“25% generation by 2025” Where did Ohio’s Clean Energy Law go? – WOSU Public Media

Report on Ohio’s Renewable Energy Policy and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

This report analyzes the evolution of Ohio’s energy policy, with a specific focus on its transition away from ambitious renewable energy targets. It examines the legislative and economic factors that have influenced this shift, evaluating the state’s progress, or lack thereof, toward key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

The 2008 Clean Energy Law: A Commitment to Sustainable Development

In 2008, Ohio established a forward-thinking energy policy through a bipartisan Clean Energy Law. This legislation positioned the state as a potential leader in the green economy, predating the formal establishment of the SDGs but aligning closely with their principles.

Key Objectives and SDG Alignment

The 2008 law was built on two primary pillars that directly supported sustainable development:

• Energy Transition (SDG 7): The central goal was to generate 25% of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2025, promoting a shift to affordable and clean energy.
• Economic Growth and Innovation (SDG 8 & SDG 9): The law mandated that at least half of the new renewable infrastructure be manufactured within Ohio. This provision was designed to create jobs, stimulate local industry, and build a robust clean energy supply chain.

Initial outcomes were promising. By 2010, Ohio ranked second in the nation for solar panel manufacturing, demonstrating the potential for economic growth driven by sustainable industrial policy. Utility companies were reportedly meeting or exceeding renewable energy requirements in 2011.

Legislative and Economic Reversals: A Departure from Sustainability Goals

Despite its strong start, the progress initiated by the 2008 law was systematically dismantled over the following decade due to a confluence of political, economic, and corporate pressures. This reversal represents a significant setback for the state’s commitment to climate action (SDG 13) and sustainable infrastructure (SDG 9).

Factors Contributing to the Policy Shift

1. Change in Political Leadership and Ideology: The 2010 gubernatorial election, influenced by the Great Recession and the rise of the Tea Party movement, marked a turning point. The new administration shifted focus toward an “all of the above” energy strategy that prioritized the burgeoning hydraulic fracturing (fracking) industry.
2. Rise of the Natural Gas Industry: Technological advancements in fracking made Ohio’s shale deposits highly profitable. This created a powerful economic incentive to favor fossil fuels over renewables, supported by significant lobbying efforts from the oil and gas sector.
3. Systematic Legislative Rollbacks: A series of legislative actions effectively nullified the 2008 mandates.
   • A 2014 law froze the renewable energy standards, halting momentum.
   • A last-minute amendment to a 2014 budget bill tripled the property-line setback requirements for wind turbines. This rule, one of the most restrictive in the nation, made new wind farm development economically unfeasible, leading to an estimated loss of $5 to $7 billion in investment and effectively stagnating the industry in Ohio. This directly undermined progress on SDG 7 and SDG 9.

Institutional Failures and Corporate Influence: The House Bill 6 Scandal

The most significant blow to Ohio’s renewable energy ambitions and institutional integrity was the 2019 passage of House Bill 6. This legislation exemplifies a failure to uphold SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) due to widespread corruption.

Impact on Sustainable Development

The bill, passed as a result of a racketeering scheme involving utility giant FirstEnergy and high-level state officials, had severe consequences for sustainable development:

• Erosion of Clean Energy Targets: House Bill 6 replaced the original goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025 with a drastically reduced target of 8.5% by 2026.
• Subsidization of Fossil Fuels: The law forced taxpayers to fund a $1.5 billion bailout for failing nuclear and coal plants, directly contradicting the principles of SDG 7 by propping up non-renewable energy sources.
• Corruption and Lack of Transparency: The scandal exposed how powerful corporate interests can manipulate the legislative process to protect fossil fuel assets from competition with increasingly affordable renewable energy, undermining democratic institutions.

Current Status and Ongoing Barriers to Clean Energy

Ohio’s energy policy continues to face significant barriers that inhibit progress toward a sustainable future. The state, once ranked first in alternative energy manufacturing, had fallen to 47th nationwide for utility-scale renewable electricity generation by 2023.

