Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sb 275 Virtual Net Metering topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over virtual net metering in SB 275 centers on cost shifting, brownfield siting and protections for residential customers
Summary
Supporters say SB 275 will spur new generation on distressed property; opponents warn the 'virtual net metering' structure could shift costs to nonparticipating customers and raise rates. The committee adopted amendments and heard industry and developer testimony.
The Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee held a sixth hearing on Senate Bill 275, a measure that would enable virtual net metering and other arrangements intended to encourage new generation — often on distressed or brownfield sites. The committee adopted amendments intended to narrow eligibility and clarify billing and credit rules.
Senator Dolan introduced amendments that exclude residential customers from the virtual net metering program and clarify that any credit for supplied electricity applies to generation and transmission charges while customers remain responsible for distribution charges; the amendment language was adopted.
Joe Price, executive director of the Ohio Energy Group, testified in opposition, calling virtual net metering “on paper” and warning of potential cost shifting to nonparticipating customers who would later face higher rates when utilities undercollect and must make up revenue at rate cases. Price recommended shielding residential customers and proposed an amendment to that effect.
Mike Wise of CEP Renewables testified in support, saying the bill would enable projects on brownfields and distressed properties and noting that around 25 states have community solar or virtual net metering programs. Wise urged the committee to include heat maps to target generation where grid stress and locational pricing make projects most economic.
Committee members questioned witnesses about the potential for unintended cost shifts, the scope of reasonable arrangements previously approved by PUCO, and whether federal incentives (for example, tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act) make additional state incentives unnecessary. The hearing record notes written-only testimony from proponents and opponents was made available on committee devices.
Ending: The committee concluded the sixth hearing after adopting the amendments; witnesses were asked to file written testimony and the record remains open for further review.
