News Stories

As previously reported, FirstEnergy filed its Application on June 12, 2026, in response to the Commission’s direction that the utility should propose a separate data-center class to ensure that future costs are properly allocated to data centers. The Commission established August 6, 2026, as the deadline for initial comments and August 25, 2026 as the deadline for reply comments.

In response, parties filed reply comments regarding FirstEnergy’s application for approval of a data center tariff and in response to other initial comments filed by other stakeholders.

A sampling of some of the reply comments are presented below.

Amazon Data Services supports a solution on a proposed DCT tariff that offers a solution that transparently allocates properly attributable costs to the responsible data-center customer, avoids cross-subsidies and stranded costs, recognizes enforceable long-term commitments, and is based on cost-causal evidence rather than assumptions. Any Commission-approved tariff should include enforceable, proportionate arrangements that require data-center customers to meet their commitments on which utility planning and investment reasonably rely. Complex questions also exist related to the interplay between retail charges based on Network Service Peak Load (“NSPL”) and its interaction with the existing Rider NMB transmission cost recovery rider; the relationship between retail charges and the contemplated wholesale contracts involving ATSI; the treatment of minimum-demand and termination payments; potential duplication of recovery; forecasting and curtailment; and the significance of evolving PJM and FERC large-load initiatives. ADS requests that the Commission consider a comprehensive solution to developing this tariff that could require a fulsome evidentiary proceeding. The Commission should avoid predetermining an allocation or cost-recovery methodology that has not been supported by evidence and instead establish a proposal that balances responsible development of energy and data center infrastructure with economic development and local benefits. The Commission should therefore reserve these transmission-upgrade, cost-recovery, and allocation issues for a separate proceeding with discovery, testimony, and a complete evidentiary record. Staff acknowledges that, if the Commission resolves transmission allocation in this case, testimony, a hearing, or bifurcation may be appropriate.  OEG asks the Commission to remove the NSPL-based treatment and resolve the allocation issue in a future rate proceeding. RESA identifies uncertainty concerning the interaction among NSPL allocators, minimum billing demand, curtailment, and the Rider NMB pilot. And multiple comments identify important PJM and FERC developments, including proposals involving large-load resource adequacy, curtailment, and the allocation of associated costs. A separate proceeding to address these complex questions advances—not delays— ratepayer protection. It enables the Commission to adopt a methodology that faithfully implements the shared principle that data centers should pay the costs to serve the facility, while ensuring that the adopted mechanism is lawful, cost-causal, transparent, and non-duplicative. A permanent retail methodology should be adopted only after the Commission can evaluate how the final PJM and FERC frameworks interact with the Companies’ retail rates, Rider NMB, any ATSI arrangement, demand and curtailment provisions, minimum-demand payments, and termination protections. That process must also ensure that the aggregate outcome remains faithful to the shared cost-causation principle.”

Google (1)agrees with the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association Energy Group (OMAEG) that retail tariffs must be applied uniformly based on objective service characteristics and principles of cost causation. FirstEnergy’s Schedule DCT must be grounded in objective, measurable service characteristics and strict cost causation rather than a customer’s industry classification. As explained below, aligning Schedule DCT with the large-load frameworks now under consideration at PJM and FERC provides exactly that objective standard. (2) disagrees with Commission Staff’s position that Schedule DCT should apply only to customers meeting FirstEnergy’s data-center definition with a contract capacity greater than 25 MW rather than to large loads generally. Adopting a data-center-specific definition that is inconsistent with these emerging federal thresholds creates a concrete allocation risk. PJM’s RBP proposal expressly allocates capacity costs to load-serving entities within each utility’s zone based on a state-determined allocation. Under this approach, absent such a state-level assignment, PJM will instead allocate those costs across all loads in the zone, including customers with no connection to large-load growth. If FirstEnergy’s retail classification does not align with, or at least fully cover, the federal large-load definition ultimately used for that allocation. (3) The Commission should reject Commission Staff’s proposed language for the electric service agreement and distinguish between customer-specific and shared transmission facilities to ensure appropriate cost allocation. The distinction is significant. Assigning the full cost of a shared Network Upgrade to a single customer, while allowing the resulting system benefits to accrue to all users of the transmission system, creates an asymmetry between cost allocation and benefit allocation that Staff’s proposed “but for” standard doesn’t recognize. (4) The Commission should require any exit fees or collateral associated with transmission Network Upgrades to correspond to the remaining transmission cost exposure and be applied to those costs to ensure that customers are protected from large loads that fail to materialize or depart early. (5) agrees with the Environmental Law & Policy Center (“ELPC”) that incorporating load flexibility into retail rate design can improve utilization of existing infrastructure, reduce system costs, and support reliability. Google disagrees, however, that interruptible or non-firm service should be imposed as a mandatory condition of service. (6) The Commission should require customer-level assignment of RBP obligations attributable to Schedule DCT customers so that existing and non-large-load customers are insulated from capacity costs attributable to new large loads, consistent with the RBP framework, to the extent ultimately approved and as may be materially modified by FERC, and any applicable PJM settlement requirements. (7) supports OMAEG and Ohio Blockchain Council’s position that an evidentiary hearing is necessary in this proceeding. The complexities of this tariff, its broad impacts, along with the ever-changing regulatory landscape due to federal pending proceedings require a formal evidentiary hearing.

