Use less energy and you’ll pay more for it

COLUMBUS — It was hailed as a “landmark energy reform bill” that would prevent the kind of spikes that utility customers in other states experienced and prompt companies to implement green and renewable means of generation for the betterment of the state.

Gov. Ted Strickland praised it for “making sure customers have equal footing with utilities” and for the “transparency and accountability” built into its provisions.

“This bill, Senate Bill 221, will ensure predictability of affordable energy prices and maintain state controls necessary to protect Ohio jobs and businesses,” Strickland said in May 2008 when he signed the legislation into law. “We will safeguard Ohio families by empowering consumers and modernizing Ohio’s energy infrastructure. ... I am proud to be here today with Ohio’s legislative leadership. We can all be proud of this bill.”

But you knew there had to be something screwy about SB 221. It’s too big a bill and filled with too many provisions that average, on-the-street Ohioans can’t grasp not to have a few unpleasant surprises.

One of those came to light (pardon the pun) earlier this month, when FirstEnergy announced its plan to deliver millions of light bulbs to customers, then charge them over the next several years to pay for the costs.

Charging extra

That’s something lawmakers and the governor didn’t spotlight during their praise of the energy bill — the fact that utilities would be charging customers extra to meet the efficiency mandates included within the legislation.

Which would be laughable if it wasn’t true. Think about it: You’re going to have to pay more for using less energy.

On the surface, it doesn’t seem like a lot of money — an average of about 60 cents per month. I know these are hard times, but I see enough people going in and out of coffee shops to know that average Ohioans still have a few bucks to blow on frivolity.

But there’s a principle here that does not sit well with the paying populace, and that is being forced to foot the bill for something that you didn’t order in the first place.

As Clevelander Cynthia Mooney put it in a recent letter to the Public Utilities Commission, “[FirstEnergy] indicated that they are going to send them and charge me for them whether I request the bulbs or not. ... I would never make a request for these bulbs. I did not consent to the delivery of these bulbs to my home; therefore, I am not required to make a payment for an item I did not order.”

PUCO will entertain oral arguments on the issue later this month, giving FirstEnergy, the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel and other groups (but not the general public) a chance to present their case.

You can be sure FirstEnergy isn’t going to be left holding the bill for 3.75 million energy-efficient light bulbs. Lawmakers and Gov. Ted Strickland OKed cost recovery for such costs as part of their energy bill, and PUCO has already said it’s proper for the company to seek payback.

“The Legislature recognizes that there’s a cost to energy efficiency,” FirstEnergy spokeswoman Ellen Raines told me earlier this month. “It’s not free... the costs would be recovered from customers.”

X Marc Kovac is the Vindicator’s Statehouse correspondent. E-mail him at mkovac@dixcom.com.