The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association is warning state lawmakers that proposed nuclear energy legislation backed by American Electric Power could revive the same utility structure and customer-funded risk model tied to the controversial House Bill 6 Scandal.
The legislation, known as House Bill 862, would establish a new “nuclear project financing order” allowing electric distribution utilities to construct, own, and operate nuclear generation facilities. OMA leaders argue the proposal would reverse decades of Ohio’s competitive energy market policies by reopening the door for monopoly utilities to re-enter power generation ownership while shifting financial risks to utility customers.
“Ohio should pursue nuclear energy, but not by handing monopoly utilities a new path back into generation ownership,” said OMA President Ryan Augsburger. “This bill is not a nuclear development strategy. It is a utility ownership strategy.”
OMA officials said the proposal resembles strategies revealed during the HB 6 investigation, where utilities sought customer-funded subsidies, expanded monopoly control, and rate-based investments guaranteed through electric bills.
The association argues that while the technology focus has shifted from aging nuclear plants to new nuclear development, the financial structure remains similar.
“This is the same movie with a new title,” Augsburger said. “Utilities get guaranteed returns. Customers get the risk.”
The Northwest Ohio Aggregation Coalition, which represents approximately 125,000 residents and businesses, also criticized the proposal, warning it could bring back subsidy structures that previously drove up electric rates.
“For years, northwest Ohio fought alongside Ohioans to get rid of these utility-owned nuclear plant subsidies,” said Tom Hays. “This is a path toward electric rates like California’s.”
Concerns were also raised by the Ohio Association of Community Action Agencies, whose member agencies serve low-income residents across all 88 counties.
“OACAA supports energy policies that strengthen reliability and Ohio’s future generation capacity, but affordability and consumer protections must remain central to the discussion,” said Executive Director Jason Smith. “Low-income households should not be asked to shoulder additional long-term costs and financial risk through higher utility bills.”
OMA additionally criticized provisions in the bill that could allow projects to gain approval automatically if the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio fails to act within specific deadlines. Under the legislation, certain applications could be deemed approved by operation of law if regulatory timelines expire.
“This is not rigorous review. It is a utility fast lane,” Augsburger said.
The association also expressed concern that utilities could rely on their own long-term energy demand forecasts to justify construction projects financed through customer bills.
“Utilities should not be allowed to turn their own forecasts into permission slips to build on customers’ dime,” Augsburger said.
OMA emphasized that the debate is not over whether nuclear energy should be part of Ohio’s future, but whether monopoly utilities should be allowed to own generation projects while passing financial risks to ratepayers.
The organization urged lawmakers to reject House Bill 862 and maintain Ohio’s competitive electric market structure, arguing nuclear investment should succeed through open-market competition rather than customer-backed financing mechanisms.
