Latest news with #PUCO
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Your Ohio electric bills are probably going up this month
**Related Video Above: Major rise in electric bill prices went into effect in May 2023. CLEVELAND (WJW) —FirstEnergy customers are being alerted their electric bills may be getting more expensive starting this month due to energy market price. As of June 1, residential customer rates for those on the standard service offer rose about 2 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), according to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). The rate increase does not include those who are enrolled with a competitive supplier or a government aggregation, such as the Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council (NOPEC). Statehouse effort to repeal HB6 moving forward See the price hikes right here. For those with Cleveland Electric Illuminating for instance, that rate doesn't mean a 27% increase to the entire bill, but to the supplier portion of the bill. Energy demand, such as from large data centers around the state, and limited supply continue to drive these costs, J.P. Blackwood, a spokesperson for the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel told FOX 8. It's important to note that FirstEnergy delivers the electricity but does not generate electricity. Capacity prices, only a small portion of your bill, are going up about 800% following the latest auction by PJM Interconnection, which affects June 2025 through May 2026. This latest increase does not have to do with FirstEnergy asking the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) to increase customers' base rates back in April. Ohioans can soon buy over twice as much nonmedical marijuana At the time, they said it would help its Ohio companies 'recover their costs of providing distribution service to customers, including service reliability improvements made in recent years,' according to a statement from the company. Since FirstEnergy's last base rate review in 2009, its Ohio companies — Ohio Edison, The Illuminating Company and Toledo Edison — have reportedly invested millions of dollars to modernize and strengthen the distribution system which help reduce the size and length of power outages, according to the company. Following multiple public hearings in Northeast Ohio, this decision is still ongoing. 'Utilities need money, but they need to be spending consumers' money only on what's needed and also what's prudent,' Blackwood said. Those interested in trying to save money on their bill have the option to look at other energy suppliers on PUCO's Apples to Apples site. Check out Energy Choice Ohio's ways to make your home more energy efficient right here. Find out more about your FirstEnergy bill right here. For those in need of assistance to manage their electricity bill head to the following website: Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
State utility regulators preparing for Ohio House Bill 6 hearing
Natural gas meter with pipe on wall. Stock photo from Getty Images. Ohio utility regulators are gearing up for hearings on FirstEnergy's role in the House Bill 6 scandal. Former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder is behind bars — although seeking a presidential pardon — for overseeing the largest corruption case in state history. FirstEnergy funneled about $60 million to a dark money group controlled by Householder. The former speaker used that money to secure his own leadership position and influence passage of HB 6. The measure propped up a pair of nuclear plants and aging coal facilities by tacking a rider onto consumers' monthly bills. But that's just the broad strokes. Nearly five years on from Householder's indictment, questions remain about how exactly the scheme unfolded and where FirstEnergy officials got the money for it. Half a dozen former FirstEnergy officials in government affairs and c-suite positions are set to testify in a PUCO hearing next week. Four of them previously pled the Fifth and have since received immunity from a Franklin County judge. At the heart of the case, the Ohio Consumers' Counsel wants to demonstrate whether FirstEnergy used the money it got from average consumers to bribe state officials. In January, former FirstEnergy executives Charles 'Chuck' Jones and Michael Dowling were indicted on federal racketeering charges. Last year, state officials filed more than 40 charges against the executives as well as the man they bribed, former PUCO chairman Sam Randazzo. Last week, a judge in Summit County dismissed theft charges against Jones and Dowling, but they still face several other state criminal charges. The PUCO proceedings focus on the employees one rung below Jones and Dowling, attempting to show how money moved in the scheme by gathering testimony from the foot soldiers who answered to FirstEnergy's leadership. Four of the witnesses previously refused to testify, citing their Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination. A Franklin County judge ordered them to testify and granted them 'the broadest possible immunity' from prosecution. Ohio indictments provide a better picture of squalid relationships that spurred massive scandal The PUCO will also hear from Steven Strah, the former CFO who took over FirstEnergy following Jones' ouster, and Robert Reffner, the company's chief legal officer at the time of the scandal. The Ohio Consumers' Counsel subpoenas argue consumers were wrongly charged more than $6.6 million, and another $7.4 million was incorrectly listed as a capital expenditure. Compelling testimony, the filings argue, 'will help establish how and why FirstEnergy improperly misallocated House Bill 6 costs to the FirstEnergy Utilities.' 'We look forward to getting answers for FirstEnergy consumers and holding FirstEnergy accountable,' Ohio Consumers' Counsel Maureen Willis said in a statement. 'Justice for FirstEnergy consumers is long overdue.' Just over a month ago, state lawmakers voted to put an end to the House Bill 6 rider tacked on to ratepayers' monthly bills. The legislation won't take effect until August. Democrats in the Ohio House, meanwhile, argue the door remains open for next House Bill 6. 'No law in Ohio prevented this scandal,' state Rep. Bride Rose Sweeney, D-Westlake, argued at a press conference last month. 'And since, not one law has even remotely been truly attempted to fix this massive injustice.' Sweeney, and state Reps. Chris Glassburn, D-North Olmsted, Dani Isaacsohn, D-Cincinnati, and Desiree Tims, D-Dayton, have filed bills that would require contribution disclosures to or so-called dark money groups, institute penalties for undermining signature gathering campaigns and bar companies that make contributions from receiving state contracts. The PUCO will hold a procedural hearing this morning, with the evidentiary portion of the case beginning next week, on June 10. The hearings themselves will likely take several days. Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ohio Senate committee advances energy compromise