Persistent Legislative Obstacles

• Local Project Veto Power: Senate Bill 52 (2021) grants local county and township governments the authority to ban new solar and wind projects, creating significant uncertainty for developers and fragmenting energy policy. This has resulted in solar exclusion zones in nearly half of Ohio’s counties, impeding the development of infrastructure critical for SDG 7 and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).
• Reclassification of Energy Sources: In recent years, legislation has reclassified natural gas (House Bill 507, 2022) and nuclear energy (House Bill 308, 2025) as “green” energy. While these sources were excluded from renewable energy subsidies, such measures dilute the meaning of “clean energy” and divert policy focus from genuinely renewable sources like solar and wind.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy – The article’s central theme is Ohio’s failure to meet its renewable energy goals. It discusses the initial target of generating 25% of electricity from renewable sources and the current reality of only 5%, directly addressing the transition to clean energy.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth – The 2008 Clean Energy Law had a specific goal to “create jobs.” The article mentions that the law required in-state manufacturing, leading Ohio to become “second in the country in solar manufacturing” and highlights the economic loss of “$5 and $7 billion dollars of investment” when wind projects were canceled.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure – The article details the rise and fall of Ohio’s renewable energy industry, focusing on the development of solar and wind infrastructure. It discusses legislative hurdles like the “setback rule” that “effectively stagnated the wind industry” and hindered the building of sustainable infrastructure.
• SDG 13: Climate Action – The article touches on climate action by contrasting policies that favor renewable energy with those that support fossil fuels. It mentions a governor who believed “there is a problem with climate change” but also the influence of fossil fuel companies that have worked to “sow doubt about the severity and even existence of climate change,” thereby undermining climate policies.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions – This goal is heavily implicated through the discussion of corruption, lobbying, and the failure of governance. The “House Bill 6 scandal,” involving “FirstEnergy bribing then Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder,” is a direct example of corruption undermining state institutions and derailing sustainable energy policy. The use of last-minute, non-transparent amendments to bills also points to a lack of accountable institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 7.2: Increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.

   The article is centered on Ohio’s 2008 goal “to use renewable sources to generate 25% of the state’s electricity by 2025.” The failure to meet this goal, with the state currently at only 5%, is a direct reflection of this target.

2. Target 8.2: Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation…

   The 2008 bill aimed to create a new, high-value manufacturing sector in Ohio. The requirement that “at least half of the new renewable infrastructure to be manufactured in Ohio” was a policy designed to achieve this target by building a local solar and wind industry.

3. Target 9.4: Upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable…

   The article discusses the planned development of wind farms and solar manufacturing facilities as a move towards sustainable infrastructure. The “setback rule” that “tripled the property-line setbacks for wind energy” is presented as a major barrier to achieving this target, as it made building new wind infrastructure economically unfeasible.

4. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.

   The article describes how Ohio’s initial clean energy policies were systematically “obliterated.” The rollback of renewable energy mandates and the reclassification of natural gas as “green” energy represent a failure to integrate climate change measures into state-level policy and planning.

5. Target 16.5: Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.

   This target is directly addressed by the detailed account of the “House Bill 6 scandal,” described as a “racketeering scheme” where “FirstEnergy bribing then Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder” led to a $1.5 billion bailout for fossil fuel plants. The resulting 20-year prison sentence for the House Speaker highlights the presence of and response to high-level corruption.

6. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The article implies a failure to meet this target by describing how powerful corporate interests and lobbyists influenced legislation. The practice of adding major policy changes as “last minute” amendments to unrelated bills (e.g., the wind setback rule in a budget bill, reclassifying natural gas in a poultry bill) demonstrates a lack of transparent and accountable legislative processes.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator for Target 7.2: The share of renewable energy in total energy consumption. The article provides precise figures: the target was 25% by 2025, and the current level is “About 5%.” This is a direct quantitative indicator of progress (or lack thereof).
2. Indicator for Target 8.2: Economic impact of the renewable sector. The article provides several data points that can serve as indicators: Ohio’s rank as “second in the country in solar manufacturing in 2010” and the estimated “$5 and $7 billion dollars of investment” lost due to the cancellation of wind farm projects.
3. Indicator for Target 9.4: Rate of new renewable energy infrastructure installation. The article notes that after the setback rule was implemented, data shows an “acceleration of wind turbine installations and electricity generated by wind, and then you see it flatten,” which serves as a clear indicator of the slowdown in infrastructure development.
4. Indicator for Target 16.5: Evidence of bribery and corruption. The article explicitly mentions the bribery scheme, the deferred prosecution of FirstEnergy, and the “20 year sentence” for the former House Speaker, which are concrete indicators of corruption being identified and prosecuted.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: wosu.org