March 11, 2026 · Energy Committee · 7,266 words · 7 speakers · 87 segments
Good afternoon, everyone. I call this meeting of the House Energy Committee to order. We're all good stewards of energy, so we turned off the air conditioning to make sure we were efficient. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Holmes, here. Matthews, here. Rader, here. Brennan, here. Cochley, here. DeVille's excused. Fisher, here. Glassburn, here. Hall, Humphrey, Klopfenstein. Here. Lear. Here. Iran's excused. Odioso. Here. Peterson. Yes. Ray. Ritter. Here. Rob Blaisdell. Here. Rogers. Salvo checked in. Sweeney. Thomas. Here. White. Williams. Williams.
I think we've got everybody right. Okay. We have a quorum present. We'll proceed as a full committee. The minutes from the previous meeting are on your iPad at this time. Please review them. Are there any changes to be made or objections to the minutes? Without objection, the minutes are approved. We were going to start committee with House Bill 427. We're going to put that back in for further review. So we're going to move on to our next item on the schedule. We would like to now call forward HCR 35 for its first hearing. Representative Lear. Welcome to committee, ma'am. You have the floor.
Thank you, Chair Holmes. Vice Chair Matthews, Ranking Member Rader, and members of the House Energy Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsor testimony on House Concurrent Resolution 35. This resolution urges Congress to reform the federal permitting process so the United States can build the energy infrastructure needed to support our economy, strengthen energy independence, and keep costs down for families and businesses. Right now, it simply takes too long to build major energy projects in this country. Federal permitting and environmental review processes can take years to complete, often delaying or stopping projects that would improve our energy grid and support economic growth. These delays can increase costs, discourage investment, and make it harder to build the infrastructure needed to meet growing energy demand. This resolution does not eliminate environmental protections. Instead, it encourages Congress to streamline the process so projects can move forward more efficiently while still protecting our environment. The goal is just to reduce unnecessary delays, improve coordination between agencies, and ensure the system works the way it was intended. As energy demand continues to grow, it is important that our federal permitting system keeps pace. Updating this process will help support reliable energy, strengthen our economy, and reduce dependence on foreign sources. HCR 35 simply asked Congress to work toward common sense reforms. that allows us to build infrastructure our country needs in a timely and responsible way. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, ma'am. Committee, are there any questions? All right. Seeing none. Are there none? Okay, just a few from me. As I understand this, this resonates with some statements or, what would I say, recommendations from the Energy Dominance Council, is that correct? A lot of this NEPA and some of the other federal legislation consistent with that?
Chair, yes. And in fact, several other states have taken the lead. West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, 13 at least have either passed a similar resolution or are in the process of doing so.
Okay. That's super. Okay. Seeing no questions, Thank you very much for your testimony.
Thank you.
We would now like to call forward Senate Bill 106 for its second hearing. We have a few people providing in-person testimony today. Our first is Mr. Robert Baratta from Americans for Affordable Clean Energy.
Thank you for coming today, sir.
Welcome to committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, Chair Holmes, Vice Chair Matthews, Ranking Member Rader, members of the Energy Committee, thank you for giving me this opportunity to come before you today to provide testimony on Senate Bill 106. My name is Robert Barata, and I'm the Executive Director of Americans for Affordable Clean Energy, which is a fancy name for a national organization of forward-thinking, sophisticated fuel retailers, truck stop owners, and convenience stores. You'd recognize our brand names on your interstates and also in your communities. We have approximately 400, a little bit over 400 retail locations in Ohio, and we employ thousands of Ohioans. ACE is here today because our members believe strongly that the best way to develop Ohio's electric vehicle charging network is by encouraging private investment and the free market competition and then reaping the rewards of innovation that comes with both. Some of you may have recognized this language. This language should not be new because this language or parts of this language was in a house vehicle that didn't make its way all the way through, and it was also in Senator Rooley's bill. It was kind of an omnibus energy bill that also hit some choppy water, And so we have this as a standalone piece of legislation today for your review. And the underpinning principles of this is pretty simple. We don't believe that Ohio electric rate payers should subsidize the build-out of the electric vehicle fast-charging infrastructure in Ohio. We, as the private sector, are ready and willing and able to make those investments. We just need the certainty that we're not going to have a monopoly come out and put stuff right across the street from our places and then use ratepayer money, free capital to compete unfairly against us. And that's really what the crux of this bill is. Our members are in the business of providing transportation fuel to the traveling public in a clean, safe, and efficient manner. electric utilities are in the business of providing electrons and distributing them. This bill keeps us all in our lanes, and we would encourage you to favorably consider it. Lastly, I want to thank Senator Reinecke for his continued determination on this issue and for the generous time that he has given to get the public policy right. And we want to thank all of you that have been part of this process as well. And we encourage you to pass this bill. Thank you very much.
