties, respectively.
While it’s true those two plants would be thrown a multi-million dollar lifeline if the state Senate approves the bill and Gov. Mike DeWine signs it into law, supporters - largely the state House’s Republican majority - prefer to brand the bill as one that helps keep down climate-altering carbon emissions. Both sides also debate whether Ohioans will actually save or lose money in the long run if the bill passes.
Why a pig? Ohio Citizen Action, a critic of the legislation, used the prop to represent what it considers pork in the legislation.
The inflatable stands 15 feet high and 25 feet long, and has roots in anti-nuclear activism. Its owner, Gene Stilp, of Pennsylvania, who designs inflatables for a living, said he has used Pignelope as a prop for protests at or near the Three Mile Island nuclear complex - the site of America’s worst nuclear accident, the 1979 half-core meltdown of Three Mile Island Unit 2.
The events on Monday were in two Republican strongholds. The one in Bowling Green, which drew about 65 people to Wooster Green near downtown, was arguably more focused on a provision of the bill that also calls for Ohio’s 11-year-old renewable energy mandates for utilities to be killed, something FirstEnergy has wanted since they were enacted.
Bowling Green Mayor Dick Edwards, a Republican, said the legislation sends the wrong market signal to the renewable energy industry, and is a step backwards for efforts Bowling Green has made to embrace green energy. In addition to hosting the state’s first wind turbines, Bowling Green has Ohio’s largest field of solar arrays and invests in hydroelectric power through Columbus-based AMP, which delivers Bowling Green its electricity.
“I'm not here to knock Ottawa County,” Mayor Edwards said of the nearby county that has been heavily reliant on property taxes generated by the Davis-Besse nuclear plant since the station began operation in April, 1977. “But we have to look after our interests here.”
He said Bowling Green’s utility department has estimated the bill would have a $400,000 impact on that city.
A renewed focus on nuclear and coal-generated power “really turns the clock back,” Mr. Edwards said.
“We were trying to set an example [with renewable energy in Bowling Green],” he said.
Mark Hollenbaugh, a Democrat on the Bowling Green City Council, said the city has sent letters to state legislators urging them to vote against the bill. He echoed comments Mr. Edwards made about a potential $400,000 impact to Bowling Green.
“We have invested heavily in renewable energy over the years. What this is going to do is encourage more reliance on nuclear power and coal, and less on renewable power,” Mr. Hollenbaugh said.
Another Bowling Green councilman at the event, Sandy Rowland, a Democrat, made similar comments.
Helen Duquette, wife of a Davis-Besse engineer, Dale Duquette, made the trip over from the couple’s home in Fremont to hold a sign in support of House Bill 6.
She said she supports nuclear power because it produces more electricity on less land than wind power or solar power.
As for the potential loss of the state’s renewable energy mandate that legislators passed by a near-unanimous vote in 2008, she said: “The energy companies could do that on their own. They don’t need mandates.”
The bill in question was approved by the Ohio House in May by a 53-43 vote, by a nearly all-Republican vote.
It would require consumers to pay monthly surcharges on their electric bills through 2026. It calls for $198 million to be generated annually from those charges to reward plants that emit no carbon dioxide into the air while operating — namely, Davis-Besse and Perry.
In a statement issued by its New York-based public relations firm, FirstEnergy Solutions said House Bill 6 “provides tangible long-term benefits to Ohioans” by keeping Davis-Besse and Perry operating and protecting 90 percent of Ohio’s zero-emissions electricity while preserving 4,300 highly-skilled jobs for years.
“Failure to pass HB 6 will mean the closure of Ohio’s nuclear facilities, elimination of almost all of the state’s clean energy, loss of jobs, reduced energy diversity and higher electricity bills for Ohioans,” according to the statement.
Guy Parmigian, superintendent of the Benton-Carroll-Salem school district that benefits from Davis-Besse’s continued operation, agreed.
“Without HB 6, we know that all of this will be lost forever and Ohioans, not just those who live in Oak Harbor and Perry, will suffer the consequences,” Mr. Parmigian said.
Ohio Clean Energy Jobs Alliance also reiterated its support for House Bill 6.
First Published June 17, 2019, 11:49 p.m.
