To amend sections 4164.11, 4906.01, 4906.03, 4928.01, and 4928.041 and to enact sections 4164.20, 4928.76, 4928.761, 4928.762, 4928.763, 4928.764, 4928.765, 4928.766, 4928.767, 4928.768, and 4928.769 of the Revised Code to authorize electric distribution utilities to construct, own, and operate nuclear generating facilities in limited circumstances and to require the Ohio Nuclear Development Authority to appoint a State Nuclear Coordinator.
HB862 would create a new framework allowing Ohio electric distribution utilities to construct, own, and operate nuclear generating facilities, but only in limited circumstances and only after obtaining a “nuclear project financing order” from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). The bill sets out an application process requiring proof of need, signed long-term retail participation agreements with customers, a proposed ratemaking order, ownership proof, and any required federal financial guarantees. It also requires PUCO to make findings on need and to issue a ratemaking order that governs how costs and revenues are tracked and recovered.
The bill also directs the Ohio Nuclear Development Authority to appoint a State Nuclear Coordinator. That coordinator would serve as a state-level point person for nuclear projects, helping coordinate permitting and siting, serving as an internal advocate and ombudsperson, liaising with federal agencies, engaging communities, and reporting annually to the governor and General Assembly on deployment progress, workforce needs, infrastructure needs, and recommended statutory or regulatory changes. In addition, the bill revises statutory definitions in Ohio’s utility and siting laws to account for nuclear-related projects and expedited review procedures.
HB862 would amend Ohio’s utility and power-siting statutes to carve out a specific pathway for nuclear generation by electric distribution utilities, which generally are not allowed to own generation assets. It would add new sections to Chapter 4928 governing financing orders, ratemaking, customer participation agreements, audits, and PUCO rulemaking, while also modifying Chapter 4906 to create an expedited siting review process for certain nuclear facilities, especially those supported on brownfields or former coal mine sites. The bill would also expand the Ohio Nuclear Development Authority’s duties by requiring appointment of a State Nuclear Coordinator, and it would alter the definition of electric distribution utility to recognize the new nuclear authority granted by the bill.
Because the bill was only introduced and there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes available in the provided materials, there is no documented public or legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or roll call history. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to promote nuclear development, streamline permitting, and provide a financing mechanism intended to reduce risk for utilities and participating customers. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the available context means any assessment of sentiment would be speculative.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s authorization for utilities to own nuclear plants, the use of long-term customer participation agreements, and the cost-recovery structure. Critics could focus on whether the PUCO-approved financing and ratemaking provisions adequately protect nonparticipating customers from subsidizing nuclear projects, while supporters would likely emphasize that costs are limited to participating customers during the agreement term and that audits are built in to police prudence. Another likely issue is the bill’s expedited review and automatic-approval timelines, which could be viewed as necessary to accelerate development or, alternatively, as reducing regulatory scrutiny and public input. Siting on brownfields or former coal mine sites may also draw attention as both an economic-development strategy and an environmental or community-impact issue.