COLUMBUS – The nation's struggling nuclear power plants have struck out in several attempts to get federal help to keep them afloat amid cheaper alternatives such as natural gas and wind and solar power.

So companies have turned to state officials for bailouts to keep them in business.

They've largely been successful.

In 2016, New York approved 12 years of subsidies for nuclear plants. Illinois' governor signed a bill in 2016 to collect $235 million a year from customers to keep open two nuclear plants there. Connecticut followed suit with a 10-year package, despite reports the plant there was profitable.

Earlier this month, New Jersey officials signed off on a $300 million a year nuclear power subsidy after Public Service Enterprise Group said it would close two plants.

Now it's Ohio consumers who are being asked to pay $300 million a year to keep FirstEnergy Solutions' two nuclear power plants here through the "Ohio Clean Air Program" in fast-tracked House Bill 6.

The pitch in all these states is the same: Without state subsidies, these plants will close and thousands will lose jobs. Dirtier power sources will make up the difference, worsening climate change.

Behind the scenes, the companies are hiring large teams of lobbyists, donating millions to political candidates and making the economic case for a bailout.

But there's a twist in Ohio – Republican lawmakers want to offset the cost by eliminating a state mandate that electric companies get a certain percentage of their power from wind, solar and other renewable sources. That's driving opposition to the bill from organizations that supported similar legislation in other states.

"This bill is nothing but a brazen boondoggle of a bailout for a bankrupt business," John Finnigan, lead counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, told lawmakers last week.

Closure threats

Ohio "deregulated" electric power in the early 2000s. Utility companies buy electricity through a competitive marketplace.

Lower prices for natural gas and renewables have made it hard for nuclear to compete. More than one-third of the country's nuclear power plants are unprofitable or scheduled to close in the next few years.

FirstEnergy Corp. first asked feds for help. When that didn't happen, the company spun off FirstEnergy Solutions, which filed for bankruptcy in March 2018. The company's proposed restructuring plan would have absolved FirstEnergy Corp. from future liability for the nuclear and coal plants owned by the new company. A judge rejected that proposal earlier this month.

FirstEnergy Solutions owns two nuclear plants near Ohio's Lake Erie shoreline: Davis-Besse, east of Toledo in Oak Harbor, which is slated to close in May 2020; and Perry, east of Cleveland, in Perry, Ohio, which is scheduled to close in May 2021.

The closure of the plants would eliminate about 1,400 direct jobs, nearly 3,000 indirect jobs and an estimated $30 million a year in state and local tax revenue. There's also an effect on Ohio's school funding formula that would reduce state aid for some school districts.

The two plants generate about 15 percent of Ohio's electricity without emitting carbon dioxide and make up about 88 percent of the state's emission-free electricity.

If they close, supporters argue, the difference would be made up by dirtier power sources such as coal and natural gas.

Maria Korsnick, president of nuclear industry organization Nuclear Energy Institute, said producing the same amount of electricity with wind turbines would cost more than $11 billion to build.

"If these plants close, the downstream consequences are dire and irrevocable," Korsnick told lawmakers earlier this month.

Plant closures have decimated communities in other states. A leader from one of those towns, Vernon, Vermont, traveled to Ohio last week and pleaded with lawmakers to avoid that fate. Josh Unruh, the town's selectboard chairman, said the town's one retail store closed, housing values plummeted and taxes have gone up to provide basic services.

"The engine that drove our community died, and our town and region’s economic development has eroded because of it," he said.

More:Nuclear plant shutdowns a crisis for small towns across the USA

Customers asked to pay

Each state's plan is a little different, but they're basically structured like this:

"Zero-emission credits" are awarded, in cash, to energy facilities for each megawatt-hour of electricity created with zero or reduced carbon dioxide emissions.

The credits are paid for by everyone who pays an electric bill in the state, regardless of whether they use nuclear power.

Ohio Republicans are quick to point out the words "nuclear" and "bailout" aren't in the bill. Wind, solar and other renewables would be eligible for some funding, as would reduced-emissions coal operations.

"No one company could or could not take advantage of these dollars," Rep. Jon Cross, a Republican from Hardin County, told wind power proponents during a committee hearing on the bill.

But the way the bill is worded makes nuclear eligible for about $169 million of the $300 million available. It's unclear whether renewable sources would benefit due to restrictions detailed in the bill, which also doesn't specify the electricity has to be generated in Ohio.

