Committee hears bill to expand residential demand response; proponents cite smart thermostats, opt‑in payments and grid benefits

The House Energy Committee held a second hearing on House Bill 427, which would authorize electric distribution utilities to offer voluntary residential and small commercial demand response programs. Proponents said the programs can be implemented quickly, reduce peak load at critical times and deliver direct payments or rebates to participating customers.

Karen Nordstrom, clean energy attorney with the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund, testified H.B. 427 would expand voluntary demand response programs, enable PUCO oversight of program design and ensure customers of competitive suppliers can participate. She cited AEP Ohio’s pilot, which had early summer events and more than 19,000 customers enrolled, and said the bill would provide guidelines for similar programs statewide.

Robert (Rob) Kelter, managing attorney at the Environmental Law & Policy Center, described the program mechanics: utilities would offer customers summer payments (Kelter referenced roughly $40 as a typical payment), call events (commonly up to 10 per summer), and adjust thermostats by up to 3 degrees for 1–4 hours during peak events; customers can override events at any time. Kelter said a properly designed program can be bid into PJM’s capacity market and generate savings for all customers by reducing the need to procure expensive peak power. He said residential and small commercial programs could deliver about 400 megawatts of savings and noted that similar programs in other states produced measurable results.

Will Baker of Renew Home (formerly lead on Google Nest Energy Partnerships) described how aggregated smart thermostats form virtual power plants (VPPs) and enable households to earn payments while saving energy; he cited device savings of about 12–15% on cooling and estimated Ohio already has roughly 900 megawatts of latent HVAC capacity that could be unlocked. Trent Doherty (CUB Ohio) said the measure is consumer‑centered, voluntary and that both participants and nonparticipants would see grid reliability benefits.

Committee members sought clarifications on smart meters versus smart thermostats, whether customers can participate without broadband, override mechanics and program design to ensure cost effectiveness. Witnesses said programs are opt‑in, customers retain the ability to override an event, utilities would propose program designs to the PUCO for review and programs should include cost‑effectiveness safeguards and consumer data protections.

No committee vote on H.B. 427 was recorded at the hearing; the chair closed the second hearing after questions and testimony.