Ohio grid disparities leave some areas with older, outage-prone equipment
Areas defined as disadvantaged under the Biden administration's Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool were twice as likely to have low-voltage circuits compared to other parts of FirstEnergy's Ohio territory, according to the study by the Interstate Renewable Energy Council. Equipment was also generally older and had less capacity for normal and overload situations.
The results reflect historical patterns of underinvestment in disadvantaged communities, the report says, but the full scope of the problem — including across Ohio's other utilities — is unclear due to the lack of information from utilities and regulators.
'The public availability of any utility data is very, very limited in Ohio,' said report author Shay Banton, a regulatory program engineer and energy justice policy advocate for the Interstate Renewable Energy Council.
The Ohio Environmental Council submitted the report as part of FirstEnergy's pending rate case before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and is asking regulators to address the topic in an evidentiary hearing set for May 5.
The state of the local grid matters when it comes to the reliability of customers' electric service, their ability to add distributed renewable energy resources like rooftop solar, and a community's potential to attract business investments that could improve its economic conditions.
Regulated electric utilities file reliability reports each spring that focus on two commonly used metrics. The system average interruption frequency index, or SAIFI, shows how many outages occurred per customer. The customer average interruption duration index, or CAIDI, measures the average length of time for restoring service to customers who lose power.
The annual reports also list factors involved in outages, with breakouts for transmission-related service problems and major events. Major events such as severe weather are considered statistical outliers that don't count for calculating whether utilities meet their company-specific standards for CAIDI and SAIFI.
While weather accounted for the majority of time Ohioans went without power last year, equipment failures also triggered thousands of outages. For the ninth year in a row, at least one Ohio utility company failed to meet reliability standards, reports filed this month show. Both AEP Ohio and FirstEnergy's Toledo Edison missed their marks for the average time before power is restored for customers who experience outages.
The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio also collects data on the worst-performing circuits. Individual circuits serve anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand customers. However, the state doesn't post these reports online or disclose the circuit's exact locations, which could be used to show whether they are concentrated in disadvantaged communities.
The SAIFI and CAIDI metrics used by state regulators did not show significant disparities between disadvantaged neighborhoods and other areas in FirstEnergy's territory. But Banton said those reliability metrics rely on averages for large groups, which can obscure disparities. They said that utilities should also be required to publicly report the number of customers experiencing frequent service interruptions and the number of customers who faced long outages.
Utilities in Ohio tend to be reactive in dealing with circuit problems, Banton said. Communities can face longer outages if utilities wait for equipment to fail before replacing it. Instead, Banton wants utilities' capital investments to address current disparities and then prevent them from recurring in the future.
'The bottom line is that consumers should get reliable service, and utilities are obligated to provide reliable service,' said Merrilee Embs, a spokesperson for the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, which did not work on the report. The group is concerned about whether utilities' capital improvement spending directly benefits customers — an issue that relates to grid disparities.
'FirstEnergy's (and other Ohio utilities') failure to implement grid modernization plans in a way that benefits residential consumers likely contributes to grid disparities such as those described in the [study],' Embs wrote via email after reviewing the report.
FirstEnergy has challenged the Ohio Environmental Council's objections about grid disparities in its rate case. Meanwhile, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio is due to consider revisions to the annual reliability reporting requirements by Sept. 30, 2026. The commission will likely start accepting comments on the rules later this year, said spokesperson Matt Schilling.
The quality of a neighborhood's grid influences more than whether residents' lights stay on.
'These inequities can have serious consequences for customer access to distributed energy resources, which can save money,' said Karin Nordstrom, a lawyer for the Ohio Environmental Council.
Rooftop solar or other distributed clean energy can add to traffic on local grid circuits, posing a challenge for equipment that's older or has lower voltages or capacity. Those circuits generally can handle less grid traffic, Banton said. In contrast, newer, high-voltage circuits tend to have 'less bumps and less potholes [along with] better on-ramps.'
The grid's quality and capacity also impact an area's economic development. Historically, utilities have focused capital investment on places where people are moving or where they expect new industrial demand. That approach exacerbates inequity, Banton said. Even if businesses otherwise wanted to move to disadvantaged areas, poor electrical infrastructure may lead them to go elsewhere to avoid huge costs for upgrading the local grid, they said.
