News Stories

Parties filed applications for rehearing in the proceeding for AEP Ohio’s application for approval of a customer-sited renewable energy resource agreement with Amazon. Under the agreement, AEP Ohio will procure, own, install, maintain and operate behind-the-meter natural gas-powered onsite generation serving Amazon’s proposed data center in this territory. 

RESA filed a request for rehearing for the following reasons: (1) The Commission’s Order is unlawful and unreasonable because it fails to apply R.C. 4928.17 and 4901:1-37; and (2) the Commission’s Order is unlawful and unreasonable because it failed to adopt RESA’s recommendation for a corporate separation audit and is further unlawful and unreasonable for failing to adequately explain the rejection of this recommendation.  RESA comments state “the ability for AEP Ohio to enter into an agreement under R.C. 4928.47 does not exempt it from needing to comply with R.C. 4928.17. Specifically, AEP Ohio should not be able to utilize its monopoly position as a distribution utility to have an undue anticompetitive benefit in marketing the competitive onsite generation product at issue in this case. RESA has a bona fide concern that AEP Ohio’s agreement here is the product of such an unlawful and unreasonable violation of the corporate separation requirements based on the fact that AEP Ohio kept the data center load growth to itself for years, the timing of the agreement here as well as AEP Ohio’s announced fuel cell partnership with Bloom Energy, and the fact that in another recent pending proceeding evidence came to light that AEP Ohio distribution service employees working with new data centers were trying to steer business to AEP Ohio’s CRES provider affiliate. Despite these bona fide concerns, and the Commission’s conclusion that R.C. 4928.17 and R.C. 4928.47 were not in conflict, the Commission failed to apply the corporate separation requirements and failed to provide an opportunity for parties to fully look into those issues in this case.”

The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association Energy Group commented (1) the PUCO misapplied R.C. 4928.47 by authorizing a customer-specific generation agreement that exceeds the statute’s limited scope; (2) the PUCO violated the corporate separation requirements outlined in R.C. 4928.17 by approving the agreement between AEP Ohio and Amazon; (3) the PUCO failed to determine whether the AEP Ohio–Amazon agreement complies with statutory and regulatory standards. RESA stated that the (1) PUCO acted unreasonably by failing to adopt RESA’s recommendation to conduct a corporate separation audit and by not sufficiently explaining its decision to reject that recommendation; and (2) additionally, the PUCO’s order is unlawful because it does not properly apply R.C. 4928.17 and Ohio Administrative Code 4901:1-37.

25-0133-EL-AEC.
(Ohio Power Company – Application to revise/cancel customer generation contract)