Thank you, sir. Committee, are there any questions?
Mr. Chairman.
Representative Brennan.
Thank you. Thanks for coming in. Thanks for observing Bowtie Wednesday. Appreciate it. So how will the bill ensure that charging stations are available in rural and underserved communities in Ohio? Are there provisions in the bill on that?
Mr. Chairman, I would say that specifically no. but we would, if a charging station is, I guess, economically viable, it'll be there.
Mr. Chairman? Follow up. So I guess the answer is that underserved communities won't be served.
Mr. Chairman, I would argue that they would be served because if there was an economic need for that, it would be served. Somebody would put it in, just like they would put in a gas station. So if a community needs it, we provide it, and that's what we're in the business for. We want to make sure that our customers are happy.
Mr. Chairman, follow up? Follow up. I guess I'd first say there's a need for Internet access in some areas of my district, and it's needed by folks, but it's not provided. But on a related topic, what type of subsidies are included in the bill to assist with building the EV stations? Are there any in there? Are there others that you folks will be taking advantage of? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would respond that this bill does not speak to subsidies. Thank you.
Any other questions, Mr. Chairman?
All right. One more?
One more follow-up. Well, it was included in that last one. And are there other subsidies available, either through the state or federal government or elsewhere, that you folks take advantage of or will?
Mr. Chairman, I respond. Right now, the only subsidies that we're aware of is first was the VW settlement monies that went out and also with the NEVI funds. And Ohio has been the leader with the NEVI funds, to my understanding. is last summer was the last time I looked at what it was, and Ohio and Pennsylvania were tied in 19 stations that they had rolled out each. The third round of NEVI funds has not yet been put out there, so new funds, no. We don't know of any.
Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Yes, thank you, sir.
Committee, any further questions?
Sir, from me, could you give us...
Oh, Rep Fisher, excuse me.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you view this legislation as more of something you're concerned about happening in the future, causing problems for the folks in the private sector that want to build these stations, or are you seeing challenges presented present day that are kind of an impediment to your members building these charging stations that this law would fix right now?
Mr. Chairman, I would respond that the reason why we got involved was that there was out in Minnesota an investor-owned utility that was trying to put in $400 million worth of electric vehicle fast charging stations. And then we started to see this pop up in other states as well. So we had to get involved or we would not be in that business. The electric utilities would be the ones that would be retailing transportation fuel. So it was, I do believe, that with the new federal administration that came in, the luster came off the bloom a little bit of the electric vehicles, but we don't know what the future will hold, so we're diligent about putting in good public policy now. Thank you.
Any further questions? Yes, Representative Glassberg.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for appearing today. Is it more your understanding or support of the bill that by making it so that utilities can't enter into this space, that that is going to give some kind of certainty to the marketplace that will allow for private sector entities to put these charging stations in?
