HB6 Scandal: Six Years Later, Questions Remain About Taxpayer Costs and Accountability

By RoShawn Winburn

Image of the FirstEnergy Corp. Perry Nuclear Generating Station in Perry, Ohio. Photo by David Maxwell of Bloomberg via Getty Images.

Columbus, Ohio — Nearly six years after the passage of House Bill 6 (HB 6), the controversial energy bailout legislation tied to the largest public corruption case in Ohio history, taxpayers are still paying the price. The law has cost Ohioans more than half a billion dollars, and questions remain about who was involved and how deeply.

HB 6, passed in 2019, provided state financial support to certain Ohio energy companies, including Akron-based FirstEnergy. Federal prosecutors later alleged that the bill was advanced through a $60 million bribery scheme involving corporate funds, dark money groups, and high-ranking state officials. The fallout led to multiple convictions, including that of former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, but not all questions have been answered.

The Role of Lt. Gov. Jon Husted

One unresolved matter involves the role of Lt. Gov. Jon Husted, referred to as “State Official 2” in court documents related to the case. While prosecutors have not charged Husted with any crime, recent filings — including text messages from former FirstEnergy executives — have renewed public interest in whether additional elected officials may have been influenced during the legislative process.

Husted has publicly addressed these questions in the past. When earlier reports surfaced identifying him as “State Official 2,” his spokesperson, Hayley Carducci, said:

“There is nothing new here. The Lt. Governor has long maintained that saving the nuclear power plants was a priority… He has been on the record with that position both as a candidate and as Lt. Governor. The Lt. Governor has no vote, nor the capacity to sign bills into law. This kind of advocacy is well within his responsibilities as a public official, and, as we know, the bill was ultimately passed with bipartisan support.” (statenews.org)

In more recent reporting, Husted denied knowing HB 6 was the product of a bribery scheme, saying he believed at the time the legislation was about preserving jobs and supporting the state’s energy grid. His office has emphasized that law enforcement has not accused him of wrongdoing and that his actions were consistent with his role as a public official.

Public Reaction and Political Context

Critics argue Ohioans deserve more transparency. “Voters want politicians who will fight for them, not sell them out to the highest bidder,” said Ohio Democratic Party spokesperson Katie Seewer, referencing the billions in corporate interests at stake.

Watchdog groups like Common Cause Ohio note that the HB 6 scandal continues to shape the state’s political climate. “Cases like this erode public trust in government and can have lasting impacts on state policy,” said Common Cause Ohio’s Catherine Turcer in a prior statement.

Local Impact

For Dayton and Montgomery County residents, the consequences are tangible: the financial burden of the bailout has been absorbed by ratepayers across the state, including local households and small businesses. Estimates suggest that, in total, subsidies tied to HB 6 have cost Ohioans over $500 million since 2019, with some of those charges only ending in 2025.

As Ohio heads toward the 2026 election cycle, the HB 6 scandal remains a touchpoint for debates about ethics, corporate influence, and accountability in state politics. Whether more information will emerge, and whether voters will receive the answers they seek, remains an open question.