Ted
Strickland didn't have to combine restructuring the electricity
industry with a call for increased use of renewable energy and greater
energy efficiency. The governor would have left lawmakers plenty to do
meeting a January 2009 deadline, when FirstEnergy and other utilities
are scheduled to enter the brave new world of a fully deregulated
market. That deadline is the first priority, building a hybrid of
sorts, a system that leaves room for market principles and prudent
regulation.
That is where the
big money will be spent, lobbyists and consultants vying, cajoling,
even badgering the many interested parties.
What
the governor did in pushing an ''advanced energy portfolio'' was
attempt to seize an opportunity many other states have already begun to
pursue. He wants by 2025, a minimum of 25 percent of the electricity
sold in Ohio to come from renewable sources of energy or the likes of
clean-coal technology. He also proposes that the state focus more
heavily on energy efficiency, essentially doing the same amount of work
with less electricity.
Both
goals are most worthy, a conclusion reinforced by the two dozen states
that have established renewable energy standards. For example, Illinois
has the objective of 25 percent by 2025. Pennsylvania seeks 18.5
percent by 2020. Wisconsin? Ten percent by 2015. California points to
20 percent by 2018.
The
persuasive bet is: Such standards signal the commitment necessary to
attract investment. Strickland attached the label ''energy, jobs and
progress'' to his proposal. The echo of James Rhodes is less important
than the awareness that the development of new technologies promises to
boost local and regional economies, yes, here in Ohio. More, the effort
plays to the state's manufacturing strengths, not to mention its role
in combating climate change, Ohio ranking as a leading emitter of
greenhouse gases.
Thus, it makes sense for the state to move ahead quickly on this front and do the job right.
Take
the energy efficiency standard. The governor wants by 2025, energy
efficiency measures to account for 25 percent of the projected growth
in electricity use. Consider that in a relative sense, electricity use
isn't likely to soar in the state, and the standard hardly appears
bold, or even appropriately ambitious. Similarly, the renewable energy
standard lacks benchmarks. The Strickland team counsels they would be
counterproductive because the market is expected to be ''very
dynamic.'' Actually, benchmarks promise to be more effective than the
overall goal, allowing the state to chart, adjust and invest.
If
anything, the variance among state goals signals the uncertainty about
renewable energy. It suggests, too, the considerable cost. Already New
Jersey has begun to sweat over the investment (and higher prices)
required to meet its goal of 2 percent of electricity from solar power
by 2021. That shouldn't discourage Ohio from charting its own way. It
does point to the need for candor about the challenge ahead.
