The Ohio Conservative Energy Forum was incorporated as a charitable organization in Ohio on August 4, 2016 by Columbus attorney and lobbyist Terrence O’Donnell.  See link to filing here.
 
According to his lobbying reports, O’Donnell represents a who’s who of left wing, alternative energy organizations.  These include Advanced Energy Economy, Apex Clean Energy, Carbon Solutions Group, EDP Renewables, Green Tech Action Fund, Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation, and Open Road Renewables.  According to its website, the Green Tech Action Fund is affiliated with the Energy Foundation. 
 
Tyler Duvelius is the current Executive Director of the Ohio Conservative Energy Forum.  He previously served as the State Director of the Ohio Christian Coalition.  According to the 2016 IRS 990 form for the Green Tech Action Fund, $79,000 was granted to the Christian Coalition of America to conduct a clean energy digital ad campaign and support the Ohio state director. 
 
According to that same tax return, a grant of $60,000 was given to the Advance Energy Forum to support a digital advertising campaign in Ohio.  Another $20,000 was given to the Wind Energy Foundation for that same purpose. 
 
Bill Byers and Greg Bennett have lobbied for the Ohio Conservative Energy Forum since 2015.  According to their lobbying reports, the address for the group is the same address as The Energy Foundation and its affiliated Green Tech Action Fund in San Francisco. 
 
Michael Hartley has been identified as both the founder and a consultant for the Ohio Conservative Energy Forum.  Hartley is a former John Kasich staffer and the current President of Swing State Strategies, a GOP public affairs consulting firm. 
 
As I have previously written, the Ohio Conservative Energy Forum is actually an effort by left wing, California based liberal organizations to coopt and corrupt Ohio Republicans.  There is nothing conservative or Ohio about this group.

Once again, some GOP hired guns using the name Ohio Conservative Energy Forum are touting a poll purportedly showing that Ohio conservatives just love "clean energy".  Don't be fooled.  There is nothing conservative or Ohio about this group.

In fact, this is just the latest effort by far left, San Francisco based liberals to infiltrate and coopt Ohio Republicans.  According to their lobbying reports, the Ohio Conservative Energy Forum is simply a front for the San Francisco based Energy Foundation.  Here's how Influence Watch describes the Energy Foundation:

The Energy Foundation is a left-of-center “pass through” charitable foundation founded by and supported by a network of left-wing organizations. The Foundation began in January 1991 as a $20 million collaborative between the Pew Charitable Trusts, Rockefeller Foundations, and John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and has subsequently grown in partnerships and funding.[1] The Energy Foundation describes itself as a nonpartisan “grantmaker,” with a focus on building a “new energy economy.”[2] In reality, it is a medium for bundling vast sums of money from donors to far-left political causes, under the guise of philanthropy.

In December 2013, the Alabama Coal Association (ACA) accused several organizations of promoting a “war on coal.” The ACA cited roughly $3 million in grants given to anti-coal groups by the Energy Foundation, including the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. Federal filings show that the grant intent was “the accelerated retirement of conventional coal-fired plants.”[34]

Don't be fooled.  The Ohio Conservative Energy Forum is a liberal, San Francisco wolf in sheep clothing.  ​

My letter on Ohio's Nuclear Plants ran recently in the Toledo Blade.  ICYMI, here it is:

Closing nukes bad for economy

Bad government decisions are crippling Ohio’s most important and reliable energy source, jeopardizing thousands of jobs and the quality of our air along the way.

In recent years, nuclear energy has been placed at a competitive disadvantage by outrageous corporate welfare handouts lavished on other energy producers.

Excessive regulation by the federal government is preventing construction and renovation of nuclear power plants. Over the past decade, plans for more than 30 new nuclear reactors have been scrapped. To make matters worse, the federal government began pouring tax dollars into subsidies for unproven and unrealistic solar and wind projects. During President Obama’s tenure in office, the federal government spent more than $300 billion on handouts to green energy schemes -- many of which never got off the ground.

The government’s cold shoulder towards nuclear is particularly problematic here in the Buckeye State. Nuclear energy is responsible for 90 percent of Ohio’s carbon-free energy. The state’s two nuclear power stations — Davis-Besse and Perry — produce enough electricity each year to power 1.7 million homes.

