News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
PUC Denies Competitors Applications for Rehearing Re: Utility’s Interim Approach to the Return of Data Center Customers to Default Service
On September 30, 2026, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) issue an entry on rehearing in which the Commission denies the applications for rehearing filed by Google LLC, Retail Energy Supply Association, and Interstate Gas Supply, LLC. regarding the Commission’s original order issued on August 5, 2026 finding and order that approved AEP Ohio’s interim approach to the return of data center customers to default service.
The Commission finds that “[u]pon review of Google, IGS, and RESA’s first assignments of error, the Commission denies them respectively, and affirms the determinations made in the Finding and Order. As such, we confirm that the Compliance Tariff modifies AEP Ohio’s existing Schedule DCT to incorporate the Interim Relief granted in the Finding and Order. We emphasize that these modifications do not introduce any new concepts to the framework proposed by AEP Ohio in its Application.”
“Moreover, the Commission emphasizes that the Finding and Order’s scope was clearly limited to addressing AEP Ohio’s immediate concern regarding data center customers migrating to the SSO without any sufficient protections for other AEP Ohio customers. Thus, while Google, IGS, and RESA submit that the Finding and Order was not well-supported, we disagree. We temporarily granted AEP Ohio its Interim Relief and declared that the Interim Principles provide an administratively efficient, albeit temporary solution until there is a federal resolution of the issues. Finding and Order at ¶ 25. The Finding and Order determined that AEP Ohio’s interim Principles are sufficiently tailored for the unique circumstances in which the FERC and other stakeholders are coordinating efforts to improve the accuracy and transparency of load forecasts and to conduct a reliability backstop procurement process. As the state regulator for all ratepayers, we verified that AEP Ohio’s proposed Interim Principles satisfies the immediate need for an SSO solution for customers subject to the Company’s Schedule DCT. The Finding and Order emphasized that the narrowed application of the Interim Relief is consistent with the state’s existing regulatory framework and is narrowly tailored only for customers that present unique load characteristics and systemic impacts that distinguish them from other large load customers. Finding and Order at ¶ 25. As such, we affirm our decisions and rationale in the Finding and Order, as they reflect a pragmatic approach to an ongoing, dynamic issue across the country, in which the enacted solution is temporary and tailored, specific only to AEP Ohio’s DCT.”
As background in their requests for rehearing Google, IGS, and RESA raise assignments of error that generally allege the Commission impermissibly granted AEP Ohio’s request for Interim Relief without requiring material commitments and terms. AEP Ohio and OCC filed memoranda contra. Overall, OCC’s memorandum contra disagrees with the assignments of error and asserts that the Commission-approved Interim Relief shall protect consumers from paying costs created by data centers, while a permanent solution is developed on the federal level. OCC’s memorandum contra also shares several points raised in AEP Ohio’s memorandum contra.
Google, RESA, and IGS’s first assignments of error assert that the Finding and Order failed to provide sufficient reasoning for the Commission’s findings. On a fundamental level, Google questions which party is responsible for procuring capacity for load that returns to the SSO. Moreover, Google states that because the federal rules governing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) Reliability Backstop Procurement capacity costs and credit risk are actively developing, the Commission should clarify LSE and capacity responsibilities for the interim solution.
Similarly, RESA states that the approved Interim Relief lacked sufficient information concerning: the form of the procurement; criteria for selecting the best offer amongst bidders; the term of the procurement; eligibility for the procurement process; product type; the Master Supply Agreement contract structure; the process if an SSO supplier went into default; whether a data center customer would have the opportunity to alert AEP Ohio to cancel its pending notice to remain a shopping customer; or whether a data center customer that did not give notice and was being served at real-time pricing would be able to leave the SSO before the SSO procurement occurred. As such, RESA implores the Commission to grant rehearing and to either clarify the process that was approved or set forth a procedure to gather more details. To do otherwise, RESA indicates that a Commission order lacking record support constitutes reversible error.
IGS also states that the Interim Principles fail to specify the operational mechanics required for implementation. IGS urges the Commission to provide further clarification as to separate procurement process proposed by AEP Ohio, since CRES providers cannot effectively serve customers or compete in the market without clarity on the auctions. Similar to Google, IGS asserts that the Compliance Tariff introduces new terms that were not contemplated during the stakeholder review in this process, specifically that AEP Ohio will not take on any obligation to procure capacity on behalf of data center SSO customers and will require those customers to post collateral.
