News Stories

As reported previously, on June 12, 2026, FirstEnergy of Ohio filed an application with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) proposing Schedule DCT that consists of a separate class for data center customers.

Initial comments were filed by the following parties raising serious concerns with data center tariff filing:

Interstate Gas Supply – “IGS appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on FirstEnergy’s proposed Schedule DCT. IGS acknowledges that the development of appropriate tariff structures for data center load is among the most consequential issues currently before the Commission, particularly as it relates to protecting existing customers from costs driven by data center demand while preserving competitive retail electric market principles.”

“IGS supports FirstEnergy’s proposed requirement that data center customers take generation service from a CRES provider rather than from the SSO. This approach is consistent with Ohio’s competitive retail electric market design and ensures that the costs and risks associated with serving large data center load are managed by competitive suppliers rather than being borne by SSO customers. To the extent the Commission considers SSO procurement proposals in this or a subsequent proceeding for data center customers whose CRES provider defaults, IGS urges the Commission to adopt a market based Supplier of Last Resort (“SOLR”) referral program, consistent with the position IGS has previously advocated in the AEP Ohio data center tariff proceedings. Finally, IGS respectfully requests that the Commission consider requiring FirstEnergy to commit to customer-level RBO assignment for Schedule DCT accounts to ensure that PJM Reliability Backstop Procurement costs are properly allocated to the Load Serving Entities (“LSEs”) serving data center load, rather than being socialized across all LSEs in the zone.”

Constellation Energy Generation & Constellation NewEnergy – “The application includes terms and conditions with a purported purpose of assuring the future costs of serving data center customers are allocated to data centers. The application as presented, however, is inconsistent with Ohio laws and does not ensure that load data related to the data center customers will be reasonably handled in the FirstEnergy load forecasts. FirstEnergy’s proposal is not just or reasonable. The Commission should modify Schedule DCT to ensure that the standard service offer (“SSO”) will be provided to the data center customers upon a supplier’s default, require that the tariff confirm the SSO, if provided to data center customers, will be procured through a competitive process, and require the data center load data is appropriately and reasonably reflected in the load forecasts. Alternatively, the Commission should reject the application.”

“The proposed tariff unjustly and unreasonably violates several Ohio statutes and should ensure that generation supplied to data center customers on default service will be procured by the standard service offer suppliers through competitive processes.”

“The Commission should require Schedule DCT to ensure that the SSO will be provided to the data center customers upon a supplier’s default. The Commission should also require that the tariff confirm the SSO, if provided to data center customers, will be procured through a competitive bidding process. The proposed tariff should not be approved without these important additions.”

“The proposed tariff or the Commission order should ensure that existing load and new load associated with Schedule DCT will be justly and reasonably included in FirstEnergy’s forecasts.”

Ohio Blockchain Council – “The Commission Should Require Testimony, a Transparent Record, and the Opportunity for a Hearing Before Approving a Tariff That Treats Data Center Customers Differently from All Other Customers”

“The Allocation of Wholesale Transmission Costs Under the Companies’ Contract with ATSI Should Be Transparent and Coordinated with the Pending FERC Large Load Proceedings.”

“Schedule DCT’s Cost Allocation Issues Require Federal Wholesale Reform, Retail NonFirm Service Options, and Customer-Funded Transmission Pathways.”

“Proposed Schedule DCT’s Definition of “Data Center” Contains No Minimum Load Threshold and Should Be Narrowed to Target the Customers That Objectively Present Cost-Shifting Risk.”

“The 85% Minimum Billing Demand Ratchet Should Include a Mechanism to Recognize Curtailable Load, Consistent with Sound Ratemaking and Grid Reliability Principles.”

“Contract Terms and Exit Fees Should Reflect Demonstrated Cost Causation.”

Ohio Energy Group (OEG) – “The Commission Should Modify Proposed Schedule DCT To Separate Existing And New Data Centers Into Their Own Rate Class For Recovery Of Transmission, Distribution and PJM Generation-Related Costs.” “Proposed Schedule DCT includes Data Center customers within FirstEnergy’s current rate classes (Secondary, Primary, Subtransmission, or Transmission). It does not expressly separate Data Centers into their own rate class. This approach should be rejected since it reduces the transparency around Data Center costs and heightens the risk that existing non-Data Center customers will be charged for costs that should be allocated to Data Centers. FirstEnergy’s approach is also inconsistent with the approaches developing in other Ohio utility service territories.1 The increase in transmission spending necessitated by Data Center load growth is likely going to be substantial. FirstEnergy is forecasting total data center demand of 8.56 GW in Ohio by 2035 with about $250 million in investment potential for transmission network upgrades to support each GW of that demand. That would mean $2.14 billion of transmission rate base growth just to serve new Data Centers and does not include holistic transmission rate base growth.”

