News Stories

On August 4, 2026 parties file applications for rehearing to the Public Utilities Commission’s August 5, 2026 finding and order related to AEP Ohio’s request for modifications to the Standard Service Offer (“SSO”) applicable to customers receiving service under the Data Center Tariff.

Google – Assignment of Error No. 1: The Commission erred by granting AEP Ohio’s request for interim relief “in concept,” without requiring AEP Ohio to submit actual, proposed tariff language on the record, resulting in a compliance tariff that raises critical questions regarding capacity obligations, LSE status, and collateral requirements that should have been addressed on the record before the Order issued.

Assignment Of Error No. 2: The Commission Order is unlawful and unreasonable because it did not require AEP Ohio to provide tariff language in its application to provide administrative fixes to prevent temporary, administrative, or initial new-customer enrollment service from triggering the long-term 180-day notice requirements of the interim Standard Service Offer (SSO) procedures.

Assignment of Error No. 3: The Commission Order is unlawful and unreasonable because it did not provide a proper justification for rejecting the statewide approach to address default service as suggested by several parties in the proceeding. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4: The Commission erred by unreasonably failing to set parameters to Phase II of this proceeding in its Order.

ISG – 1. The Order is unreasonable and unlawful because the Commission failed to set forth sufficient findings of fact or provide a reasoned explanation of its decision in violation of R.C. 4903.09, thereby depriving IGS of due process.

2. The Order is unreasonable and unlawful because the Commission failed to address IGS’s proposed Supplier of Last Resort (“SOLR”) Program in violation of R.C. 4903.09.
3. The Order is unreasonable and unlawful because the Commission departed from precedent disfavoring minimum stays on competitive retail electric service without adequate explanation, in violation of R.C. 4903.09 and contrary to the policies of R.C.
4. The Order is unreasonable and unlawful because it constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative and ratemaking authority to AEP Ohio by failing to specify the mechanics of the procurement process.

RESA – “The Order is unlawful and unreasonable on several grounds. Fundamentally, the Commission approved an undefined procurement mechanism without determining its material terms and did so with an incomplete record as far as AEP Ohio’s conceptual framework. AEP Ohio’s Conceptual Application made clear it was presenting a conceptual framework and not a specific proposal. AEP Ohio’s “compliance” tariff again recognizes that nearly all of the details need filled in. There simply was not a proposal before the Commission from AEP Ohio that could be approved.

Assignment of Error #1: The Commission violated R.C. 4903.09 by approving an undefined SSO procurement framework without determining its material terms. The Commission’s conclusion that there was enough in the record to make an informed decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Assignment of Error #2: The Commission erred by departing from its precedent on minimum stays without providing a substantively lawful and reasonable explanation for doing so, in violation of R.C. 4903.09.

Assignment of Error #3: The Commission violated RESA’s due process rights by purportedly adopting SSO tariff terms that were never presented for comment or other stakeholder input.

Assignment of Error #4: The Commission should grant rehearing to clarify its Order and avoid unlawfully delegating its statutory authority to AEP Ohio.”