Mr. Chairman, I would respond that yes, these fast charging stations are very expensive. By the time you put them in, you're talking maybe a quarter million dollars apiece. By the time you buy the station and you do the installation, there's a long time to get your return on investment for it. So if there is a possibility of somebody coming in with free capital that they get a guaranteed rate of return on, in competing against you, we'll never recover that. So somebody making a rational judgment about where to invest their money is not going to put it there. And so that's what we're trying to solve for right now is to make sure that that is not a possibility in the future. So when people are making those decisions or businesses are making those decisions they doing it rationally Follow Yes just one follow So it surprises me a little bit to think that franchisees or gas stations would be specifically concerned about it
It seems like a sophisticated argument to me, or a very long-distance-looking argument for them to think of that as a threat. But I guess maybe you can answer my question on that in a different way of if this became the policy, how much do you expect this to change the prevalence of these EV charging stations? Like, if this passes, does it unleash the doubling? Or what benefit would Ohio expect to see from passing this?
Mr. Chairman, I'd respond that my crystal ball got broken. But I would tell you that Ohio sits along major transportation corridor, so we are more likely to see good build-out along that transportation corridor. As we get down into the other areas, I think it will be slower, and it will depend upon the adoption of the electric vehicles. and I can tell you that just in my conversation with members, they have people that their customers come in and are asking, when are you going to get it, when are you going to do it? So it's the force of the, I guess, economics that are causing that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you.
Thank you.
Committee, any further questions? Just a couple from me, sir. I wanted to ask, you did notice something that I didn't know previously is that I think Ohio has the second highest number of interstate miles in the United States, and that when you, the crisscrossing and that heart of it all really logistically really makes this relevant for our state. One, are you recognizing a real demand for these EVs right now, the chargers, or could you give us a sense of how much demand there is for that?
Mr. Chairman, I would say that demand is low currently, and those that are using the chargers, it's low as well because the EV owner is going to charge at home whenever they can. And so mostly what we see are people transiting through that are going to use the cash charger along the interstates that are going to use the chargers, which is out of state.
Yes, sir, and that was my second question. My final question was, if you were seeing the prevalence of the chargers at rest stops traditionally where fuel stops are or maybe they're permeating out into other places that weren't as obvious to us. I know that some hotels do that, and then restaurants and shopping malls and things like that. Are you also involved in those sites as well?
Mr. Chairman, no. A lot of times those are level two chargers. They're not level three fast chargers that you see at hotels and all that. And so we're only interested in the level three, the fast ones that are very expensive.
Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Thank you.
We'd now like to call Mr. Stephen Hightower from Hightower Petroleum. Is Mr. Hightower here? All right. He may have been further engaged. All right. Committee, there's also four pieces of written only testimony on this bill. Okay, without any further questions from anyone, this concludes the second hearing for Senate Bill 106. I'd like to now call forward Senate Bill 151 for its second hearing. We have a few people providing in-person testimony today for this bill as well. We'd like to start with Mr. Melville Nickerson of Energy Energy. Yes, sir. Good to see you again. Welcome to committee.
Thank you, Chair Holmes. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee. Again, good afternoon, Chairman Holmes, Vice Chair Matthews, Ranking Member Rader, and members of the House Energy Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you on the merits of Senate Bill 151, which will allow customers to voluntarily purchase natural gas paired with carbon offsets. Together, this would ensure natural gas remains a vibrant fuel for reliability while simultaneously helping consumers on a voluntary basis to meet corporate or other client-based sustainability goals. Again, my name is Melville Nickerson. I am the Director of Government Affairs for NRG. I cover the central region, which includes Ohio, which I'm very proud to say. NRG is a publicly traded Fortune 500 company. We generate electricity through the wholesale market in PJM and other regional transmission markets. We also sell electricity and natural gas to industrial, commercial, and residential users, saving consumers money and offering innovative services to meet their needs. Ohio is our largest Midwest market where we serve more than a million customers and employ over 40 individuals. In addition, a couple of weeks ago, NRG closed on the acquisition of several natural gas plants, which add up to 13 gigawatts of natural gas generation, adding that to our portfolio, including the Lucky Ohio natural gas plant, which we have plans to expand. Under Senate Bill 151, natural gas consumers, specifically commercial and industrial customers, would have the option to offset their natural gas consumption with approved carbon offsets. Alternative natural gas suppliers would have the option to voluntarily offer natural gas along with carbon offsets to their customers. The gas suppliers would be able to recover their cost, the cost of natural gas and administrative costs related to procuring on behalf of their customers carbon offsets. The program is completely voluntary and does not shift cost to anyone who does not choose to