Ohio Senate Energy Committee - 6-2-2026

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, for God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. and members of the committee. Chairman Chavez, Vice Chair Landis, and members of the Senate Energy Committee, thank you for the opportunity to bring Senate 231 to your attention. Senate 231 would create a community energy program and a pilot program. As this committee is aware, Ohio needs more energy generation, but Ohio also needs to let the market dictate what type of generation enters the market. Senate Bill 231 would get more small-scale distributive generation online, which would help lower peak demand. Senate Bill 231 removes the legal barriers so that the new generation with no tax incentives can compete for the utility power needs of Ohio consumers. I really think it is as simple as that. Excuse me. That being said, let me provide some additional details about what Senate Bill 231 would achieve. If enacted, the community energy pilot program would allow for up to one. Sorry, would allow would allow to would allow up for 1500 megawatts of small scale energy projects throughout Ohio. It would be generation agnostic. Eligible installations include solar, wind, biomass, landfill gas, hydroelectric, micro turbines, energy storage and fuel cells. The energy projects could occur, for example, on commercial rooftops, but it would place emphasis for new generation, new energy development to occur on distressed and brownfield sites. This would create two benefits. First, it would bring construction jobs into distressed areas. And second, it reuses contaminated sites, which will restore the local tax base and remove blighted properties. Senate Bill 231 would allow some consumers to benefit from energy generation improvements who would not normally be able to achieve those cost-saving benefits, including renters, condo owners, and families who cannot install generation on their own properties. These individuals would be able to subscribe to the local projects and receive monthly credits on their electric utility bills. Senate Bill 231 prevents cost shifting to non-participating consumers. It requires that the potential operators of community energy development hold a public hearing in the community where the facility will be located. Following the hearing, Senate Bill 231 would allow township trustees to prohibit construction or limit the boundaries of the facility. It also provides clear guidelines for the decommissioning of community energy facilities. In addition, the bill requires that the PUCO report back to the General Assembly 48 months after the pilot project rules are adopted to ensure that there will be an analysis of the program to better ensure the value of the potential expansion. It does so with virtually no additional fiscal impact to the state of Ohio Companion legislation has already passed the Ohio House with strong bipartisan support Mr Chairman Senate Bill 231 if enacted has the ability to lower bills for everyone and it would allow a larger number of energy consumers to benefit from new small-scale energy generation. In addition, it's good for communities by removing blight and by reusing otherwise damaged properties. It prevents cost shifting to non-participating consumers, and it achieves all of this with virtually no fiscal impact on the state. Appreciate the opportunity to address the committee and would welcome any questions.

I was ready to go.

Senator Smith, thank you for bringing this bill. I think it makes a lot of sense. My only question is, is it necessary? Can't local communities do this today?

Any other questions? Senator Weinstein.

Yeah, thank you very much, Senator Weinstein. I didn't do that for Senator Lang, Senator Lang, and to the chair. I mean, obviously I think what we're trying to do, our overarching goal will always be affordable and reliable. And one of the ways that you do that is you let more supply enter the market, because that helps pull the affordability piece down. I mean, obviously as demand curve goes up, you have an incentive for supply to enter. That creates the price equilibrium that then pulls the price down. If you prevent supply from coming into the market, demand, you know, kind of skyrockets. So this does two things. I mean, this does a number of different things. One is it obviously it allows for distressed sites to now have a taxable use, and that's good for the local communities that will get that tax base. But it also allows supply to enter and allows consumers who would not necessarily benefit from that type of new energy to then, you know, pull in, buy in to get reduced rates. So, you know, again, like I said, there's a companion bill in the House. It's passed with strong bipartisan support. You know, I think where Ohio is right now in the challenge of making the grid more versatile, more resilient, and still keep costs low, this is a win-win-win. And I did want to mention that, you know, there's no fiscal impact to the state. I mean, if you look at the fiscal analysis, the money that would be used to help make these projects go are currently in the Brownfield Remediation Fund anyway.

Thank you, Senator Smith. We were on a trip. My family was on a trip to North Carolina. and I stayed in a home that the owners told us was part of a community solar program, and it was fully subscribed, and it was huge demand, and they were hankering for more. So I was just curious, do you have a sense of what the demand is out there from consumers, and do you see this maybe potentially longer term being able to expand to meet that demand from consumers?

Bonus points if you could name the amount of power needed to power the flux capacitor.

1.21 gigawatts.

Senator Timken. That's why you're the chair of the Energy Committee.