Ohio’s nuclear power plants contribute half a billion dollars to the state’s economy annually, according to the Brattle Group, an economic research firm. The plants also generate more than $30 million in tax revenue for the state and local governments that goes to fund essential services such as local law enforcement and first responders.

Further, the Brattle Group estimates that having low-cost nuclear energy in the state’s electric mix reduces power bills for Ohio’s electric customers by $400 million a year, leaving more money in the pockets of hard-working Ohioans.

Perhaps most importantly, 4,300 Ohio families rely on jobs supported by the state’s nuclear power industry. Those jobs would be lost if government policies force the state’s nuclear power stations to close.

The plants that would replace Ohio’s two nuclear plants if they close in the next two years would not come close to replacing the number of jobs that we would lose. According to the Energy Information Administration, a nuclear plant with 838 megawatt capacity employs about 600 people while a natural gas plant with 627 megawatt capacity employs less than 5 percent of that: 22 employees. Once a gas plant has been built, the bulk of the jobs they produce disappear as construction workers move on.

If we allow Perry and Davis-Besse to close, we’d be replacing hundreds of high-paying, high-skilled jobs with something that equates to a small fraction of that amount. Or even worse, that energy may be imported from outside of Ohio and other states would see the benefit of our failed policy approach.

That being said, the importance of saving these plants is not just about jobs and the economy. Nuclear power also allows Ohioans to breathe a little easier -- literally.

While electricity generated from natural gas may be better than coal-burning power plants, it is still much worse than nuclear energy. Natural gas is lauded for emitting about half of the carbon dioxide as coal, but nuclear power produces no carbon dioxide emissions at all, and no air pollution whatsoever. The only byproduct of nuclear power is water vapor.

Clearly, nuclear energy is dramatically cleaner than fossil fuel-burning power plants and provides many more jobs. And despite receiving billions of dollars in subsidies, renewables are not close to matching the scale of nuclear energy. In fact, only 1.7 percent of Ohio’s electricity is generated from hydroelectric, solar and wind power combined.

Despite the undeniable economic benefits of nuclear energy in Ohio, unreasonable regulations and unfair subsidies have pushed the state’s two nuclear power stations to the brink of closing. If these plants close, electric bills for average households are expected to increase as well. Ohio residents can’t afford to pay more money and lose thousands of jobs.

Federal and state lawmakers must stop only rewarding the forms of energy that do more harm than good. Ohio’s economic future depends on it.

SCOTT PULLINS
Mt. Vernon, Ohio

​Scott Pullins is an Ohio attorney, consultant and political writer. He is the founder of the Ohio Taxpayers Association. For further information, please visit www.scottpullins.com and www.ohiotaxpayers.org.

​Our friends over at Americans for Limited Government have released a new report on the problems with solar power.  Their news release is below: 

​ALGF Releases Report on the Problems of Solar Energy

Aug. 20, 2018, Fairfax, Va.—Today, Americans for Limited Government Foundation released a study entitled, “Solar Power Harms Taxpayers and Consumers and Endangers the Reliability of the Grid.” The study points out the problems with solar energy from taxpayer-funded subsidies and increased costs for utility customers to grid reliability concerns.

Solar energy receives heavy federal subsidies that are far more generous than the subsidies for natural gas, coal, or even wind. In addition to federal support, states have also enacted policies to prop up solar power. State renewable energy mandates have encouraged the generation of solar energy. In dozens of states, utility companies are forced to compensate solar panel owners for the excess electricity that they supply to the grid. Those programs are funded by other utility customers.

But in the rush to increase solar power generation, some of the disadvantages of solar power are being overlooked. The intermittency of solar power is a particular problem. This intermittency necessitates the availability of ample backup power plants to ramp up when clouds obscure the sun. Solar power’s intermittency also complicates the job of grid operators to keep the grid adequately supplied with electricity.

The money spent on solar subsidies and new solar plants would be better spent on maintaining and upgrading the creaky, aging grid. After all, huge portions of the grid are at or beyond their expected service life.

“The mandates and incentives to build solar plants and install solar panels have to stop. Taxpayers are being fleeced, working class consumers are subsidizing their wealthier neighbors’ solar panels, and the reliability of the grid is being threatened,” said Richard McCarty, Director of Research at Americans for Limited Government Foundation.