'The energy transition is in full effect, but many of the communities that suffer first and worst from climate change are not able to make the transition due to underinvestment in infrastructure,' said Tony Reames, a professor of environmental justice at the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability, who did not work on the new report. He served at the U.S. Department of Energy as deputy director for energy justice and principal deputy director for state and community energy programs during the Biden administration.
Because utilities have failed to invest in and maintain the grid evenly throughout their service territories, an equity-based approach to infrastructure modernization should make sure resources now go to areas that were left behind, Reames said.
He supports the report's call for more granular data, including details on customers with repeated or prolonged outages. The report also calls on utilities to publish maps showing grid capacity, and information about which census tracts are served by each circuit and substation transformers.
'I often say, 'The data you don't have is the problem you don't see,'' Reames noted. 'Difficulties accessing data or the lack of certain data availability are sometimes a result of entities not wanting to confirm issues that are anecdotally known.'
Love Canary Media and find our reporting valuable? Please consider financially supporting our work with a donation. Thank you!
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Student loan borrowers navigate new landscape as options dwindle under Trump
Student loan borrowers' options are dwindling and time is not on their side as the Trump administration turns up the heat to get all borrowers back in repayment. The recently passed 'big, beautiful bill' will take the bevy of choices away from borrowers by 2028, leaving only two options for repayment. Those on the Biden administration's Saving on Valuable Education (SAVE) plan who have been in forbearance have even less time, with interest accrual restarting next month. Student loan advocates are encouraging borrowers to reach out for help in understanding their options as they fear many will not be able to afford their monthly repayment plans with the plans left for them. 'It feels like a flood-the-zone type situation where confusion is part of the intent,' said Natalia Abrams, president of the Student Debt Crisis Center (SDCC), adding, 'the hits just keep coming.' The slate of changes rolled out, she said, 'feels reckless in terms of treatment towards student loan borrowers and for Americans at large.' After years of pauses, on-ramps and forbearances from the start of the pandemic in President Trump's first term through the Biden administration, the White House is now requiring all borrowers to begin repaying their loans by the end of Trump's second. The millions of borrowers on the SAVE plan have been in forbearance with no interest since that Biden program was ruled illegal by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year. The SAVE plan made it so some borrowers had to pay as low as $0 a month. The government said those in the SAVE plan will have to switch to a different option for payments to start counting towards their loan forgiveness, but people can stay in the plan and just pay interest potentially until summer 2026. An analysis from the Student Borrower Protection Center found the typical borrower will pay more than $3,500 in interest charges per year due to the policy change. The decision to switch out of the plan by Aug. 1 or just pay the interest is a personal one. 'Every single borrower's financial situation is so different. For borrowers who are truly unable to afford to make payments, remaining on the SAVE forbearance might be their best option,' said Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for the Student Borrower Protection Center. 'But for borrowers who are on the SAVE forbearance' but want to take advantage of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, 'it's been our advice that folks should try to get off of SAVE so that they can begin making payments and begin earning credit towards' forgiveness, she added. Experts also advise those leaving SAVE to wait until the Aug. 1 deadline so the interest is taken care of 'throughout the entire month of July' and a borrower does not get on the hook for it with a new plan, Abrams said. Over the next three years, all borrowers will be forced into the two repayment options that were passed under Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' The act only leaves borrowers with a standard repayment plan, which includes 10-25 years of repayments depending on the loan amount, and a new Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP), which takes into account a person's income but lengthens the amount of time spent on repayment. RAP is 'based on their income. Low-income borrowers can make payments as low as $10 a month, but unlike past income driven repayment plans, they're going to have to repay on their loans for longer. The span soon will be 30 years … So [the department is] making things simpler, they're trying to make things easier and they're trying to prevent students from being burdened with excessive debt,' said Angela Morabito, spokesperson for the Defense of Freedom Institute. The Trump administration and conservatives argue the policy changes are 'compassionate,' saying borrowers agreed to these loans and have to pay them back. 