RESA supports FirstEnergy’s proposed requirement that data centers obtain generation supply from competitive retail electric service (CRES) providers. RESA urges the PUCO to extend this requirement to all existing and future hyperscale data centers to reduce risks and potential cost increases for standard service offer (SSO) customers. RESA opposes the Environmental Law & Policy Center’s (ELPC) proposed SSO framework, arguing that it could impose unlawful minimum stay requirements that restrict customer choice and competition. RESA also requests a statewide proceeding to establish consistent data center generation supply and SSO rules across Ohio utilities. Additionally, RESA opposes proposals to fund residential energy efficiency and demand response programs through data center charges, arguing that they fall outside the proceeding’s scope and lack statutory support.

OCC recommends establishing a separate data center rate class, requiring data centers to pay the actual costs of transmission upgrades, prohibiting participation in the Rider NMB pilot program, and eliminating network service peak load (NSPL) billing for data centers. OCC also supports revising Rider NMB cost allocation and requiring FirstEnergy to establish a separate standard service offer auction for data centers to ensure they bear their own default generation supply costs. Additionally, OCC recommends a collaborative process to resolve outstanding tariff issues, with formal hearings if necessary, and supports using AES Ohio’s proposed data center tariff as a baseline for consumer protections.

OMAEG (1) recommends that the Commission, if necessary, set this matter for an evidentiary hearing in accordance with R.C. 4909. Setting this matter for hearing will help ensure the development of a full record regarding the issues raised by FirstEnergy’s Schedule DCT proposal, as well as allow OMAEG and other parties the opportunity to issue discovery requests, file testimony, and cross-examine opposing witnesses. (2) urges the Commission to direct FirstEnergy to amend its proposed Schedule DCT to include a minimum size threshold. Specifically, OMAEG supports OCTA’s recommendation for a 50 MW threshold, which is reasonable because hyperscale commercial data centers typically have projected loads in the hundreds of MWs (whereas the 25 MW threshold proposed by Staff and ELPC may inadvertently apply to facilities other than hyperscale commercial data centers, particularly as electrification and power demands increase across a range of industries). (3) In accordance with the principle of cost causation, data center customers should be required to pay the full costs necessary to provide them with service. (4) OMAEG agrees that the cost risk from data centers is not just for customers served by FirstEnergy, but all customers within ATSI, some of which are served by load serving entities other than FirstEnergy.(5) The Commission should adopt the recommendation to require language preventing FirstEnergy from including speculative data center load in its forecasts.(6) The Commission should address concerns regarding The cost allocation from new PJM mechanisms in a separate proceeding.”

OELC limits its reply comments to the issue raised by the Ohio Cable Telecommunications Association and the related concerns raised by the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association Energy Group. OELC agrees that Schedule DCT cannot reasonably apply to every facility that happens to meet FirstEnergy’s definition of a “Data Center,” regardless of load or commercial purpose. The Commission should require a demand threshold and should, at minimum, adopt the 25 MW threshold already approved for Ohio Power Company’s data-center tariff.

OEG (1) Initial comments reinforce the need to establish a separate rate class for both existing and new data centers (2) the Commission should address only retail terms and conditions within schedule DCT. (3) the commission should reject tariff “carve-outs” requested by the Ohio blockchain council.

IGS supports FirstEnergy’s proposed requirement that data centers obtain generation supply from competitive retail electric service providers. IGS opposes minimum stay requirements that would restrict customer switching and proposes a market-based supplier of last resort referral program for data centers whose CRES providers default. Under this program, customers would be referred to participating retail suppliers offering monthly rate products, with a round-robin assignment process if no supplier is selected. IGS also urges the PUCO to require customer-level allocation of PJM reliability backstop procurement costs to the CRES providers serving data centers, rather than spreading those costs across all load-serving entities. Additionally, IGS opposes proposals requiring data centers to fund utility-administered residential demand response and energy efficiency programs, arguing that they fall outside the proceeding’s scope.

Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (1) The Companies’ proposed transmission cost framework in Schedule DCT is consistent with federal policy and appropriately protects customers. (2) Any minimum load threshold should be administrable and resistant to circumvention.