“The money being spent to build new solar power plants in remote locations, to connect them to the grid, and to maintain backup power plants would be much better spent on upgrading our aging grid,” said Richard Manning, President of Americans for Limited Government.

To view online: https://getliberty.org/2018/08/algf-releases-report-on-the-problems-of-solar-energy/
Attachments:

“Solar Power Harms Taxpayers and Consumers and Endangers the Reliability of the Grid,” By Richard McCarty, August 17, 2018 at http://algresearch.org/2018/08/solar-power-harms-taxpayers-and-consumers-and-endangers-the-reliability-of-the-grid/

Interview Availability: Please contact Americans for Limited Government at 703-383-0080 ext. 1003. 

​Even before the recent Ohio Supreme Court’s 4-2 decision, which enshrined retroactive agency rule making into Ohio law; the Buckeye state was already suffering from what most experts would consider as regulatory excess.  
 
For example:
 
Brandon S. Ogden, MBA, Founder of Small Business Consultants of Ohio, said that the ECOT decision “certainly worsens Ohio’s reputation as one of the most highly regulated states in the nation with its sizeable regulatory code.”  Ogden points to a recent study from George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, which highlights the fact that the Ohio Administrative Code “contains 246,852 restrictions, 15.2 million words, and compares only to the Federal Registry in length.”
 
According to the Cato Institute, Ohio ranks a meager 31 out of 50 on regulatory freedom issues.  A link to the Cato Institute study can be found here.
 
Odgen said that “once retroactive rules are permitted under law, almost anything can happen.”  Odgen continued and stated that “small businesses are especially vulnerable to retroactive rule making because it takes away their ability to comment and press for change and they typically lack the financial resources to fight back, like ECOT was able to do.”

Read the rest of the article here.

​In 2001 a group of public school employee unions brought litigation against the State of Ohio, various charter schools including ECOT, and their management companies.  

Their contention?  

That the state’s charter school legislation which permitted privately operated schools to receive public money was unconstitutional.

The 2005 oral arguments are strikingly similar to the issues now being debated.  Those archived oral arguments can be viewed here.

Fortunately, the Ohio Supreme Court, by a narrow 4-3 majority, upheld the constitutionality of this system.

Unfortunately, those that want to shut down every charter school in Ohio haven’t given up.  They are now trying to overturn this seminal 2006 decision through a series of backdoor legal actions tied to the current ECOT litigation.  

Let me explain:

In 2016 during the midst of the presidential primaries, a group of school choice opponents within the Ohio Department of Education, along with the Governor’s office, discovered a way to go after online charter schools.   As a result of their actions, the largest online school, ECOT, was closed. 3rd Rail Politics has extensively covered this issue.  

Additionally, six other smaller online schools have closed while three are struggling on repayment plans.

Those efforts were just the beginning.  

Now, unless the Ohio Supreme Court overturns the lower courts and find those efforts unlawful, the path will be clear for bureaucrats and ambitious politicians to eliminate all of Ohio’s charter schools.  

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE

​News Flash: Timken, Husted and Pollster Neil Newhouse to Attend Speaker Smith's OHROC 2018 Candidate Seminar Tomorrow 
 
Speaker Ryan is holding the OHROC 2018 Candidate Seminar tomorrow.  The premise is to work with Republican candidates for the Ohio House including many of whom have never run for state office before.  3rd Rail has obtained a copy of the agenda which includes GOP Chairwoman Jane Timken, Secretary of State and Candidate for Lt. Governor Jon Husted and Pollster Neil Newhouse. 
 
It appears Speaker Smith has selectively picked who he wanted to attend the event as several top lobbyists were not included in an email invite blast that seemed to include those on the OHROC contact list.  
 
While one can understand why Chairwoman Timken would be invited to speak along with Jon Husted who shares a close relationship with Ryan Smith (and their puppet master bff Mike Dawson), Pollster Neil Newhouse’s attendance is raising some eyebrows! 

Read the rest of the article here.

Thanks to Dave Cash and our friends at Charter School Specialists for putting this material together for us:

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) is the leading national nonprofit organization committed to advancing the charter school movement. Earlier this Spring the NAPCS prepared a lengthy defense of charter schools nationally, and that organization used a "myth versus fact" approach in doing so.
 