participate in the program. Let me share a real world example. the type of business in Ohio that might want to take advantage of this voluntary program. Let's say that you're a manufacturer, and in order to meet the company's own personal sustainability goals or other goals that are imposed by a corporate entity, well, a large corporate entity, requiring the reduction of your carbon footprint, having a pathway to meet that carbon footprint reduction is critical. In this instance, a company in Ohio who is located in an industrial park that doesn't own the land or the building would have very limited options to reduce their carbon footprint. Senate Bill 151 gives them a pathway to meet sustainability goals and remain competitive in a competitive industrial market. We are talking with companies that have this problem, and so we're hoping that the passage of Senate Bill 151 will be a solution to this real-world problem, driving innovation and economic development. I want to thank Senator Wilkin for introducing this important legislation, as well as the Senate that passed the legislation unanimously, 32 to 0. I hope the House committee will look favorably on this bill. I also want to acknowledge the testimony of Lear McCoy, which is on your iPads. Lear is a proponent of this legislation. Unfortunately, due to a family matter, he was unable to be here. Lear owns a forestry, well, he's involved in forestry management, which qualifies for carbon offsets. And so it is individuals like Lear and others in the state of Ohio that would be able to benefit from this carbon offset program in addition to the direct customers that purchase the carbon offsets. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer questions to the best of my ability. Thank you again for the time.
Yes, thank you, sir. Committee, are there any questions?
Oh, Representative Humphrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Nickerson, for being here. We certainly appreciate it. In your testimony, you mentioned that the program is voluntary, and it will not shift costs to customers who choose not to participate. My question for you, sir, is just if you are able, can you walk through the committee on explaining exactly how those costs are separated so that non-participating customers are not subsidizing the program? Thank you.
Yes, Representative Humphrey. I'll do my very best to respond directly to your question, and thank you for the question. So very simply, this is a bilateral contractor agreement. So only two parties would be involved, a natural gas supplier like NRG and a company. We'll just call it Company X for this conversation. Company X would say, hey, NRG, we really appreciate the fine work that you do, something like that. And then they would specifically say, we would like to purchase natural gas and carbon offsets in order to meet our corporate sustainability goals. That is the totality of the transaction. No other parties in the state of Ohio would be affected or impacted by that transaction directly. There would be indirect economic impacts for any projects in the state of Ohio that would qualify as a project that would generate carbon offsets like McCoy lumber. So I hope I answered your question.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here. Appreciate it.
Thank you, Member Rader. And I was just reading Mr. McCoy's testimony, and it's a good example. I think I want to talk about it just for a second. Maybe you can help me answer your question. I'm sorry you couldn't be here, and, you know, sorry for the illness in his family. So perfectly happy with the, I guess, demand side of this equation. There's people that want to buy these carbon offsets in order to meet their sustainability goals. That's great. Just curious if maybe, like, the McCoy farm, how is it changing the practices? The whole point of a carbon offset program is to change behavior so that companies are taking measures to reduce carbon emissions, right? So if the McCoys are already doing some of these practices and they're benefiting from an additional selling these credits for something they're already doing, how is that, I guess, changing the behavior in a way that will also create additional carbon reductions, which should be the goal of any type of carbon offset program? Yes. Representative Rader, that's an excellent question. and I'm going to do my very best to respond directly to your question. So I have to give you some background first. The carbon offset market has, why don't we call it, two essential, I like to have three legs to the stool, but this stool has two legs for the sake of conversation. All right, I apologize. we first start with a litmus test that done by a third party verifier and I talk a little bit about those more in a second They use a but test So but-for, the economic incentive related to the carbon offset program, they would not participate. So let's just say, for example, if a neighbor of Mr. McCoy's had a large tract of land that was generationally held, and they said, by under no circumstances are we ever going to cut a single tree in this plot of land, well, that would be an example that would fall outside of the carbon offset program. But let's say another neighbor says, yes, I have a large tract of land with a lot of trees, I am in the business of cutting these trees to develop lumber and make money. But with this carbon offset program, I will refrain from cutting certain trees that qualify for the program in order to generate the carbon offset. So I think that has, if I could say a little further, that has multiple direct benefits. One, it has direct benefit to the owner of the property. It also has benefit to the people that are able to enjoy the wooded areas. And then finally, it has a direct benefit to the end user that's seeking the carbon offset that's being generated. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No follow-up, just that. That was a great answer, and I think that's what we're trying to get at here, is behavior, voluntary, and leading to the outcomes the program is designed to do. So thank you for answering. Thank you.
