Ohio homeowners file lawsuit against their town over new solar panel fee: ‘It’s hard to believe’
Photo Credit: iStock
An Ohio couple has filed a lawsuit against the city of Bowling Green over a newly approved monthly charge imposed on residents who use rooftop solar panels. According to Canary Media, the case could signal a broader statewide dispute as Ohio’s Public Utilities Commission prepares to revisit its net-metering policies.
Leatra Harper and Steven Janston said in their complaint that they chose to install solar panels because they were “deeply concerned” about their environmental impact. Energy generated by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas is linked to chronic illness and millions of premature deaths worldwide each year. By contrast, the materials used in solar panels can generate clean electricity from sunlight for decades.
Beyond environmental concerns, many homeowners turn to solar to increase property values and significantly reduce energy bills—sometimes to zero. Over time, solar installations can effectively pay for themselves.
Harper and Janston said they felt confident investing roughly $37,000 in a 13.95-kilowatt rooftop solar system. Based on industry projections at the time, the system was expected to recoup its cost within what the couple described as a reasonable timeframe.
That calculation changed, they say, after the city enacted a new charge known as “Rider E” roughly six months after their system was installed. The fee applies specifically to customers with solar panels and, according to the lawsuit, nearly doubles the time it will take for their investment to break even.
The couple is seeking a permanent injunction to block the fee, arguing that it unlawfully and arbitrarily discriminates against rooftop solar customers. Bowling Green has denied any wrongdoing. City officials have said the charge is necessary to prevent non-solar customers from shouldering additional costs associated with maintaining and staffing the electric grid.
Mryia Williams, Ohio program director for the nonprofit Solar United Neighbors, said the issue of cost allocation is complex. However, she emphasized that rooftop solar can strengthen the grid by reducing overall demand and supplying excess power to other users.
“It’s hard to see how this could be considered a subsidized rate,” Williams said, especially when solar customers often receive only partial credit for the extra electricity they send back to the grid.
The case comes as net-metering rules continue to vary widely across jurisdictions, leaving the future financial benefits of rooftop solar uncertain for some homeowners while courts and regulators weigh competing interests.
About Post Author
You must be logged in to post a comment.