Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gas Rate Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers hear business, utility support for House Bill 142 to shorten gas rate cases and reduce regulatory lag
Summary
Proponents told the House Energy Committee House Bill 142 would modernize natural‑gas ratemaking by allowing forward test years, setting a one‑year decision timeline and creating expedited procedures for large‑customer contracts, with backers saying the changes would improve utilities’ cash flow and attract investment to Ohio.
Proponents of House Bill 142 told the Ohio House Energy Committee that the bill would reduce regulatory lag for natural gas utilities, attract capital for infrastructure and economic development, and protect existing customers through specified guardrails for large‑customer contracts.
Bob Heidorn, president and CEO of Columbia Gas of Ohio, told the committee the bill aims to "level the playing field" with neighboring states by allowing forward test years and requiring timely rate orders. Heidorn said regulatory lag — the delay between when a utility invests capital and when it recovers those costs in rates — makes Ohio less attractive for investment and increases financing costs ultimately borne by customers.
Jimmy Stewart, president of the Ohio Gas Association, said the changes would support economic development and protect customers. "This legislation benefits customers, it benefits consumers and the whole state as well," Stewart said, adding that the bill includes objective criteria to prevent existing customers from bearing the risk of special contracts for new large loads.
Two consultants with long experience in utility regulation and finance, Greg White and John Quackenbush, told the committee investors and credit rating agencies view timeliness of orders, forward test years and uncapped riders as credit‑supportive. Quackenbush cited recent credit‑rating actions involving an Ohio gas utility and warned that downgrades can increase borrowing costs and shift investment away from the state.
Representatives of business and industry groups — including Alexandra Denney of the Ohio Business Roundtable, Rob Brundrett of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association and Tony Long of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce — urged the committee to adopt the bill’s timeline and tools so Ohio can compete for large load customers and infrastructure investments.
Lawmakers questioned staff and witnesses about consumer protections. Committee members were told the bill would include guardrails: only plant placed in service could be placed in base rates, PUCO audits would continue, and special contract approvals would require demonstration that existing customers face no increased financial risk. Several members suggested shorter shot clocks than the bill’s 365‑day target; witnesses and proponents said the 365‑day timeline is consistent with many other states and noted administrative adjustments could speed review.
The committee held the bill’s second hearing and took proponent testimony; no vote was recorded during the session.
