Franklin County Judge Blocks Nuclear Bailout Fees From Kicking In

Posted on:

< < Back to

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WOSU) — A Franklin County judge has granted a preliminary injuction that blocks the owner of Ohio’s two nuclear power plants from collecting fees as part of HB6, the controversial bailout law at the center of a federal racketeering investigation.

FirstEnergy Corp.'s Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in Oak Harbor, Ohio.
FILE – In this April 4, 2017, file photo, is the then-FirstEnergy Corp.’s Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in Oak Harbor, Ohio. [AP Photo | Ron Schwane, File]
At a hearing Monday, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Chris Brown granted a preliminary injunction to halt Energy Harbor, formerly known as FirstEnergy Solutions, from collecting increased fees from ratepayers.

“To not impose an injunction would be to allow certain parties to prevail,” Brown said. “It would give the O.K. that bribery is allowed in the state of Ohio and that any ill-gotten gains can be received.”

The Ohio Attorney General’s Office, along with the cities of Columbus and Cincinnati, had sued to stop those provisions of the energy law from going into effect next month.

“Ohio wins!” tweeted Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost after the ruling. “Judge puts HB6 nuke surcharge in the deep freeze. Preliminary injunction issues. Proud of our litigation team!”

HB6 creates new charges on electric bills for a $1 billion nuclear power plant bailout. But federal investigators allege the bailout is the result of quid-pro-quo between the energy company, a former subsidiary of FirstEnergy, and former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder.

In their lawsuit, the cities of Columbus and Cincinnati argued that HB6 amounted to an unconstitutional lending of state credit to a private entity.

“Today’s ruling is a win for all Ohioans,” Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein said in a statement. “HB6 was passed through deceit, deception and corruption and this decision means that Ohio ratepayers will keep their hard-earned dollars instead of paying for a massive corporate bailout.”

Defendants argued there are still many moving parts in the issue, including the ongoing federal investigation and the possibility of state lawmakers modifying or repealing HB6.