House Energy Committee adopts Sub Bill 6 to House Bill 15 after final proponent testimony

The House Energy Committee on Monday adopted Sub Bill 6 to House Bill 15 and heard more than a dozen proponent witnesses on a package of changes to Ohio electric regulation that supporters said would protect consumers, encourage private investment and improve grid transparency.

The substitute bill, adopted without objection during the committee’s sixth hearing, would change multiple pieces of Ohio utility law: it restores a 30‑day window for rate‑case objections after a staff report, extends certain PUCO (Public Utilities Commission of Ohio) review windows, bars non‑bypassable riders in one statutory section, adds provisions to allow temporary rate decreases pending PUCO action, requires annual ‘‘true‑ups’’ so customers are charged for actual rather than projected investments, and creates a market‑facing community energy pilot program on the distribution system. The substitute also directs new scrutiny, disclosure and competitive‑bidding requirements for supplemental transmission projects that have been the subject of stakeholder concern.

Why it matters: House Bill 15 touches large customer bills, utility investment incentives and how new generation connects to the grid. Supporters say it will restore the competitive market established in 1999, remove subsidies that shifted costs to captive utility customers, and speed some local projects; opponents at prior hearings raised concerns about refunds and consumer protections. The committee set a target to finish work so the bill can be on the House floor next Wednesday.

Major provisions and committee discussion

- Rate‑case timing and true‑ups: Vice Chair Klopfenstein explained Sub Bill 6 ‘‘reverts back to the current law for when rate case objections are due after the staff report is filed. It goes back to 30 days’’ and extends the statutory approval window from 346 days to 360 days. The substitute also adds a requirement to ‘‘true up’’ forecasted test years so customers ultimately pay for actual rather than projected investments. Proponents and industry witnesses described those changes as restoring predictability while still allowing orderly review by PUCO staff and parties.

- Temporary decreases and procedural timing: The substitute adds a mechanism allowing parties to seek a temporary decrease in rates 275 days after an application is determined complete, with the decrease remaining until PUCO rules. The committee emphasized that members must have time to review the firm text; the chair said the committee would not vote the bill out the same day and would give members a week to digest the changes.

- Non‑bypassable riders and OVEC: The substitute revises statutory language to prohibit certain non‑bypassable riders and removes immediate subsidies previously authorized for OVEC generation. Consumer advocates asked the committee to remove a limited refund provision they said could block existing refund mechanisms; Maureen Willis, director of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, recommended deleting the narrow refund language or replacing it with broader refund language that would allow customers to recover unlawful charges charged subject to refund or reconciliation. Willis said: "It may also have the unintended effect of prohibiting a current refund opportunity to consumers." Tom Bullock of the Citizens Utility Board and several other witnesses supported immediate repeal of OVEC charges.

- Supplemental transmission projects and oversight: Multiple witnesses flagged what they called rapid growth in supplemental transmission projects and the absence of meaningful cost review at PJM. The Ohio Energy Leadership Council and others cited PJM market‑monitor data showing substantial increases in supplemental projects by certain transmission owners. David Proano (BakerHostetler, for the Ohio Energy Leadership Council) told the committee the bill requires projects to show competitive procurement or equivalent bidding for project costs. As he put it to the panel: "These transmission companies get a guaranteed rate of return... This is what's driving this transmission boom."

- Community energy pilot (distribution‑level projects): Sub Bill 6 creates a multi‑year community energy pilot that would allow project developers to site generation on the distribution system and offer subscription access to customers inside the same utility territory. Supporters — including developers and advocacy groups — said distribution‑level projects can deploy faster, reduce the need for new transmission, and provide local economic benefits. David Murray of Turning Point Energy said his firm can deploy some distribution projects in under two years and described typical customer bill savings of "around 10 to 20%" for subscribers.

- Heat maps and hosting‑capacity information: The substitute requires utilities to publish hosting‑capacity or heat maps so developers and local communities can see where distribution capacity exists. Environmental and consumer witnesses praised the requirement as a transparency tool to cut interconnection uncertainty and speed project siting.

Stakeholder positions and selected quotes

- Todd Schnitzler, president and CEO, Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA), said the bill "sharpens the lines between who is responsible for what" and argues the measure will encourage competitive power suppliers to invest in Ohio rather than have incumbents rate‑base generation investments.

- Maureen Willis, director, Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, called the bill "a good start" but urged fixes to refund language and to ensure the true‑up process allows full review and discovery so consumers can contest utility data. "FERC has not ruled on our complaint," Willis told the committee in reference to an OCC FERC filing about supplemental transmission cost allocation.

- Tom Kopas, vice president of operations at Catanese Energy and treasurer of the Ohio Independent Power Producers (OIPP), described the Guernsey Power Station project (an 1,875‑megawatt combined‑cycle natural‑gas plant) as an example of private investment that a stable, competitive market can attract.

- Industry, manufacturers and large energy users (Ohio Manufacturers Association, Ohio Energy Group, Ohio Energy Leadership Council) urged the committee to preserve interruptible and transmission‑billing programs that allow big customers to manage peak demand and argued these programs support reliability and competitiveness.

Questions and concerns raised in committee

- Consumer refunds: Several lawmakers pressed whether the substitute's refund language unduly restricts existing refund pathways. Consumer advocates asked for either broader refund language or complete removal of the constraining provision so customers retain existing refund remedies.

- Scope and speed of review for local projects: Some members sought clarification on whether the pilot program could shift costs to non‑subscribers; developers and proponents said subscribers receive credits for the generation and certain transmission avoided costs while continuing to pay distribution charges.

- Transmission cost drivers: Witnesses warned that certain transmission owners earn a guaranteed return on equity that can incentivize greater capital spending and urged competitive procurement and stronger transparency for supplemental projects.

Committee action and next steps

Vice Chair Klopfenstein moved to adopt the sub bill (motion circulated to members). The committee chair called the question and, "without objection, the motion is agreed to and the sub bill is adopted," according to the transcript. The committee directed members to submit any minor amendments promptly; leadership said a goal is to have the bill ready for a committee vote and on the House floor next Wednesday.

Ending

Supporters said the package is intended to restore the competitive market structure established in Ohio in 1999, protect consumers from certain subsidies and accelerate some distribution‑level projects that avoid transmission build costs. Opponents in past hearings have pushed for stronger refund language and for protections to ensure local subscribers do not shift costs to non‑participants. The committee adopted Sub Bill 6 and left the bill pending further amendment and a scheduled committee/floor timeline.

(Committee records show 12 in‑person proponents were called and the clerk reported 51 written testimonies filed.)