A former state official is highlighting a significant divergence in energy policy views between Vivek Ramaswamy and his running mate Robert McColley, raising questions about their approach to Ohio's electricity supply and costs. Ashley C. Brown, a former PUCO Commissioner and retired Executive Director of the Harvard Electricity Policy Group, notes that while Ramaswamy advocates for rapidly expanding power generation and streamlining permits to reduce prices, McColley co-sponsored legislation that gives local governments power to restrict new large-scale wind and solar projects.
Ramaswamy's energy agenda centers on increasing the number of generating plants in Ohio, including gas, coal, nuclear, and renewables, according to Brown. His plan calls for simplifying the permitting process to accelerate construction of these assets. This approach, Brown states, aims to reduce electricity prices for Ohioans by increasing the supply of diverse energy resources, fostering open competition, and ensuring reliable energy production. Ramaswamy's strategy relies on the legal powers of the Power Siting Board to override local government decisions that might impede development, Brown explained.
However, Brown points out that McColley's actions diverge notably from this position, particularly concerning large-scale wind and solar plants. McColley co-sponsored Ohio Senate Bill 52, which was signed into law in 2021. This bill grants county commissioners the authority to restrict or prohibit the permitting of large-scale wind and solar generating facilities within their jurisdictions. Brown argues that instead of streamlining the permitting process as Ramaswamy proposes, this legislation enables increased government intervention in the energy market.
This intervention, Brown suggests, could reduce the supply of energy resources and limit the robust competition that Republicans have advocated for, potentially harming both consumers and the broader public interest. Brown states that McColley has made the permitting process for wind and solar plants "far more burdensome," diminishing prospects for their construction in Ohio. These differing positions reflect "diametrically opposed views" on how to facilitate additional generation, on government intervention in the marketplace, and on the benefits of a diverse portfolio of resources to Ohio’s supply, Brown noted.
Brown highlights that these differing views have "additional and very important aspects." Ramaswamy's stated goal is to assure Ohioans of a reliable energy supply at an affordable price, seeking to reduce electric bills. In contrast, Brown asserts that McColley's actions, through Senate Bill 52, could lead to the opposite outcome, making reliable supply "less certain more and less affordable" and inevitably resulting in higher electric bills for consumers.
The former commissioner explains that wind and solar energy sources have the lowest marginal cost of production among the options Ramaswamy supports. These low-cost sources, when dispatched on the PJM regional grid, could drive down overall energy prices—an objective Ramaswamy seeks to accomplish. Yet, Brown notes, McColley's sponsored legislation is designed to discourage or even exclude these very resources from Ohio's energy portfolio, making Ramaswamy's objective "almost impossible to accomplish." Furthermore, Brown indicates that wind and solar generation, when combined with batteries, offer Ohio protection against interruptions in fossil fuel supplies, contributing to greater reliability.
Brown also identifies a specific "adverse impact" of McColley’s legislation on Toledo and Northwest Ohio, which is ironic given McColley's origins in the region. The legislation, Brown states, affects Toledo’s efforts to leverage its glass industry to become a center for solar panel production. By attempting to keep solar products out of the Ohio market, McColley's bill could set back or even foreclose this economic opportunity for the region, a result Brown presumes Ramaswamy does not endorse. Brown concludes by stating that Ohioans need clarity on which of the contrasting energy plans the two running mates would pursue if elected.
