Court case: Customers improperly charged for solar generation fund?

The Ohio Supreme Court last week heard oral arguments in a case that addresses the issue of whether the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio is properly administering a solar generation fund that derives its revenue from a fee paid by electric utility customers.
The fund was established under House Bill 128, which was passed in 2021 after some provisions of an earlier bill, House Bill 6, were repealed in the wake of a major bribery scandal in the state legislature.
The PUCO then established a rider – a temporary credit or charge added to customers’ monthly bills - for the solar generation fund. Under the new law, companies could apply to the Ohio Air Quality Development to receive annual payments for generating electricity through solar power. The law requires the PUCO to establish a charge from Ohio electric utility customers “sufficient to produce $20 million annually” to fund the payments to the generators.
HB 128 directed the PUCO to charge on a “per customer basis,” and set a rate of no more than 10 cents a month for residential customers while large industrial customers would pay no more than $242 monthly. The PUCO was also directed to determine an appropriate charge for all other commercial electricity users.
In July 2021, the PUCO approved the fund rider and set customer charges to collect the $20 million annually. The Ohio Manufacturer’s Association Energy Group objected to the plan, contending the PUCO was overcharging electric utility customers – commercial customers in particular.
Despite the OMAEG’s objections, the PUCO proceeded with the rider and the OMAEG appealed to the Supreme Court.
The association group is arguing the PUCO isn’t correctly interpreting the word “sufficient” as used in the law, leading to the overcharges. The PUCO counters that the law only requires it to coordinate the work of electric distribution companies to collect the $20 million annually.
In addition, OMAEG alleges the PUCO hasn’t determined which companies are eligible for reimbursement and how much power they produce. Solar providers that are new and just beginning to produce power may not have earned enough credits and the PUCO would be needlessly collecting ratepayer fees and placing them in the state fund.
The PUCO and OMAEG are also at odds over billing on a “per customer” basis.
The OMAEG notes HB 128 originally required the rider be established on a “per account” basis and, at the urging of commercial customers, the law was changed to charge on a “per customer” basis. The group is arguing that a single commercial customer may have multiple locations or multiple meters that produce several accounts but the law requires that a single business be charged the rider just once.
The PUCO counters that it instituted a rule that each billing account is the equivalent of a customer and has used that system to implement other riders.
The solar generation fund it set to expire at the end of 2027.