Republicans want ‘reliable’ power, but does that exclude wind and solar?

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Senate Republicans want any new power plant built in Ohio to generate electricity that’s affordable, reliable and clean.

It sounds simple, almost like a campaign slogan. But legislation in the Ohio Senate goes beyond those aspirational goals in a way that could hinder large-scale wind and solar projects from gaining approval.

The legislation, Senate Bill 294, defines “affordable, reliable, and clean energy sources” and adds them to the Ohio Power Siting Board’s process for approving new power plants.

Supporters say these terms will protect our grid’s reliability. Opponents say Republicans wrote it to boost natural gas while intentionally excluding wind and solar.

“I do believe there is a tremendous future for wind and solar‚“ Sen. George Lang, a Butler County Republican, said. ”But at this point, it doesn’t meet those qualifications.”

Lang’s bill is three pages long, but if it becomes law, it could reshape what projects for electricity generation get built in Ohio for decades.

That, in turn, could influence how much electricity costs, how the state meets growing demand from data centers and artificial intelligence, and what role renewable energy plays in powering our grid.

“We would urge the General Assembly not to pick winners and losers,” Ohio Chamber of Commerce attorney Tony Long said. “Let the market develop solutions to meet the electricity demands of Ohio.”

What is reliable energy?

For most people, reliable electricity means: I flip the switch, and the lights turn on.

For the engineers who run our power grid, reliability is measured by capacity factors.

SB 294 defines a “reliable energy source” as one with a capacity factor of at least 50% — meaning it produces its maximum possible output at least half the time.

Think of it like a car. If a vehicle’s top speed is 150 miles per hour, that’s its capacity. The capacity factor is how often someone drives that fast.

Nuclear and fossil fuel power plants easily meet that threshold, but renewables only generate electricity when the wind blows or the sun shines.

Solar’s capacity factor was 23% in 2024, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Wind’s capacity factor was 34%, while nuclear power was 91% and natural gas was 60%.

“The goal is to build generation that is super reliable,” Sen. Mark Romanchuk, a Richland County Republican, said.

But renewable energy advocates argued the definition leaves out a key piece of modern power systems: battery storage.

Evangeline Hobbs, from the American Clean Power Association, said to think about energy storage like Tupperware. Excess electricity generated during low-demand periods can be stored for later use.

Ohio Environmental Council policy director Nolan Rutschilling asked lawmakers to amend the bill to include storage so the power citing board “has the full toolbox to evaluate projects that can deliver reliability without increasing fuel-price volatility or long-term customer costs.”

Hobbs warned that eliminating renewable energy projects could cost the average Ohio customer a total of $6,500 by 2035.

The ACP analysis compared a scenario that included all proposed generation proposals in PJM’s pipeline with one that excluded renewable projects. PJM is the multi-state, power-sharing network Ohio has been using for decades.

Supporters of SB 294 pushed back on the idea that it’s designed to exclude renewables.

“The way I see it, this bill is looking to maximize the use of the state’s resources,” Sen. Brian Chavez, a Marietta Republican, said.

He compared it to shopping for a car.

“If I have limited funds, do I want to buy a car that’s effective less than 50% of the time?” Chavez said. “Or do I want to spend my money on a vehicle that is 95% effective and will speed up and slow down when I need it?”

What is clean energy?

Beyond reliability, the legislation draws a line around what the state considers clean power.

Romanchuk said the standard in SB 294 is simple: if a power plant meets national air quality rules set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act, it qualifies.

Environmental groups say that’s misleading at best.

“Using the term clean energy to encompass resources with widely different emissions profiles risks confusion, legal ambiguity and inconsistent application in siting decisions,” Rutschilling said.

He recommended keeping the term focused on low- or zero-emission sources.

What is affordable energy?

Under SB 294, the cost of producing electricity must include any direct or indirect government payments made over the previous five years.

Supporters call it “true cost” accounting.

They said subsidies can distort prices and make certain energy sources appear cheaper than they would be without tax credits or other incentives.

“Ohio’s energy policy will be guided by what actually lowers costs for consumers, not by political trends or short-term subsidies,” said Lora Current Myers from the American Legislative Exchange Council.

ALEC is a conservative group that develops model legislation for state lawmakers. It published an “Affordable, Reliable and Clean Energy Security Act” that mirrors key elements of Senate Bill 294.

The legislation also excludes “advanced nuclear energy technology” from qualifying under its affordability definition.

Rutschilling recommended judging affordability over a power plant’s full useful life rather than a short window.

He said limiting the comparison to five years can skew results against long-lived resources with no fuel costs, such as wind and solar.

“These updates better reflect how utilities, regulators and customers actually experience costs,” Rutschilling said.

But with electricity demand accelerating—driven largely by data centers and artificial intelligence—Lang said Ohio must prioritize the fastest, most reliable and most affordable sources available.

“This bill really doesn’t exclude solar. It doesn’t exclude wind. It doesn’t exclude hydropower,” Lang said. “But there are definitions that have to be met.”