News Stories

Excerpts from RESA’s Brief:

{***} “This case presents the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“Commission”) with the first opportunity to review HB 6 provision, R.C. 4928.47, through AEP Ohio’s proposed behind the meter generation deal (fuel cells) with a Central Ohio data center.1 The Application boldly asserts that Ohio’s corporate separation requirements should not apply to this deal. Further, the Application is nearly silent about protecting ratepayers. Although the statute mandates no direct or indirect costs of any agreement under R.C. 4928.47 may be borne by ratepayers, AEP Ohio acknowledges that the debt from the deal could potentially have an impact on the cost to borrow debt for regulated operations. In such case, AEP Ohio commits to only further evaluate the issue.

Much more review is needed before the Commission considers the Application. The abbreviated comment deadline does not provide ample opportunity for such a review. Items that warrant further consideration include whether the agreement was the product of undue preference for a utility affiliate, whether the agreement will meet corporate separation statutory and regulatory requirements, whether the proposed transaction complies with the requirements of R.C. 4828.47 and ensures protections for ratepayers.” {***}

Particularly troubling, the RESA brief points to an AEP utility employee email referring data center customers to their competitive affiliate, AEP Energy.  

Excerpt from brief regarding AEP employee correspondence with potential customer:

{***} “Moreover, the anticompetitive self-dealing is not a hypothetical concern. An exhibit in the Data Center Case proceeding reveals AEP Ohio employees working on regulated distribution service interconnection matters referring data center customers to their competitive market affiliate and offering to facilitate that meeting.29

That is great news! We are close to having the costs separated out by engineering, procurement and construction. Mulai is confirming a few things with transmission counterparts.  We will be able to provide detail yet this week.

With AEP Ohio territory being your service location, AD-Hub is the right hub location to look at for wholesale pricing considerations.  As a counter-point, the best alternative would be PJM WestHub.  The average monthly basis (cost between PJM WesHub and AD Hub is ~3% in absolute dollar difference over the past 4.5 years between those hub locations.  Attached is some further analysis that tells that story.

I don’t think we’ve discussed AEP Energy, but they are AEP’s deregulated affiliate and one potential option for Bideer in securing market generation.  You’re not under any obligation to work with them as an AEP Ohio customer, but I’d be happy to facilitate a conversation with them if you would like.

And lastly, July 12th looks better for our group than the 13th, but we could do the afternoon on the 13th if tha’s better.  Do you have preference between Columbus and HIP?  We are happy to meet you ther if that’s more convenient.

Thanks,
Amy

This recommendation comes in an email exchange, all included in the exhibit, discussing issues associated with a customer receipt of noncompetitive distribution service from AEP Ohio. The email exchange discusses interconnection issues and the process and timelines for the customer to sign service agreements with AEP Ohio for noncompetitive distribution service. This email alone should warrant further investigation by the Commission. In addition, AEP Ohio’s delay in sharing the data center load and foray into the competitive market with the fuel cell deal with Bloom Energy also warrants review to determine if AEP Ohio was providing undue preference and advantage to its affiliates involved in this deal and its proposed internal competitive line of business.” {***}

RESA Initial Brief  (03/04/2025)
25-0133-EL-AEC — Amazon
(Ohio Power Company -AEC-Application to revise or cancel a contract) 

See also: Case No. 25-0134-EL-AEC — Cologix Johnstown