“In light of this substantial expected transmission spend, it is critical that the Commission establish a rate structure that will enable it to track and properly allocate transmission costs to the cost causers in FirstEnergy’s territory.”

“The Commission should take little comfort in the vague statement that another application is being prepared to potentially address the SSO for data center customers in FirstEnergy’s service

territory. FirstEnergy’s now pending tariff proposal plainly states that there is existing data center load today, with signed construction or electric service agreements. And, new data center load will be subject to the new tariff provisions if approved as presented. Yet, all of the data center load would be without the legally required SSO backstop.

The Commission should require Schedule DCT to ensure that the SSO will be provided to the data center customers upon a supplier’s default. The Commission should also require that the tariff confirm the SSO, if provided to data center customers, will be procured through a competitive bidding process. The proposed tariff should not be approved without these important additions.”

“The proposed tariff or the Commission order should ensure that existing load and new load associated with Schedule DCT will be justly and reasonably included in FirstEnergy’s forecasts.

“FirstEnergy explains in Exhibit C-2 of the Application that they only provide distribution service and that their affiliate, American Transmission Systems, Inc. provides transmission service. With the involvement of different companies and the proposed existing load and new load categories, the Commission should ensure that the data center load is appropriately and reasonably reflected in the load forecasts – no unreasonable omissions or inclusions, no double counting, no inconsistencies, etc. For example, would FirstEnergy include in a forecast the anticipated data center load of existing and new customers in the same way before FirstEnergy has a construction agreement with the customer? As the Commission is aware, the load forecasts are vital for the service planning and provision.”

“Transparency and reasonableness with respect to Data Center cost causation is increasingly important not just for transmission costs, but also for PJM-imposed generationrelated costs. PJM-imposed generation-related costs caused by Data Centers include two proposals made by the PJM Board on July 27, 2026: 1) the proposal to conduct a Reliability Backstop Procurement (“RBP”) auction for new Large Loads over 50 MW (almost exclusively Data Centers); and 2) the proposal to provide Interim Resource Adequacy Service (“IRAS”) Program rate credits to Data Centers that do not bring their own new generation and are required to reduce their load before system emergencies.3 With respect to the first proposal, PJM has recommended conducting a one-time RBP to procure capacity for up to 15 years for new Large Loads that have not provided their own new generation supply. RBP costs will be allocated on a wholesale basis to FirstEnergy based upon its projected amount of new Large Load without new generation.”

“PJM recognizes that retail recovery of these costs will be a state function. PJM emphasizes that under its RBP auction proposal, “it will be up to…LSEs and their state regulators to determine how those costs are applied to various rate classes.”4 PJM warns that “[i]f states have not established frameworks to appropriately allocate costs to new data center loads, it is unclear to which customers those costs would be assigned. As a backstop…PJM will allocate to all load in the zone/area (including non-Large Loads) using existing PLC assignments.”5 This means that if the Commission does not establish a separate Data Center rate class, then these RBP costs will be allocated to all residential, commercial, and industrial customers. PJM is effectively encouraging state commissions to establish a separate rate class for Data Centers consistent with the Ratepayer Protection Pledge.”

“PJM’s second proposal – the IRAS Program – raises similar retail cost allocation concerns. Under the proposed IRAS, new Large Loads are allowed to interconnect to PJM without bringing their own new generation. However, they must reduce their load or switch to onsite back-up resources before Pre-Emergency Load Management Reductions. In other words, these customers will be required to curtail before traditional demand response resources. Given current supply/demand imbalances, such curtailments could occur frequently. When called on to curtail, these new Large Load customers will be paid a “federally approved hourly credit.” The credit will be the Non-Performance Assessment Interval (Non-PAI) rate, which is currently $1,150 per MWh. Depending on the amount of IRAS Large Load and the frequency of curtailments, the cost of these credits could easily be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

“Importantly, the IRAS credits would be paid by FirstEnergy customers. PJM states that “[t]he compensation program will be administered by the EDs by awarding such compensation based upon determining compliance with the mandated load reduction and collecting the compensation from customers in the zone that benefit from the load reduction.”7 This means that FirstEnergy’s customers will be charged to fix the problems caused by unhedged data centers. The IRAS credit would not exist but for unhedged new Large Load. Establishing a separate Data Center rate class will allow the Commission to specifically track and to properly assign these costs to the Data Center cost causers. This outcome would be consistent with the Ratepayer Protection Pledge and concerns about affordability. The Commission should therefore require FirstEnergy to separate existing and new Data Center customers into their own rate class for purposes of distribution, transmission, and PJM generation-related cost allocation.”