'No one should be panicking over this. This is a really thoughtful and strategic and compassionate way to try and solve the student loan crisis that the past administration, quite frankly, made so much worse,' Morabito said. 'The fact of the matter is, whenever you take out a loan, no matter what loan it is, you agree to pay it back. Borrowers made that agreement. They need to pay their loans back. They've had a long break, if anything, should make repayment easier that they've had so much time to plan and prepare,' she added. 'But if anyone was under the impression that they would just never have to pay loans back, that's because they were lied to by people who don't have the best interests of students and taxpayers at heart.' Others advocates, however, predict the changes will devastate some borrowers, with more defaults on the horizon and misinformation making it hard to navigate the situation. One of the biggest concerns for borrowers is the backlog of almost 2 million applications for the income-driven repayment programs as the administration pushes students to sign up for these options. The backlog began under the Biden administration, and resumption of application processing only restarted in April of this year. 'The Biden Administration failed to process income-driven repayment applications for borrowers, artificially masking rising delinquency and default rates and promising illegal student loan forgiveness to win points with voters. The Trump Administration is actively working with federal student loan servicers and hopes to clear the Biden backlog over the next few months,' said Ellen Keast, deputy press secretary for the Education Department. Student loan advocates are encouraging borrowers to reach out to nonprofit organizations and the federal government when figuring out their next steps, as scams abound. Even experts on the issue have struggled to understand the new landscape as the federal government said other student loan repayment options will phase out between the summer of 2026 and the summer of 2028, but it isn't clear what those two years will look like for borrowers or when it would be most advantageous for borrowers to leave their current plans. 'Borrowers are feeling so much anxiety right now. The bill makes ginormous changes to our student loan system. It very much feels like there's no clear answer on what borrowers can or should be doing right now,' Bañez said. While those advocating for broader student loan forgiveness don't see much cause for hope under the Trump administration, they were encouraged the GOP legislation did not take away the future possibility of debt relief, potentially under a different administration. 'The only other small silver lining … is they were able to get rid of the piece [in the Senate bill] where they were trying to take away the secretary's ability to cancel student loans or make big changes to the student loan program. That got thrown out in the bird bath and so … [there is] a little bit of hope that we can pull to actually change these very bad policies that have been done' in the future, Abrams said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Axios
15 hours ago
- Axios
Court nixes leaving medical debt off credit reports
A federal judge in Texas vacated a Biden-era rule that removed medical debt from consumers' credit reports, agreeing with Trump administration and credit industry arguments that the policy exceeded regulators' authority. Why it matters: The rule, finalized by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in January, would have wiped an estimated $49 billion from some 15 million Americans' credit reports and prevented lenders from using medical information in their decisions. Under the Trump administration, the CFPB reversed its position and joined credit reporting groups in challenging the rule, which was due to take effect at the end of July. Driving the news: U.S. District Court Judge Sean Jordan, a Trump appointee, ruled on Friday that the policy exceeded the CFPB's authority because it essentially rewrote the Fair Credit Reporting Act. State laws that prohibit credit reporting agencies from including coded medical information on reports are preempted by the federal act, Jordan wrote. Zoom in: Leading credit reporting agencies like Experian, Equifax, and Transunion had argued the Biden rule could have given lenders an inaccurate and incomplete picture when making loans. "Information about unpaid medical debts is an important element in assessing a consumer's ability to pay. This is the right outcome for protecting the integrity of the system," Dan Smith, president and CEO of the Consumer Data Industry Association, said in a statement. Major reporting agencies in 2022 voluntarily agreed to take certain medical debts off the reports, including those under $500. Because the administration is not defending the Biden rule, prospects for an appeal are uncertain. Medical debt is closely linked to Americans' broader economic concerns, with about 1 in 12 U.S. adults having unpaid medical bills of at least $250, according to the Peterson Center on Healthcare and KFF. Consumer groups say private equity's expanding role in billing, tracking and collecting payments is exacerbating the problem. The American Medical Association has argued that medical debt isn't an accurate barometer of people's ability to repay other loans, because most bills are a one-time or short-term expense from a hospital stay or accident. The Biden administration rule was part of a response that also included approving a North Carolina plan that gave hospitals in the state extra Medicaid funds if they forgave the medical debt of about 2 million residents.