File photo of electricity pylons. (Getty Images). With a final few tweaks, Ohio senators advanced a major piece of energy legislation. The Senate Energy Committee vote was unanimous. With both chambers in session Wednesday, it's likely lawmakers could sign off on the legislation and send it along to the governor. The most substantive change had to do with the Public Utility Commission of Ohio clock — it moved from 320 days to 360. Lawmakers are putting a ceiling on PUCO deliberations because they want rate cases to move more quickly. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX After Tuesday's hearing, state Sen. Bill Reineke, R-Tiffin, connected the longer shot clock to broader changes in the ratemaking process. Utilities must come before the PUCO every three years, and they'll be able to set rates in three-year increments with annual 'true-ups' to reflect the companies' actual balance sheet. Reineke explained the longer timeline will give regulators a bit of breathing room. Before lawmakers put the bill to a vote, Ohio Consumers' Counsel Maureen Willis made a final bid to remove a provision on consumer refunds. Under the changes, bill payers could receive refunds after the Supreme Court determines a charge was unwarranted, but any payments prior to that decision would be out of reach. Willis explained her office in the middle of a case against Dayton-area AES Ohio which could yield more than $300 in refunds per customer. 'If HB 15 becomes law as written AES's half a million consumers would lose that refund opportunity that has been in the making since 2019,' she said. Ohio senators propose changes to harmonize House, Senate energy bills The final version of the bill also left out a passage subjecting more power line projects to state oversight. Willis called that omission 'disappointing.' 'No one is reviewing these projects,' she argued. 'Not the Ohio Power Siting Board, not the PUCO and not (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). Ohio consumers, your constituents, pay 100% of those costs through transmission riders.' Rebecca Mellino from the Nature Conservancy praised lawmakers for repealing a controversial coal subsidy approved as part of 2019's HB 6 but argued 'Ohio lags far behind neighboring states' when it comes to renewable energy. She suggested provisions encouraging brownfield redevelopment could offer an opportunity for renewable energy investment. The core incentive for new energy production is a reduction in tangible personal property taxes — levied on things like machinery and equipment. But while lawmakers attempt to boost energy production with a tax cut, they're also trying to find reductions in property taxes. Energy committee chairman, Sen. Brian Chavez, R-Marietta, insisted the reductions won't undermine services. 'We're not changing any taxes that are in effect right now,' he explained. 'So any taxes from power plants that are in place will stay in place as they depreciate out — this is only on new generation.' Sen. Kent Smith, D-Euclid, argued the tax break is an important cue to companies. When lawmakers passed HB 6, he said, they subsidized coal and nuclear facilities. 'It was not just putting your thumb on the scale,' he said, 'I mean, it wreaked havoc in natural gas generation.' With the current bill, lawmakers will remove the last of those subsidies. 'So we've sort of restored capitalism in the energy generation space,' Smith argued. 'And by reducing the tangible personal property percentage, hopefully that sends a signal.' Still, there's little Ohio's legislation can do to address lawmakers' central concern about power demand outstripping supply. The 13-state power network PJM has a substantial backlog of power plants that want to connect to the grid, and large-scale consumers like data centers are pushing demand for power higher. 'That's why we focused on behind the meter generation,' Chavez said, 'so that any new industry that comes into Ohio is not adding additional strain on the existing grid.' Behind the meter generation involves building a bespoke power plant directly connected to a given business. 'PJM is aware of the concerns that are out there. They're hearing that from all 13 states,' Chavez added. 'They are on our list. We're going to go talk to them in the fall, and we're going to have some frank conversations with them to see how we can partner to get through this.' Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The good, the bad, and the ugly on Ohio's long overdue energy legislation
