News Stories

On May 21, 2026, the Supreme Court of Ohio filed a notice of assignment of Judge Terrance A. Nestor of the First District Court of Appeals to preside in the Supreme Court of Ohio, to hear case 2025-1240/2025-1241, In the Matter of the Application of Ohio Power Company for Approval of an Agreement with Amazon under R.C. 4928.47, and to conclude any proceedings in which the judge participated.

As background on February 12, 2025 AEP Ohio filed an application  with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) for approval of a customer-sited renewable energy resource agreement between AEP Ohio and Amazon Data Services (ADS).

On May 28, 2025 PUCO issued a final order approving the application filed by Ohio Power Company of a customer-sited renewable energy resource agreement with Amazon allowing AEP Ohio to procure, own, install, maintain, and operate behind-the-meter natural gas-powered onsite generation serving Amazon’s proposed data center in this territory.

More specifically, in its application, filed on February 12, 2025, AEP Ohio was seeking approval of a customer-sited renewable energy resource agreement (Agreement) between AEP Ohio and Amazon Data Services (ADS). According to the Agreement, AEP Ohio will procure, own, install, maintain, and operate a solid oxide fuel cell system (System) behind the meter (BTM) on ADS’s in-state site to produce additional capacity available only to ADS to offset a portion of its electricity needs that are delivered from the grid by AEP Ohio. AEP Ohio argues that the proposed Agreement satisfies the requirements set forth in R.C. 4928.47 and requests an expedited procedural schedule. AEP Ohio also filed a motion for protective order, pursuant to Ohio Adm.Code 4901-1-24.

On August 22, 2025 the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association Energy Group filed a notice of appeal of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission’s order in 25-133-EL-AEC.

On July 23, 2025 PUCO issued an order denying the applications for rehearing filed by the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association Energy Group(OMAEG) and Retail Energy Supply Association (RESA).

In its order PUCO summarized OMAEG’s alleged three assignments of error.

“In its first assignment of error, OMAEG asserts that the Commission erred by misinterpreting R.C. 4928.47 and authorizing a customer-specific generation agreement outside of the statute’s narrow scope. OMAEG first emphasizes that the text of R.C. 4928.47(A) provides that an EDU may enter into an agreement for the purpose of “constructing” a customer-sited renewable energy resource. According to OMAEG, the statute’s plain language and ordinary meaning clearly limit EDUs to entering agreements to assist mercantile customers in constructing renewable energy systems. OMAEG argues that the Finding and Order exceeds the scope of this statute by authorizing an agreement which allows AEP Ohio to own, operate, and maintain the renewable energy resource.”

“In its second assignment of error, OMAEG asserts that the Commission erred by approving the Agreement in violation of the corporate separation requirements in R.C. 4928.17. According to OMAEG, the Commission’s conclusion that any discrepancy between R.C. 4928.47 and R.C. 4928.17 is resolved by allowing R.C. 4928.47 to control as the more specific and later-enacted statute is both legally and factually flawed.”

“In its third assignment of error, OMAEG asserts that the Commission erred by failing to determine that the Agreement is anti-competitive and discriminatory in violation of R.C. 4905.35. Key to this assignment of error, OMAEG notes the timing of the Agreement, which was filed during AEP Ohio’s ongoing moratorium on new data center interconnections. According to OMAEG, AEP Ohio’s “unilaterally imposed and unlawful” moratorium mixed with an agreement to allow one data center to expand its operations results in patent discrimination and “unreasonable preference or advantage” to Amazon in violation of R.C. 4905.35.”

See also Supreme Court of Ohio Docket No. 2025-1240.