House Energy Committee adopts Sub. Bill to HB 15 after sixth hearing; bill focuses on competitive markets, transmission oversight and a community energy pilot

The Ohio House Energy Committee on Oct. 27 adopted, without objection, Sub. Bill (dash-6) to House Bill 15 after a sixth hearing that featured more than a dozen proponent witnesses representing generators, consumer advocates, manufacturers and environmental groups.

Chairman Holmes opened the session by calling forward House Bill 15 for its sixth hearing and recognized Vice Chair Klopfenstein, who moved to amend HB 15 with the substitute. "I move to amend House Bill 15 with Sub Bill dash 6," Vice Chair Klopfenstein said. "Without objection, the motion is agreed to and the sub bill is adopted," Holmes said after the committee reviewed the amendment.

Why it matters: the adopted substitute would reshape how Ohio reviews and pays for new generation and supplemental transmission, limit nonbypassable riders, tighten timing and procedural rules in rate cases, create a multi-year true-up for forecasted test years, and create a community (distribution-level) energy pilot intended to speed deployment of local projects and provide bill credits to subscribers. Committee members and multiple witnesses said the changes are intended to attract private investment, improve transparency on transmission spending, and protect residential consumers from what some called cross-subsidies.

Key provisions described in testimony and committee discussion included reverting the deadline for rate-case objections to 30 days after the staff report is filed (from a previously shorter interval); extending statutory review windows for certain rate case approvals from 346 days to 360 days; prohibiting nonbypassable riders under a cited section of the Revised Code; adding protection against cost shifting in pilot transmission rider programs; allowing parties to seek temporary rate decreases (described in testimony as available about 275 days after an application is deemed complete) while PUCO reviews an application; and a true-up mechanism to reconcile forecasted test-year figures to actuals.

Supporters argued the bill restores clearer market rules and will spur private investment. Todd Snitchler, president and CEO of the Electric Power Supply Association, said EPSA supports HB 15 because it "builds on the enormous benefits that competitive markets have delivered for Ohio." He described competitive generators as investing without a guaranteed rate base and said recent announcements of new generation underscore market interest.

Industrial and large-user groups praised provisions preserving interruptible and transmission billing programs that allow large customers to manage costs or be temporarily curtailed to support grid reliability. Joe Price, executive director of Ohio Energy Group, called those programs "a very valuable reliability tool" and urged the committee to preserve them in the final text.

Consumer advocates pressed the committee for stronger refund language and greater procedural protections. Maureen Willis, director of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, described a regulatory gap on local supplemental transmission projects and urged clearer PUCO review for projects that primarily cost Ohio ratepayers; she noted OCC's complaint to FERC and said supplemental local projects cost Ohio consumers about $1.38 billion in 2023. Willis also warned that a limited refund clause in an earlier version could prevent refunds that are currently possible under PUCO practice and recommended either deleting the restrictive refund language or replacing it with broader refund authority.

Developers and local project proponents emphasized speed and local benefits. Tom Kopas of the Ohio Independent Power Producers described the Guernsey Power Station as an 1,875-megawatt combined-cycle natural-gas plant and said Ohio’s pipeline and transmission corridors make the state attractive to investors. David Murray of Turning Point Energy, a distributed-energy developer, said some distribution-level projects can be deployed in under two years and outlined the pilot program’s aim to avoid costly transmission upgrades and deliver local job and tax benefits.

Environmental and consumer groups supported parts of the substitute while calling for additional measures. The Ohio Environmental Council urged stronger attention to demand-response and efficiency programs and recommended longer review windows in some siting circumstances; the Citizens Utility Board of Ohio and Solar United Neighbors Action both supported the community energy pilot while urging consumer safeguards and program evaluation requirements.

Committee process and next steps: committee leadership said the intent is to give members a week to review the substitute language before the next procedural step. Chair Holmes told members the committee would aim to circulate and consider minor amendments in the coming week and stated the committee’s goal is to move the bill toward a floor vote the following Wednesday.

Votes at a glance: the committee adopted the substitute and approved routine minutes without recorded roll-call votes. The committee used unanimous-consent voice action for both items.