Bowling Green has remained at the forefront of renewable energy for decades. Long before it became politically fashionable, our city began investing in large-scale renewable infrastructure through our publicly owned municipal utility. We pioneered commercial wind energy in Ohio with the state’s first utility-scale wind farm. We built the largest municipal solar field in the state. Today, more than 40 percent of the electricity used in Bowling Green comes from renewable sources – well above the state and national average.
This didn’t happen by accident. Bowling Green is one of a minority of communities that maintain a utility that is owned and operated by the public. Just 15% of households across the nation can boast that they receive power from a utility owned by their community rather than shareholders.
For decades, this publicly owned utility has been carefully managed by an independent Board of Public Utilities. That structure might not always be perfect, but it has allowed for major long-term investments in renewable energy while maintaining reliable service and lower rates than almost every neighboring community. As a result of that careful management, at a time when most other communities are experiencing huge rate increases at the whim of large corporations, Bowling Green can offer greater reliability, safety, and affordability. Decisions are made locally, and when residents pay their utility bills, those dollars are reinvested into maintaining and improving our infrastructure — not shareholder profits.
Communities like ours will have an important role to play in the transition to American-made clean energy. Distributed generation, like rooftop solar, is one important component of this transition. But good climate policy requires more than good intentions and catchy slogans. It requires acknowledging tradeoffs and enacting progressive policies that are also equitable, durable, and designed to work for the entire community.
Bowling Green’s surcharge on private rooftop solar installations — often described as a “solar penalty” — was adopted in 2020 following a comprehensive cost-of-service analysis conducted by the city’s utilities department. The goal was to proactively address a basic challenge facing utilities across the country: how to fairly recover the cost of maintaining the electric grid as more customers generate some of their own electricity.
Our public electric grid requires significant infrastructure — poles, wires, transformers, substations, and the skilled workforce needed to keep the system operating safely and reliably. This infrastructure is needed whether a home generates its own electricity or not. Most of the cost of maintaining this infrastructure is recovered through the portion of the bill tied to electricity usage. When a customer remains at least partially reliant on the grid, but reduces the usage portion of their bill during ideal conditions, revenue decreases while expenses remain the same.
In effect, any savings realized by the owners of private solar installations correspond with a loss in public revenue that funds the shared infrastructure we all rely on at some point every single day. Since infrastructure costs remain the same, any lost revenue must be recovered, either from the owners of private solar installations through a surcharge or from other ratepayers who cannot afford to reduce their usage by installing solar panels on their homes.
Some critics argue the “solar penalty” adopted by the Board of Public Utilities is too restrictive and has made rooftop solar cost-prohibitive. Proponents of that position argue that new installations have stalled since the policy’s implementation. This argument has been often repeated, but the data tells a different story.
In reality, the data shows continued growth under the “solar penalty.” In fact, the number of rooftop solar installations has doubled since the “solar penalty” was implemented. Contrary to what some would have us believe, total rooftop solar capacity has increased by 158 percent, and the two largest residential rooftop installations in Bowling Green were completed in the past two years under the current “solar penalty” policy.
Rooftop solar is an important component in our transition to renewable energy, but the fact is that it remains largely a wealth-based climate solution. A typical residential installation costs between $20,000 and $30,000 before incentives. Many families simply cannot afford that, and renters are unlikely to be able to install private solar panels at all. The result? Those in the wealthier homeowner class get cheaper electric bills, while poorer residents are asked to either compensate for the loss in revenue or make do with declining infrastructure and services. Climate policy should strive to expand clean energy for everyone — and avoid unintentionally shifting costs onto families who can’t afford it.
While distributed generation plays an important role in the transition to clean energy, utility-scale renewable projects remain a far more effective way to reduce carbon emissions. Large-scale projects — like those long prioritized by our public utility — produce far more clean electricity per dollar invested than smaller private systems. To be clear, both will be necessary. However, systematically undermining and defunding our publicly owned utility in the service of a patchwork of less efficient and less effective private installations would not serve the long-term interests of our community.
None of this means this policy should never be revisited. Energy systems evolve, technology changes, and public policy must always adapt. Bowling Green should absolutely continue exploring ways to expand renewable energy and make distributed generation accessible for those who can afford it. But responsible comprehensive climate policy requires balancing several goals at once: encouraging renewable energy, maintaining grid reliability, and ensuring both that rates remain competitive and costs to maintain the grid aren’t shifted to those who can’t afford an alternative.
In many parts of the country, communities are still debating how to begin the transition to clean energy. Bowling Green is already well down that path. Our municipal utility has consistently allowed us to invest in renewable energy at a scale that benefits every resident while maintaining reliable service and competitive rates. That kind of community-owned infrastructure is one of the most powerful tools local governments will have for addressing climate change, and Bowling Green is strongly positioned to be at the forefront. Protecting and strengthening that system is essential if we want to continue leading on clean energy in the years ahead.
Jeff Dennis
Bowling Green
