Ohio’s top elected attorney sued Wednesday in an attempt to block the state’s nuclear plants from collecting fees on electricity bills.

These fees were authorized in a law at the center of a $60 million federal bribery probe involving the former Ohio House speaker.

Attorney General Dave Yost filed the lawsuit in Franklin County Court in Columbus against Energy Harbor, asking the court to block payments to the company’s two nuclear plants in Lake County and near Toledo that were bailed out through the now-tainted legislation.

He called the funding “essentially ill-gotten gains.”

The bailout is funded by a fee that will be added to every electricity bill in the state starting Jan. 1 — directing more than $150 million per year, through 2026, to the two nuclear plants. This fee still is set to go into effect at the start of the new year if lawmakers don’t repeal the law by then.

Energy Harbor is the former FirstEnergy Solutions, a onetime subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp. The subsidiary filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2018 amid a mounting load brought on by the rise of competition from natural gas power in the East and Midwest.

TESTIMONY

The lawsuit came hours after a House committee looking at repealing the law heard varying proponent testimony from energy lobbying groups and the state representing consumers.

State Rep. Michael J. O’Brien, D-Warren, is a co-sponsor on one bill to repeal House Bill 6, which he has called “the worst legislation of the century.”

The lawsuit also seeks to freeze the assets of former House Speaker Larry Householder’s $1 million campaign fund and dissolve the dark money groups involved in the bribery scheme, Yost said. The court would need to approve spending from the account in excess of $250.

“Corruption like this doesn’t happen without cash — lots of cash,” he said.

In addition, the lawsuit asks the court to dissolve or reorganize organizations or businesses of the defendants, so, Yost said, “any of the persons that were involved in a corrupt activity may no longer participate in the affairs of that business or organization.”

The lawsuit also seeks to bar the defendants from lobbying on a repeal or replacement of House Bill 6 and would prevent them from supporting or opposing any candidate in the General Assembly election in November.

Federal prosecutors in July accused Householder and four others of shepherding energy company money for personal and political use as part of an effort to pass the legislation, then kill any attempt to repeal it at the polls. All five men have pleaded not guilty.

DENIAL

While FirstEnergy Corp. and its executives have denied wrongdoing and have not been charged criminally, federal investigators say the company secretly funneled millions to secure the $1 billion legislative bailout for the two nuclear plants then operated by FirstEnergy Solutions.

The House Select Committee on Energy Policy and Oversight, created by the new Speaker Bob Cupp, has been the scene of rising tensions between Democratic and Republican lawmakers on how best to approach the fate of the legislation.

Some testimony Wednesday called for the straight repeal of the fee law, while others warned throwing “the good out with the bad” will have widespread ramifications on Ohio electricity customers.

Witnesses from organizations such as Industrial Energy Users, the Ohio Manufacturers Association and the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel gave testimony aligned with varying interests.

Jeff Jacobson, who testified on behalf of Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, said the legislation left the burden of the two unprofitable nuclear plants in Lake County and near Toledo on average Ohioans.

While Kevin Murray, executive director of the Industrial Energy Users of Ohio, who originally had testified as a proponent of the bill last year, told the committee that repealing the bill without replacing it with similar subsidies will increase the cost for the state’s electricity customers.

The bailout bill removed customer charges for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, but opponents have said energy efficiency programs that helped customers reduce their electric use more than pay for themselves.

Despite not being able to agree on whether the bill saves or costs ratepayers money, nearly every witness concurred the bailout of the nuclear plants is uneconomic and possibly unwarranted.