An electricity meter. (Stock photo from Getty Images.) This year, new legislation in the Ohio Statehouse could finally see the end to some of the worst aspects of 2019's House Bill 6 — which David Roberts of Vox called 'the worst energy bill of the 21st century.' That is great news — but it would come at a high cost. Instead of bailing out coal and nuclear plants, Ohioans could find themselves living next to large gas plants, pushed through a fast-track approval process without local approval, supplied with gas from fracking our parks. Read on to learn the good, the bad, and the ugly about Ohio Senate Bill 2 and Ohio House Bill 15. Among the good things SB 2 and HB 15 would do is phase out the bailouts of two Ohio Valley Electric Coalition (OVEC) coal plants jointly owned by several Ohio utilities – one of which is in Indiana. Ohioans have paid upward of $670 million in coal bailouts since HB 6. The coal bailouts would end at the expiration of each utility's 'electric security plan' — plans that allow utilities to attach extra charges, or 'riders,' to customer bills — over the next five years. Then the electric security plans themselves would also be eliminated. Instead, utilities would have to work with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) to set a standard service offer – the going rate for electricity – based only on markets, without extra riders or fees. Utilities would have to work with PUCO annually to ensure the rate is in line with changing market conditions. Some other good things in the current version of these two bills include: A community energy pilot program in HB 15 that would allow small scale energy projects – 10 MW or 20 MW – to be built on distressed land that people could subscribe to for their electricity use. An energy efficiency loan program for schools in SB 2 – a good program that should also include loans for solar panels, which it originally had. If that's where SB 2 and HB 15 stopped, there would be plenty to support. However, both bills also contain some terrible provisions that should be changed or removed for the sake of Ohio's communities and our environment. These provisions revolve around an accelerated review process at the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB), which approves the siting of major energy facilities such as large electric generation plants, transmission lines, and pipelines. The current OPSB process takes months and sometimes years. It involves public information sessions, applications that run thousands of pages, public hearings, months of written public comments, an agency investigation, and an adjudicatory hearing to establish the facts. SB 2 would shorten this process to just 120 days – four months. Even worse, both bills would shorten the process to only 45 days – just six weeks – for two types of applications: An electric generation plant, electric transmission line, or gas pipeline in a Priority Investment Area A major utility facility – defined as 50 MW or more – on property owned by the applicant. In the first case, local governments would nominate brownfields or former coal mines in their communities to be Priority Investment Areas — so at least there would be local buy-in. In the second case, there is no local involvement. The only party that identifies the location for a 50 MW or larger energy generation plant is the 'applicant' who owns the property. Nothing in either bill specifies who the applicant could be — but presumably a large energy user such as a data center. Data centers are what is driving this. These large buildings house rows and rows of computer servers that must be kept running and kept cool. Each data center uses hundreds of megawatts of electricity — equal to a small city — to power things like cloud computing, AI, or cryptocurrency. There are 176 data centers in Ohio. Of those, 108 are in Central Ohio — and of those, many are in residential areas. I should know — there's an Amazon data center campus across the street from my house, and three others within five miles — all surrounded by homes and businesses. SB 2 and HB 15 would allow the owners of these data centers to get approval in 45 days to build a large electricity generation plant on property they own with no local approval. How would the electricity be generated? Through fracked gas plants, Senate President Rob McColley and House Speaker Matt Huffman recently told the Ohio Oil and Gas Association. In Ohio, the setback requirement for wind turbines is 1/4 mile from the nearest property line — too much for data center land in an urban or suburban area. A solar project big enough to create enough electricity would also be too large. The main alternative is gas. Senate Bill 52 from 2021 allows local governments to ban solar and wind projects, but not oil and gas — and at least 24 Ohio counties have done so. Already applications for three gas plants to power data centers 'behind the meter' have been filed with the power siting board, with more being prepared. 'We think there will be new gas powered generation all over the state of Ohio,' Huffman told the oil and gas association. If SB 2 and HB 15 pass as currently written, some of those gas plants will end up in residential areas. Where will the gas to supply these plants come from? From fracking our state parks, wildlife areas, and public lands, Huffman told the oil and gas association. And they want the frack pads to be located not just outside the parks as they are now, but actually IN our state parks and public lands. 'I want to be aggressive about that in the House of Representatives,' Huffman said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SB 2 and HB 15 would go a long way to cleaning up the travesty of HB 6 — but at what cost? The accelerated review process for approving major energy facilities — such as a 100 MW gas plant — must be lengthened. Nine months is not too long to review such a complicated project. If Republicans absolutely refuse to lengthen the review process, then local officials must be given veto power over gas plants in their counties and townships — just as they have for solar and wind projects. Finally, fracking in, around, and under our beloved state parks, wildlife areas, and public lands must stop. The vast majority of Ohioans are opposed. The last four nominations to frack our parks and wildlife areas received 923 comments. Only one comment out of 923 was in favor. That's 1/10th of one percent – 99.9% of comments were opposed. We can't build fracked gas plants to power AI and crypto on the backs of our communities and our public lands that are supposed to be protected. Ohio must work toward a sane energy policy that welcomes clean renewable energy that sustains rather than destroys people and planet. Cathy Cowan Becker is board president for Save Ohio Parks. She lives in Hilliard, Ohio. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