“The Commission Should Remove Proposed Schedule DCT Language Stating That Data Center Customers Will Be Allocated Transmission Costs Based Upon Their NSPLs In Lieu of Rider NMB.”

“The Commission Should Remove Proposed Language Referencing Wholesale Issues That Are Outside The Commission’s Jurisdiction And That May Effectively Concede Retail Transmission Cost Allocation Decisions to FERC.”

Ohio Manufacturers’ Association Energy Group – “A tariff that specifically targets data center customers for disparate treatment compared to other large load customers, as FirstEnergy’s Schedule DCT would do, is textbook discrimination. Rather than being based on the cost to serve a particular customer, FirstEnergy’s tariff seeks to impose stringent regulatory requirements on certain customers based solely on their industry type and end-use of electricity rather than the cost to serve those customers, other electric usage characteristics/load characteristics, or whether serving those customers’ loads actually places strain on the grid. Currently, non-residential customers are separated into classes based on the level of electrical service they receive (i.e., transmission, primary, or secondary service), not based on whether they use their electricity for injection molding, food manufacturing, school lighting, etc. The electrons that arrive for service do not care what the electricity is ultimately used for, and a business’ operations has no direct impact on the cost or price of electricity. In contrast, the following three factors do directly impact the price of electric service:

• The level of service the customer receives (secondary, primary, transmission), which also reflects the amount of existing infrastructure being used to serve the customer, and thus the cost of service to which the customer should contribute;
• Whether or not serving the customer’s load triggered infrastructure upgrades that would not have been made but for the interconnection of that customer; and
• The time and locational value of the energy, capacity, and ancillary services that the customer needs for service.

OMAEG Supports Requiring Large Load Customers Subject to Schedule DCT to Pay All Costs Incurred By Their Projects.

“In order to improve customer protections and ensure customers subject to Schedule DCT pay their fair share of costs, OMAEG recommends the inclusion of additional language that (1) ensures that customers subject to Schedule DCT pay a reasonable share of existing transmission costs, (2) ensures that customers subject to Schedule DCT pay “the actual cost of transmission upgrades” necessary to serve the customer, which includes transmission network upgrades and supplemental transmission projects that are not directly allocated to the customer but would not have been planned by FirstEnergy but for the service request of the customer, and (3) accounts for CIAC payments related to both transmission and distribution infrastructure upgrades.”

Ohio Environmental Council – “To build upon the Companies’ application and the Commission’s existing work on data center tariffs in other service territories, the OEC proposes the following initial changes or actions:

“Initiate a Statewide Data Center Tariff Proceeding”

Building on this case and other individual utility cases, the OEC proposes a statewide proceeding to allow a comprehensive review of the state’s data center tariffs. A statewide review can ensure consistency among each of the utilities’ tariffs, evaluate any lessons learned from 2 existing tariffs, and update any existing tariffs to meet new best practices. Without establishing a statewide framework across Ohio’s utilities, the Commission’s case-by-case approach can lead to data centers shopping among different service territories and inconsistent consumer protections.”

“Include a Supplemental Charge Similar to those in the AEP Ohio tariff and AES Ohio proposed tariff.”

“Specify when the Companies will include new data center load in their load forecasts”

“Ensure direct assignment of transmission upgrade costs and ensure the transmission cost allocation structure does not create cost shifting of transmission costs.”

Ohio Consumer Counsel – “The consumer protections associated with data centers in AES Ohio’s pending rate case, including AES Ohio’s proposed data center tariff.”

“The PUCO should order an innovative and cooperative process for improving FirstEnergy’s proposed data center tariff.”

“FirstEnergy should amend its application so its proposed tariff applies only to data center facilities with at least 50 mw of aggregate monthly maximum demand.”

RESA – “RESA supports FirstEnergy’s proposal to require CRES supply for data center load served under the SSO and looks forward to participating in the proceeding addressing the details of implementation.”

“RESA Believes Clarification is Needed on the Transmission Cost Allocation Under the Proposed Tariff.”