It has been three years since Ohio lawmakers first introduced the power plant bailout legislation that is now at the heart of the largest corruption case in state history.
Since House Bill 6 passed in 2019, an FBI investigation has revealed a $60 million bribery scheme, leading to extensive by FirstEnergy 鈥� a utility company central to the scandal 鈥� and guilty pleas from three defendants in a federal criminal case.
Beyond that, though, accountability has been slow to come, and HB 6, , remains on the books.
Just as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change鈥檚 notes how vested interests have blocked progress on climate change mitigation, the HB 6 scandal shows how utility, fossil fuel and nuclear interests have framed Ohio energy policy, even when that policy with voter preferences on renewable energy.
鈥淚n Ohio, in the wake of HB 6, we鈥檙e seeing just how tied together energy issues are with the state of our democracy,鈥� said Neil Waggoner, Ohio senior campaign representative for the Sierra Club鈥檚 Beyond Coal campaign.
Even after the corruption was exposed in 2020, the state鈥檚 elected leaders didn鈥檛 fully investigate and fix the problem, Waggoner continued. Instead, key people involved in HB 6 stayed in office. House Speaker Larry Householder, who was arrested by the FBI in July 2020, won re-election and remained in office until June 2021. In fact, all 45 lawmakers who backed and were up for election in November 2020 won their races.
鈥淭hey dug in and fought to maintain the status quo,鈥� Waggoner said.
鈥淭hat鈥檚 all part of this broader question of why is it that we give outsized influence to special interests in our politics,鈥� said Matthew Hodgetts, an expert on environmental politics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. A small number of very wealthy individuals and corporations 鈥渉ave basically monopolized climate policy for generations now.鈥�
And, he adds, 鈥渢hey are very open about what they are doing.鈥�
High stakes
Ohio is a major energy producer and significant source of emissions, with a comparable to like Spain or the United Arab Emirates.
As of 2020, Ohio, with the seventh largest population, used the amount of electricity among all the states. Roughly 81% of Ohio鈥檚 comes from fossil fuels.
After a 2008 set the stage for a, reported campaign contributions from utility, nuclear and coal interests jumped. FirstEnergy gave more than $560,000 in 2010 and nearly $785,000 in 2012. Combined giving from the utility, coal and nuclear industries exceeded $3.3 million in 2018.
But reported campaign donations don鈥檛 tell the whole story.
The Supreme Court鈥檚 2010 decision in enabled even higher levels of unreported political spending through for-profit or nonprofit dark money organizations.
FirstEnergy and others who gave to dark money groups stood to gain a lot from HB 6. The law earmarked about in statewide ratepayer subsidies for two former FirstEnergy nuclear plants over the course of six years. HB 6 also codified subsidies for two 1950s-era coal plants owned by other companies. Those subsidies have cost roughly since 2020 began, while adding approximately of to the air.
Householder, the former House Speaker, faces a trial on criminal charges next year, along with lobbyist Matt Borges, who previously chaired the Ohio Republican Party. Two other and the dark money group filed guilty pleas. Another co-defendant, lobbyist Neil Clark, died of an apparent last year after writing a that, among other things, claims Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine received a $5 million bribe from FirstEnergy.
FirstEnergy has also the former chair of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Sam Randazzo. DeWine was apparently that Randazzo had close ties to FirstEnergy before the appointment in early 2019. Randazzo鈥檚 was well known.
Randazzo denied wrongdoing but in November 2020, days after FBI agents searched his home. Before then, Randazzo. And he the PUCO鈥檚 actions on calls for repeal and a full regulatory investigation.
Dominated by dark money
The in the HB 6 scandal focus on bribery, money laundering and conspiracy by public officials and others as part of a corrupt racketeering enterprise.
Spending lots of money in politics is not itself a crime. Under, corporations can spend almost unlimited amounts on political issues or advocacy, as long as the spending isn鈥檛 coordinated with a candidate鈥檚 campaign.
Yet the line between what鈥檚 coordinated and what鈥檚 not can get blurry. Money can go through multiple organizations before it鈥檚 spent for ads or other activities. And there鈥檚 limited, if any, reporting on the financial backers of different groups. Any reporting that does happen often comes more than a year after elections.
These circumstances make it nearly impossible for voters to be about which business interests are pushing different agendas. There鈥檚 also little accountability for many misleading political ads. Ads to thwart a referendum on HB 6 touted a bogus, for example.
Common Cause Ohio, the Brennan Center for Justice, and Voters鈥� Right to Know have advocated for legislative fixes. For example, any group鈥檚 鈥渋ndependent鈥� ad might be required to identify the group鈥檚 top three financial backers as an ad airs or is sent out. That could help somewhat, but would still require detective work if the backers themselves are other dark money groups.
鈥淣obody knows where that money is coming from. So there鈥檚 a lack of accountability,鈥� said Ohio Rep. Juanita Brent, D-Cleveland Heights.
And lobbyists for companies and others that fund dark money groups often want to stay in the shadows.
鈥淔irstEnergy Corp. used the 501(c)(4) corporate form as a mechanism to conceal payments for the benefit of public officials and in return for official action,鈥� a admitted in July 2021.
Many politicians also have little incentive to require detailed reporting on dark money.
鈥淵ou鈥檙e not going to hold the purse strings accountable because you鈥檙e dependent on the money,鈥� said Ashley Brown, a former PUCO commissioner who headed the Harvard Electricity Policy Group.
Rigging the system
If enough people are dissatisfied with elected representatives, they can theoretically vote them out of office. But gerrymandering has effectively ensured one-party rule in Ohio鈥檚 legislature, making it difficult for voters to hold politicians accountable for unpopular policy actions.
鈥淚t鈥檚 believed that they can get away with it, because they鈥檙e so secure in those districts,鈥� said Ohio Sen. Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood. Since 2013, Republicans have enjoyed supermajorities in both houses of the General Assembly, while also holding the governor鈥檚 office.
In statewide elections over the past decade, roughly of Ohioans have voted Republican, compared to 46% Democrat. Yet mapmaking practices such as 鈥溾�� have given Republicans veto-proof majorities of nearly in the Ohio Senate and about in the Ohio House.
Ballot measures in 2015 and 2018 amended the state constitution to set up a redistricting commission. The goal was to use a transparent process to reflect statewide voter preferences without undue advantages for either party.
Yet so far the Ohio Supreme Court has the GOP-dominated redistricting commission鈥檚 maps for the Ohio General Assembly. April by commission members argue they should not be held in for a of versions of the earlier unconstitutional maps for ones developed by independent mapmakers.
It鈥檚 unclear what will happen with Ohio鈥檚 gerrymandering crisis. For now, bills for a complete repeal of HB 6 remain stalled at the Ohio legislature. And although the nuclear subsidies are gone, of nearly for coal plant subsidies have stalled since October. AEP Ohio, Duke Energy, AES Ohio and the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation all testified against both bills. One of the two subsidized 1950s-era plants isn鈥檛 even in Ohio.
鈥淲e are watching democratic erosion unfold,鈥� said Hodgetts at Case Western. 鈥淎nd yet we seem helpless to stop it. 鈥� At the end of the day we ended up at a place where the politics is really not driven by the people.鈥�
to subscribe to Eye on Utilities, providing periodic updates on Ohio utility news in the wake of the HB 6 corruption scandal.
This story originated from the and and is part of , a series from the global journalism collaboration .