Well, Senator Timken, through the chair, I've most recently heard about a program in North Carolina. So I'm guessing that there are other – I do not have the answer for that relative to PJM. I want to say that this is not an unusual venture. So I'm guessing we've got other communities, solar and other states. I think Michigan does, but we've only got a small bit of Michigan and PJM. But we'd be happy to research that and get back to you. That's an excellent question.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we favorably report substitute Senate Bill 294 to the Committee on Rules and Reference.

Thank you, Chair. Chair Chavez, Vice Chair Landis, Ranking Member Smith, and members of the Senate Energy Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide proponent testimony in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 20, or SCR20. My name is Claire Linkart, Associate Director with the American Petroleum Institute in Ohio, a division of the API. The API is the National Trade Association representing all segments of America's natural gas and oil industry. SCR 20 urges Congress to enact needed reforms to federal permitting and environmental review processes to accelerate the responsible development of modern energy infrastructure. As the resolution recognizes, a reliable, affordable, and diverse domestic energy supply is essential to the economic strength, national security, and long-term competitiveness of both the United States and the State of Ohio. permitting reform is API's top legislative priority and we commend Senator Wilkin for bringing this critical issue before the General Assembly. The current federal permitting framework has grown increasingly complex. Processes originally designed to ensure thoughtful environmental stewardship now often result in prolonged delays that hinder the timely construction of critical infrastructure while failing to produce better environmental outcomes. Environmental impact statements under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, alone average more than four and a half years to complete. Opponents of energy infrastructure buildout routinely weaponize statutes like NEPA and the Clean Water Act to stall development at every stage. For example, construction on the Mountain Valley Pipeline began in 2018, but after nearly six years of lawsuits and delays, it took an act of Congress to finish. and the cost to build the 300 pipeline almost tripled as a result Other major pipeline projects like the Constitution Pipeline were canceled entirely after years of litigation It is also worth noting that while I'm speaking from the perspective of the oil and natural gas industry here, the current system has impacted all forms of energy development, including renewable energy. These reforms are especially urgent for Ohio. As you on this committee well know, America's electricity demand is projected to increase 35 to 50 percent by 2040, driven in large part by new AI data centers. And as those of you on the data center study committee heard just last week, data centers account for approximately 94 percent of projected peak load growth through 2030 in the PGM territory, further straining a system that is slow to bring new power sources online. According to the Ohio Business Roundtable, Ohio's regional energy needs could surge 50% in just nine years with the build-out of new data centers. Meanwhile, more than 2,000 gigawatts of energy production and storage, more than the entire current American electricity capacity, are stuck in interconnection queues waiting approval. Ohio sits atop the Utica and Marcellus shale formations and is the largest oil producer east of the Mississippi River. We have the natural resources and skilled workforce to help meet this demand, but only if permitting barriers are removed. As I mentioned in my introduction, permitting reform is a top priority for API, and this resolution is consistent with our permitting reform framework, which consists of three major parts. Number one, Congress should set firm deadlines and make sure agencies follow clear, consistent timelines, and agencies should request the necessary information within the first 30 days to avoid delays from late requests. Number two, Congress should limit unnecessary lawsuits that slow projects down, and this includes setting a 150-day deadline for filing legal challenges and requiring courts to correct flawed permits instead of automatically canceling them. Finally, number three, Congress should focus on direct, project-specific impacts rather than speculative, separate, or indirect impacts. I want to emphasize that reforms would not weaken environmental protections or change existing standards. They would instead make the permitting process more focused, predictable, and accountable. I want to also emphasize that we are joined in support by a broad bipartisan coalition, including the energy industry, manufacturing, labor, utilities, mining, and others. In conclusion, without comprehensive permitting reform, Ohioans could face energy shortages and rising costs, not because of lack of resources, but because Washington cannot fix a broken system. SCR 20 sends a strong and timely message to Congress that Ohio supports bold, durable reform. We respectfully urge the committee to adopt this resolution, and I'd be happy to take any questions at this time.

And I went almost a whole 15 minutes without hearing about data centers. Congratulations. Sorry to bring it back up in the forefront.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, I'm not opposed to this, but I guess I'm a skeptic at best. I mean, Congress is dysfunctional, and this resolution does absolutely nothing. I mean, it's not worth the papers printed on sometimes because no one in Congress actually cares what the high legislature thinks or doesn't think. So, I mean, is this I mean, do you think this is actually going to make a difference to anybody is actually going to read this?

Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

Members, we do have written-only testimony on the iPads for your review. This concludes the second hearing of Senate Concurrent Resolution 20. With no further business before the committee, we are hereby adjourned.