Committee, further questions?
Rep Brenner.
Brenner, but I'll take it.
Rep Brenner, sorry. That's all right. Happens all the time. He gets Brenner all the time. Thanks for coming in. I was reading more about this stuff over the weekend, and I came across some articles that talked about the offset registries. So I have the following question. How can we ensure offsets are real, verified, and not sold multiple times given the history of double counting in voluntary offset markets? Is there an actual audit that goes on, or are we just leaving this to the industry to voluntarily report?
Yes. Let me delve directly into your question, but for you to allow me the liberty, let me first start with an analogy. The carbon offset market is relatively new in the United States. In Europe, it's a more mature market in the billions of dollars. We are more familiar in this country with the rec market, renewable energy credits. So for every megawatt of renewable energy that's generated, a certificate is generated with a serial number. There are then third-party registries that collect, manage those renewable energy credits, and then when a consumer wants to purchase those renewable energy credits, they can do so, and that REC, if you will, is verified, that it was generated, and it is retired. So in a short answer, that's the exact same way that the carbon offset program works. I can give a little more detail, but if that suffices, I won't go any further.
Mr. Chairman? Follow-up? So why am I hearing about these double counting in voluntary offset markets?
I'm not familiar with specifically what you're referring to. I know that, again, this is an emerging market. In the legislation, the PUCO is given the authority to audit to ensure that there is no double counting, so there is transparency. And that is one of the key drivers while I'm here today testifying on behalf of NRG. We are a Fortune 500 company. We are looking for transparency and we are looking for clarity in a marketplace in order to conduct business on a level playing field. So while I can tell you that NRG as a publicly traded company would not engage in business affairs that would violate the ethics and commitments to our customers, We also rely on carbon registries to ensure that the carbon offsets that we purchase on behalf of our customers are generated by a verifiable source. They have, if you will, a serial number. Once that carbon offset is purchased by us and applied to a customer, that carbon offset is retired.
Final question, if I may. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that. If a carbon offset project were to fail, who's responsible for that?
Are customers made whole? So, Representative, during a period of time based on methodology, and I can get into that momentarily, I'm trying to pick a good example. So let's say the forestry project, for example. Let's use that Mr. McCoy's property. There are third-party verifiers that are certified by the carbon registries. The third-party verifiers then use one of three distinct methodologies to confirm a carbon offset has been generated. And only in that time working with Mr. McCoy would a carbon offset be generated. They come back, they verify, these are auditable by the carbon registry, and ultimately the verifier is responsible to the carbon registry and then ultimately to a company like NRG. So to simply answer your question more directly, if a carbon offset was generated, that means deferment happened for a certain period of time. And that's captured in a credit with a serial number. Now, if that credit was generated between the year of 2020, well, January 1, and by the end of December 2026, that's how you generate the credit. If Mr. McCoy says, hey, you know what, in 2027, we're going to cut some more trees, well, then you would not be able to generate the same carbon offset.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, Representative Hall.
Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Mr. Nickerson. I'll be frank. I struggle with this topic. I struggle with the idea of additionality. I struggle with the but for tests that you articulated earlier. You know, you talk about this idea that these trees that you that you have alluded to a couple of times, you know, but for this project, these trees would have been cut down. Right. I guess I struggle with how do we know that? And also, I purchased a carbon offset, which probably has an expiration date to it, I'm assuming, in the program. Can you just sort of address that? Because I know that in the literature, one of the challenges with this idea is the idea of additionality. Can you just talk a bit more about that and how you would refute that as a challenge to a carbon offset program?
Sure. I'll do my best, Representative Hall. I first want to acknowledge I empathize with your capturing the concept and how the program works. Because, again, this is an emerging marketplace, and it takes time to become more common knowledge. But I think for ease of response, I'm going to shift back to my analogy with the mature renewable energy credit market. So let's say down in Adams County, there is a 50 megawatt solar field, right? The energy that's generated must be verifiable, all right? And of course, there's different variables, but I don't want to digress. So once that solar field generates the equivalent of one megawatt of renewable energy, that credit can be captured, that credit can be documented, and it's held fixed in time until it's applied and retired. Now, if after generating that one megawatt of renewable energy in the form of renewable energy credit, that solar field is subject to a hailstorm that takes down the vast majority of those solar panels, well, then you can't generate any more renewable energy credits. And so again, I'm trying to oversimplify things because I understand it can be, it's a newer concept, but it's the same analogy. It's the same process. And what the carbon registry is aiming for is absolute market and economic legitimacy. No hocus pocus, no games. So one of the litmus tests is we're not for this economic incentive. Then these practices would not take place. And so that is just the threshold of legitimacy. Does that answer your question?
And then I can take another crack at it, if not fully. Paul, do you have a follow up? Well, a follow up comment. I need to think of a better way of asking that question. So I'm going to work on that. So thank you, Chair. Yes, thank you.
Thank you. Committee, are there any further questions? All right, sir, just one from me then. As I heard from the Senate, one of the incentives of this and the support it got in the Senate is this isn't just in its iterative states now, but it allowed the state of Ohio to have some sort of positive control over this as it emerged and grew. Is that accurate? Am I understanding that right, that that was a reason why?
Absolutely. Absolutely. It positions Ohio to continue to be a leader at a time when energy markets are changing rapidly. Innovation and being able to serve customer demand is critical. And also, it preserves the use of natural gas as a fuel source for reliability and adding, and maybe this is where it gets back to Representative Hall's question, adding that additionality so that while people are consuming, those that choose to on a voluntary basis can work to offset or mitigate the carbon they generate through the use of natural gas. Creating a market for those folks that are interested in doing that and reducing carbon.
Yeah. Okay. All right. Seeing no further questions, thank you, sir.
Thank you all very much.
Our final guest for today is Mr. Nicholas York from Barger Tech USA. Thank you sir, welcome to committee.
Thank you so much Mr. Chair. Got to get the old guy glasses on here. Chairman Holmes, Vice Chair Matthews, Ranking Member Rader, and members of the House Energy Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of Senate Bill 151 My name is Nick York I am the Chief Impact Officer for Bargertech USA We are a Findlay Ohio company We are developing technologies that convert agricultural and municipal waste into electricity, clean water, and carbon-rich fertilizers. By background, I'm an entrepreneur, an attorney with over 30 years of experience, advising startups and Fortune 500 companies and universities and public institutions. I've spent a career helping innovative companies and communities grow here in Ohio. As a lifelong Ohioan, I've seen firsthand how innovation, especially when tied to our agricultural manufacturing and technology strengths, can really help local economies transform and grow. At Barger Tech, we're doing something that I would describe as both practical and visionary. We have something called the Tri-Fi 7000 Waste of Value System, which takes organic waste like livestock manure or municipal waste, and we convert it into three critical resources, electricity, clean water, and carbon-rich fertilizers, as I mentioned. In simple terms, what we're doing is we're taking the waste management challenges