Ohio's 4.8 million electric consumers would pay the $300 million cost of the program through monthly fees:

$2.50 for residential consumers,

$20 for commercial consumers,

$250 for industrial consumers and

$2,500 for very large commercial and industrial users.

That could be cheaper than the current riders for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, but might mean huge savings for some larger energy users. And ratepayers could be on the hook for utilities' long-term contracts to buy renewable energy.

Since 1999, Ohio consumers have paid more than $15 billion for subsidies for electric utilities, according to the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, which represents residential utility customers on Ohio regulatory matters.

Over the next five years, approved riders will collect an estimated $639 million from customers to subsidize utility costs.

More:Nuclear power finds odd bedfellow in 2020 Dems as voters look for climate change solutions

Millions spent on marketing, lobbying

Nuclear power companies and their supporters have spent millions of dollars contributing to state candidate campaigns and lobbying state officials.

In New Jersey, FirstEnergy's New Jersey subsidiary and Exelon spent $5.2 million in 2017 and 2018 on lobbying efforts for the subsidy package there, according to reports filed with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission. FirstEnergy’s share: $831,600 during that time.

Complete lobbying expenses aren't reported in Ohio.

Before the bankruptcy filing, FirstEnergy Corp. was pressing for similar legislation last year. The company has had more than a dozen registered lobbyists since 2017. FirstEnergy Solutions currently has four registered lobbyists and FirstEnergy Bondholder Group has two.

FirstEnergy's political action committee has given more than $1.74 million to Ohio political candidates and parties since January 2015, according to an Enquirer analysis of campaign finance data. Company executives and employees gave another $130,000 to statewide and Statehouse candidates during that time. Republican Gov. Mike DeWine and his running mate Jon Husted received $62,221 from FirstEnergy's PAC and executives during the 2018 campaign and another $20,000 for the transition.

The FirstEnergy PAC also contributed $250,000 to a PAC supporting Democrat Rich Cordray's unsuccessful gubernatorial bid.

Another big recipient of FirstEnergy campaign cash: House Speaker Larry Householder, who sponsored the predecessor to House Bill 6 and now is ushering it through his chamber. Householder received $25,414 in contributions from the company PAC and executives in 2017 and 2018. Rep. Jamie Callender, R-Concord, the bill's sponsor, got $13,700 in contributions 2018.

FirstEnergy Solutions is also backing pro-bailout coalitions of local elected officials, businesses and first responders in Ohio and Pennsylvania through D.C. lobbying firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. The Ohio Clean Energy Jobs Alliance and Nuclear Powers Pennsylvania have submitted opinion articles to newspapers, testified on legislation and bought more than $158,000 worth of Facebook ads urging residents to call their lawmakers.

In a January bankruptcy court filing first reported by the pro-renewable Energy & Policy Institute, Akin Gump sought $1.25 million in lobbying fees for its work in Ohio and Pennsylvania from March 2018 to January 2019.

Another bankruptcy filing revealed FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company pays $1.28 million in annual dues to the Nuclear Energy Institute, which has lobbied for state and federal subsidies.

A new strategy in Ohio

Every other state with a zero-emissions credit paired it with increased investment in renewable energy or energy efficiency efforts.

Ohio is doing the opposite.

In 2008, Ohio established renewable energy portfolio standards and set a goal for utilities to get 12.5 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2027. In 2014, lawmakers in the GOP-controlled Ohio House and Senate froze the standards while they studied the issue. In another bill that year, the legislature required wind turbines to be at least 1,300 feet from property lines, which effectively froze wind investments in Ohio.

Former Gov. John Kasich refused to renew the freeze, and the standards went back into effect in 2017.

The new Ohio Clean Air Program would replace the standards, which supporters say would reduce costs for ratepayers.

Dozens of environmental advocates, renewable energy producers, business leaders and others who have invested in the renewable portfolio standards told lawmakers eliminating them would be a mistake.

The standards encourage new renewable projects in the state and are a better deal for Ohioans, said Andrew Gohn, eastern region director for the American Wind Energy Association. Gohn said the renewable credits average $4.71 per megawatt-hour compared to the $9.25 the Clean Air Program would cost.

Todd Snitchler, vice president of market development for the American Petroleum Institute and a former state lawmaker, said deregulation, shale development in the eastern part of the state and renewable energy technology have contributed to lower prices for consumers.

Snitchler said the natural gas industry isn't cheering the closure of nuclear plants – they just want them to compete on their merits.

“Some of the loudest voices championing competition are now the voices saying competition doesn’t work anymore and I want you to change the rules of the game so I continue to be a winner,” Snitchler said.