Over the last 10 years, the public charter school movement experienced a dramatic 80 percent increase in the number of students and a 40 percent increase in the number of schools. Despite that growth, there is still an overwhelming unmet parental demand for quality school options, with more than one million student names on charter school waiting lists nationally. While charter schools enjoy at least some measure of bipartisan support among policymakers and the general public, they also have some vocal critics who continue to perpetuate a number of myths about charters.
 
The champions of charter schools in Ohio and beyond don't need to be defensive about charter schools, yet it seems we're constantly being put on the defensive by our critics, many of whom have seemingly endless resources devoted to doing us harm.
​
Charter School Specialists has made the effort to briefly summarize the NAPCS document so that our colleagues in the charter school community have ready access to the best arguments in the debate over charter schools. We believe it's critical that all of us involved with charter schools, at every level of our movement, are armed with the facts and the findings of independent research in making a compelling case in favor of charter schools.
 
Finally, we stand ready to help you refine your arguments in favor of charter schools. Just let us know how we can help.
 
MYTH: Charter schools are not public schools.
 
FACT: As defined in federal and state law, charter schools are indeed public schools. They must meet the same academic standards that all public schools are required to meet. They are tuition free and open to all students; Nonsectarian and do not discriminate on any basis; Publicly funded by local, state, and federal tax dollars based on enrollment, like other public schools; and Held accountable for meeting state and federal academic standards. Charter schools are approved, funded, and overseen by a government-endorsed authorizing entity, just as traditional public schools are overseen by a school district.
 
MYTH: Charter schools get more money than other public schools.
 
FACT: On average, charter schools receive less public funding than traditional public schools. Moreover, in many states, charter schools get no facilities funding and don't enjoy the benefits of receiving local property taxes. This national funding discrepancy continues to grow. In our state there are many instances where urban charters receive barely one-third of their neighboring district schools.
 
MYTH: Charter schools receive a disproportionate amount of private funds.
 
FACT: It's a plain fact that charter schools receive fewer private funds per pupil than traditional public schools. Since charter schools operate with far fewer funds than their neighboring traditional public schools and often do not receive funding for facilities or property taxes, many charter schools fund-raise to make up this difference. Like traditional public schools, charter schools raise money through school fundraisers, community partnerships, booster clubs, or donations by parents, businesses, or philanthropic organizations. However, a University of Arkansas study debunked the myth that charter schools received disproportionate funding from non-public sources to reduce the gap in the funding disparity.
 
MYTH: There is a lack of transparency around charter schools' use of funds.
 
FACT: Charter schools have greater accountability and scrutiny over their finances than traditional public schools. As public schools, charter schools are held accountable for their finances by state law. Though public reporting laws vary by state, charter schools in every state are required to be financially transparent.
 
Charter schools also have another level of oversight beyond traditional public schools because they are accountable to their authorizers. Public charter school authorizers are required to approve and renew only those charter schools that have demonstrated they can improve student performance in a fiscally and organizationally sound manner. Charter School Specialists, for example, has recommended that several charter schools be closed for those reasons. Closure of district schools happen very rarely.
 
MYTH: Charter school teachers are less qualified than teachers in traditional public schools.
 
FACT: Like all public school leaders, charter leaders aim to hire talented, passionate, and qualified teachers who will boost student achievement and contribute to a thriving school culture. But in contrast to many other public school leaders, charter school leaders have flexibility to ensure that the teachers they hire not only are qualified but also are producing results for students and families. These flexibilities include the ability to decide whom to hire, how to pair teachers to best meet students' needs, and how to fairly hold teachers accountable for improving student achievement. Further, the flexibility that public charter schools have to make personnel decisions allows them to draw from a wider candidate pool, including content area experts who may not have followed a traditional teacher certification path. The public charter school model also gives teachers the flexibility to use their talents and abilities to design programs that work better for the students they serve, while at the same time being held accountable for student achievement.
 
MYTH: Charter schools are anti-union.
 
FACT: Charter schools are neither pro-union nor anti-union: They are pro-teacher. Teachers in any school should be treated fairly and should be given the due process rights they are accorded under the law. Charter leaders should also be given the flexibility needed to staff their schools with teachers who support the mission and will meet school standards.
 