of farmers and communities, and we're turning those into opportunities to strengthen local economies while protecting Ohio's natural resources. Our work is not about choosing between economic growth and environmental stewardship. stewardship, it's about doing both. We're launching a first commercial project in Ohio later this year, and it will stand as a model for how farmers and businesses and technology providers can work together to produce abundant and affordable energy, water resilience, and soil restoration right here in our own backyard. So that brings me to Senate Bill 151. Carbon offset markets are important for companies like Barger Tech because they recognize and reward the real environmental gains achieved with our technologies. For Barger Tech, carbon offsets are not just an abstract financial instrument, but they are a tangible outcome of our process. Every gallon of clean water produced, every ton of fertilizer saved, every kilowatt hour of energy generated translates directly to valuable greenhouse gas reductions and economic benefits for farmers, communities, and consumers. So it's important to have a transparent, well-structured carbon market that gives that value a home. It turns sustainability into a robust business model. It results in more dollars to be reinvested into more projects, more jobs, for more farms and communities across the state. In short, I believe this bill helps make doing the right thing also the smart economic thing. It supports farmers and businesses and keeps Ohio competitive in a growing national clean energy economy, turning environmental performance into economic opportunity. For a growing company like Barger Tech, built here, creating jobs here, and committed to powering the future of food, energy, and water, this legislation signals that Ohio intends to lead and not follow in the future of energy generation and an innovation economy. So on behalf of Barger Tech and our partners, I want to thank Senator Wilkin for introducing this legislation and for recognizing the importance of aligning markets with public policy and innovation in service of Ohio's future. And I would hope the committee will pass this bill, and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you, sir.
Committee, are there any questions?
Representative Brendan? Thank you. I know it's hot, but I'm full of a lot of hot air, as you all know. So thank you for all that as well. I appreciate it, as I'm sure all the committee does as well. So it does say in the bill that you can opt in or opt out. Is there wiggle room in the bill, or do we need to plug the wiggle room somehow to ensure that if a consumer opts out, let's say they're in, but then they want to opt out. Can they opt out at any time? and if they do opt out, is there a cost to that? Because I like the way we do aggregation of energy in Ohio where I'm an OPEC consumer, where I can opt out any time, there's no cost. But that's not really answered in this bill, I don't think. So I'm thinking maybe possible amendment to ensure consumers are protected in that way. Thoughts on that?
Yeah, so my understanding is that in terms of how the process would work is, as was mentioned before from the prior testimony, this is a contract between two parties, right? And they come to that agreement after assessing, what are you selling, what are you buying, simply. And if you agree on that sale and purchase, there's a time period for that over some period of time. And so if you're a consumer and you don't want to be in and you don't want to participate and you don't think it's a good deal or that's not for you, then you just choose not to participate. So it's not an opting in or opting out, just like anything else in an open marketplace. So I don't think that that is a significant concern because it really just comes down to do two parties want to enter into a contract at that point in time.
Follow-up?
Follow-up?
The bill also allows the PUCO at its discretion to conduct an audit of an RNGE's voluntary carbon offset program. Would it be wise for this committee to require it rather than allow it?
To require the audit versus allowing the audit? Well, I think it gives the PUCO who's got the opportunity to evaluate whether a particular project is ripe for an audit. I think if there's the potential that, you know, I'm not going to sit up here and tell the PUCO what to do or tell this committee what to do. My view of it is that if you put that in the hands of the PECO to make that discretionary determination, that they're well-equipped to evaluate that and make that determination at that level. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Committee, any further questions? All right, seeing none, thank you, sir. Thank you very much for your testimony. Committee, I need to make a little bit of an audible right here. We have a citizen that I think came from Cincinnati to speak on the previous bill. Senate Bill 106. And just for the effort, sir, we'd like to call Mr. Stephen Hightower, and we'll go back to talk about EVs. But we appreciate you caring enough to come. And so you have the floor, sir.
