Who else watched the Artemis II launch on Friday? I must admit that tuning in an hour beforehand to watch the live pre-launch sequence and launch brought me back to my childhood obsession with the stars. It also reminded me that many of our most prominent Black literary figures (Nikki Giovanni and Octavia Butler among them) were drawn to the imaginative power of the cosmos. - Kumar

It is hard to think of a more disappointing and deflating outcome than the jury deadlocking in the case to determine if disgraced “ex-FirstEnergy CEO Chuck Jones and ex-senior vice president of external affairs Mike Dowling” committed bribery. As customers in Ohio we have had to deal with almost a decade of nefarious actions and dealings between FirstEnergy and the bodies (Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) and the Ohio legislature) that regulate them. To have this case end without any charges is a clear indicator that our public accountability systems are failing. [Signal Ohio]

Jones and Dowling, represented by almost two dozen lawyers, were able to successfully seed enough doubt in jurors’ minds that the legally unnecessary $4.3 million payment made by FirstEnergy to Sam Randazzo, former PUCO chair, was a contract payment—not a bribe. Their lawyers argued that the payment, which was intended for Industrial Energy Users of Ohio, was stolen by the group’s attorney, Sam Randazzo.

In the days since the case ended, two jurors have spoken out and shared their perspectives, including jury forewoman, Jackie Steward, from Cuyahoga Falls. Steward shared with Signal Ohio that, “‘yes, it’s clear that there’s bribery, and it’s clear that there’s a long pattern of corruption.’” Despite Steward’s clarity on the matter, she and her co-jurors were unable to convince the 2-3 holdouts to see the alleged bribe as such. [Signal Ohio]

The hits against SNAP food assistance keep on coming. The One Big Beautiful Bill, passed almost a year ago by Congress, made significant cuts in domestic program funding, including changing the cost-share between states and the federal government for SNAP. The historical cost share has been a 50-50 split. The new split is 75-25, with the state picking up the heavier end of the tab. The federal bill “also pushes benefit costs onto states for the first time. Based on a state’s SNAP error rate, it could be on the hook for 5-15% of its benefits.”

These changes in federal funding are impacting each state and county budget differently. Ohio House Bill 730, which is the once every two years appropriations spending bill, includes Ohio House Republicans SNAP funding approach. The law ignores the number of people served by county and instead gives “‘the same exact amount of money to every single county, but once a county is made whole, they don’t get any more.’” This means that counties like Franklin, Hamilton, Cuyahoga, Lucas, and Montgomery, which have SNAP budgets in the multi millions each received $226,486 in administrative funding from the state. Cuyahoga County alone is set to lose $7.5 million in administrative funding because of the federal and state bills. The bill was signed by the Governor on March 31.

The funding shortfall could get even worse if error rates in SNAP administration climb. Ohio state Rep. Munira Abdullahi, D-Columbus offered a sobering analysis of the impact of these changes, “The $38 million Ohio stands to lose in federal administrative funds [this year] pales in comparison to the money it could have to pay in benefits if error rates are too high. But it could be hard to keep error rates down if agencies running the program don’t have adequate funding.” [Ohio Capital Journal]

Energy developer Invenergy’s 180 megawatt utility scale solar project was delivered another setback as Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) staff recommended denying the project a permit. Because the project is above 50 megawatts it is required to receive approval from the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB). OPSB has a storied history of ruling against solar projects and is currently facing lawsuits alleging their selection criteria and process disproportionately weighs public comments over other permit requirements.

The PUCO staff recommendation holds significant sway with OPSB members and adds to continued negative pressure from Clark County Commissioners. The Commissioners voted 2-1 in September, 2025 for a two year ban on utility scale wind and solar in unincorporated areas and townships in the county. That didn’t stop the Sloopy Solar project, because Invenergy had interconnection agreements with the regional grid operator, PJM, which allowed the project to continue despite the ban. That is why in January, 2026 the commissioner’s then passed a resolution opposing the project.

The outlook for Sloopy does not look promising, but the ongoing push in Richland County to overturn their county-wide ban on their solar moratorium may offer a strategy for advocates to follow if the ballot question is successful. [Mansfield News Journal]