State legislatures determine whether or not charter schools are required to be unionized. Even when state law doesn't require charters to be unionized, teachers still can voluntarily decide they'd like to unionize. Most of the time, when given that choice, public charter school teachers decide not to unionize.
 
MYTH: Charter schools aren't accountable to the public since their boards aren't elected.
 
FACT: Charter schools are directly accountable to the public. They are approved and overseen by a government-endorsed authorizing entity (St. Aloysius, for example). If they do not serve the public by producing results, they can be improved or closed far faster than other schools.
 
Charter schools are also funded with public funds, just like all other public schools. In fact, charter schools are uniquely accountable to the public because they sign contracts with a government-endorsed authorizer explaining how the schools will operate and the results they will achieve. If they don't produce these results, their authorizer has the power to work to immediately fix the schools or close them. 11 states have automatic closure laws for charters that fail to meet their obligations. Traditional public schools can fail for years-even generations-and never be closed down for bad performance.
 
In addition to being accountable to their authorizers and being subject to fixing or closure for poor performance, charter schools are accountable because:

• Charter students must take the same tests as students in traditional public schools;
• Charter schools must meet state and federal academic standards that apply to traditional public schools; and
• Charter schools are required to undergo financial audits.

MYTH: Charter schools cream or cherry-pick the best students from traditional public schools.
 
FACT: Public charter schools are generally required to take all students who want to attend. If there are more interested students than available seats, the schools are generally required to hold lotteries, which randomly determine which students will be enrolled. Unlike magnet schools overseen by school districts, public charter schools cannot selectively admit students. According to federal law, they must accept all students, including students with disabilities and English Learners, regardless of previous academic performance.
 
MYTH: Charter schools don't enroll children from underserved families.
 
FACT: Public charter schools enroll more students of color and from low-income backgrounds than traditional public schools. According to the most recent national demographic data, public charter schools enroll a greater percentage of:

• Students of color: Black students comprise 29 percent of charter school enrollment and 16 percent of the traditional public school student population.
• Charter schools have a 27 percent Hispanic population, while traditional public schools have a 23 percent Hispanic population.
• Low-income students: 53 percent of charter students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, compared to 48 percent of traditional public school students.

MYTH: Charter schools serve fewer English Learners than traditional public schools.
 
FACT: There is no significant difference in the percentage of English Learners served by traditional or public charter schools. The most recent U.S. Department of Education survey data showed that 10 percent of charter school students are English Learners, compared to 9 percent of students in traditional public schools.
 
MYTH: Charter schools serve fewer students with disabilities.
 
FACT: According to the most recent publicly available data, 10 percent of charter school students are students with disabilities, compared to 12 percent of students in traditional public schools. Beyond these largely comparable numbers, students with disabilities are thriving in charter schools. Stanford University found that in terms of achievement, students with disabilities attending public charter schools gained 14 days of learning in math compared to their traditional school peers.
 
MYTH: Charter school students do no better than traditional public school students.
 
FACT: Between 2010 and 2013, 15 of 16 independent studies found that students attending charter schools do better academically than their traditional school peers.31 The Stanford University study found that overall, students in public charter schools are outperforming their traditional public school peers in reading, adding an average of seven additional days of learning per year, and performing as well as students in traditional public schools in math.
 
MYTH: Competition from charter schools is causing neighborhood schools to close and harming the students attending them.
 
FACT: No research has shown that the presence of public charter schools causes neighborhood schools to close. Neighborhood schools close for a variety of reasons, including declining student enrollment due to changing community demographics or shifting population centers.
 
MYTH: Charter schools take funding away from traditional public schools.
 
FACT: Public school funding is sent to the public school that a student attends. If a student chooses to leave one traditional public school for another traditional public school, funding goes to the new school, which is now responsible for educating that student. The same is true if a student chooses to leave a charter school to attend a traditional school. The previous school, no longer responsible for educating that child, no longer receives those funds. However, if a student leaves a traditional public school for a charter school, only a portion of that student's funding goes to the new school.
 
So, in fact, charters are at a disadvantage when they receive an unequal portion of funds for educating the same child. Charter schools don't affect districts financially any more than district student transfers do. There's no question that resources are strained in American public schools. Bottom line is that charter schools allow public resources to stay in the public school system and help ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent by requiring schools to perform well or close.