Welcome. Thank you very much, Chairman. Chairman Holmes, Vice Chair Matthews, Ranking Member Raider, and members of the House Energy Committee, on behalf of Hightower's Petroleum and the Ohio Energy and Convenience Association, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of Senate Bill 106. My name is Steven Hightower II, and like many in our industry, I represent a small family-owned business. We employ over 50 people, and we invest and give back into our hometown of Middletown, Ohio. When my grandfather started our businesses in 1956, it was a janitorial business, which was a good business back then, but as the years have gone by, we have continued to adapt, change, and grow to meet the needs of today's times and needs of our customers. Today, Hightower's Petroleum Company is one of the largest independent distributors of fuels in the United States, delivering a fuel every seven minutes, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We are also proud members of the Ohio Energy and Convenience Association, which represents segments, all segments of the fuel and convenience supply chain. Once again, we have sensed the winds of change and have jumped into a burgeoning electronic vehicle market with Hightower EV. At this stage, it's an investment that we are confident will be played off as the playing field is open and free market principles prevail. There are major goals in the attempt to go electric and reduce the amount of carbon pollution, which I support. But in order for it to be successful, it would require participation for the most reliable and efficient distribution network retail fuel stations. We embrace the change, but as small business owners, we must see a path for return on our investment. With the current incentives, EV charging stations are a considerable investment with precious limited space. Retailers are already reimagining the convenience store of the future where we have a place to recharge your mind, body, while your electric vehicle charges up. As we examine this legislation, these are things, in our opinion, that this body should prioritize. Ohio should encourage private investment and free market approaches as it seeks to expand its EV infrastructure. The state should avoid artificial regulatory or legislative barriers that keep retailers and other industries from participating in the process. Ohio should avoid charging businesses and citizens with the cost of building EV infrastructure via demand charges and subsidies. These added costs would discourage private investment while having an adverse impact on the overall business climate of the state. Utilities will obviously play a crucial role in this process, and fuel retailers are ready to work with them in a collaborative manner to ensure Ohio builds the most robust and efficient EV infrastructure possible. We are pleased to support Senate Bill 106 because it aligns with the above-mentioned goals. In addition, we sincerely appreciate Senator Renneke for bringing the bill forward. As the world rapidly changes, we must remain true to our free market principles. Small and family-owned businesses and thousands of families that work for us are counting on it. Thank you for your time, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Fantastic. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your effort for coming up. Committee, are there any questions? Sir, we asked this before from the previous testimony on 106. Do you have a sense right now of the growth or demand for EV charging? What do you see from your chair?
So it ebbs and flows, but it definitely is growing at this point. And I imagine with rising fuel costs, there will be a surge in people who take an interest. But it's a steady growth. And we are constantly gauging that. Commercial industries have taken big steps in that. We currently are installing EV chargers for Amazon across the country, as well as hotels and other chains. The retailer or the consumer is catching up to that, but it is growing. It will continue to grow now in the future, but now is the time to lay the groundwork for retailers to make that investment so that it can make sense to continue to grow.
Outstanding. All right. Sir, thank you very much.
Thank you. I'll go get some air conditioning.
Right. Right. All right, committee, there was one other piece of... Okay, and with that, that concludes 106 again. Before we conclude, I'll go really quick. Just I want to talk about next week on Wednesday, all of us as part of House Bill 15, as you know, directed PUSO to generate an advanced transmission technology document and a study. That study is complete, and they've submitted it to us, and Ty's going to submit it to all your offices today. And they're going to come in next week, and we're going to brief it. We're going to focus on transmission. So the guests, as you know, our system is three generation transmission distribution. We've worked hard 15 on generation. Distribution is perpetual on everything we do. We're going to focus on advanced transmission technologies and get a class. PCO will provide an overview of the document. Google's going to come in and talk about some of their advanced conductoring and the capabilities they're doing. across the United States. It'll make our whole system, which is over 100 years old and some places way more efficient. AEP will come in and talk about some of their more technical pieces of equipment, data transfer and other tools that they use to better support our growing and ever more burdened grid. So anyway, we'll hand out that document. It'll be coming to you shortly, and we'll have those kinds of guests coming from across the United States to speak to us next week. Is there any other business to come before the committee today? Seeing none, the House Energy Committee is adjourned.