CNBC
18 hours ago
- CNBC
Coming to a 401(k) near you: Private market assets
Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan told attendees at an investor conference last month that the day will soon come when private assets are accessible in Americans' retirement accounts. "I would expect at some point, in this administration's history or in the future, to be able to sell private markets into the 401(k) system," Rowan said on stage at the Morningstar Investment Conference in Chicago, Illinois, where the convergence of private and public markets was a major theme. Those comments come as no surprise from the billionaire CEO, who has long stressed the growing importance of private markets in investing. However, the idea is reaching a tipping point. Private market exposure in 401(k) plans was considered permissible in 2020, when the Department of Labor under the Trump administration issued an information letter indicating it could be appropriate for defined contribution plans under certain conditions. The guidance was later affirmed by the Biden-directed agency. But its presence is starting to expand. Asset managers and plan sponsors have created products for retirement vehicles in which Americans collectively hold roughly $8.7 trillion in assets, according to data on 401(k)s at the end of the first quarter of 2025 from the Investment Company Institute . In June, BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, said it's launching a 401(k) target date fund in the first half of 2026 that will include a 5% to 20% allocation to private investments. In May, Empower, the country's second-largest retirement plan provider, said it's joining asset managers such as Apollo to start allowing private assets in some accounts later this year. Those developments come amid a broader push under Trump's second term in office to expand the definition of "accredited investors" to allow more people to invest in private markets through their 401(k)s. Within the retirement plan industry itself, the conversation is reaching a fever pitch. Bonnie Treichel, chief solutions officer at Endeavor Retirement, said, "If you're at retirement plan-related conferences right now, this topic is all the rage, so to speak." Similarly, Fred Reish, a partner at law firm Faegre Drinker said: "It's not just out there somewhere on the horizon, I would say that's in the immediate future." How it works The strategies created for 401(k)s thus far will be coming in the form of pooled investments such as collective trusts, or managed accounts overseen by professional investors, instead of standalone investments assessed by individual employees. Adding private assets to target date funds, which automatically adjust allocations based on a retirement date, is one option that's growing in popularity in the industry. The structure of those investments are meant to address some of the regulatory concerns around the assets, which have traditionally been excluded from 401(k)s even as they were embraced by pension funds and university endowments. The treatment stems from the perception that private investments have risks such as a lack of transparency, which raises predatory concerns, as well as higher fees and long lockup periods. The 2020 Labor Department information letter also attempted to address those concerns, outlining that investments into private assets made within 401(k)s must be done with prudence, or held to the standard of a person who is "familiar with such matters," without which a company or an asset manager can open themselves up to legal ramifications. "If fiduciaries make a bad investment, not bad an outcome, but bad both in outcome and bad in that they didn't really vet it properly, they can be sued, and they can be personally liable for damages," said Reish, who specializes in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) that governs employee retirement plans. "So, not just the company, but also each individual member of the plan committee. Each of those officers and managers that serves on the plan committee can be personally liable. That's frightening." Intel, for example, had a lawsuit dismissed earlier this year by a federal appeals court in San Francisco after a yearslong dispute over its use of alternative assets in its retirement plans. Additionally, what that could also mean is that larger plan sponsors, which have the internal capabilities to vet private investments, could move faster to integrate privates into a 401(k) plan, rather than smaller companies. The case for privates Still, there are several reasons for the excitement around private assets in 401(k) plans. Proponents point out that the investable universe has shrunk over the last three decades, roughly halving to about 4,000 companies from more than 8,000 back in the 1990s, according to the Center for Research in Security Prices. At the same time, the dominance of the largest public companies grows increasingly pronounced with each passing year. CRSP found that the market cap of the top 10 companies accounted for 35% of the total market in 2024, more than double what it was before 2020. Meanwhile, more companies are staying private for longer. The decision helps executives build their businesses away from the glare of regulatory scrutiny or responsibilities to shareholders, but also makes it harder for investors to get in on the ground floor of the next Microsoft or Apple. Thus, the argument goes, private assets will give investors exposure to a market that looks markedly different from what it had in the past — even if it requires locking up capital for longer periods of time at greater cost and greater risk. Still, there are many who worry the risks far outweigh any benefits, calling private investments far too opaque for plan sponsors to do appropriate due diligence. "Being private does not make it better. It makes it less liquid," Apollo's Rowan told investors at the Chicago conference. "Our job is to deliver excess return."