Ohio Ratepayer Advocate Urges FERC Action on

The Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel has urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to resolve a three-year-old complaint about utility transmission spending. The ratepayer advocate filed a motion for expedited action on Thursday.

The OCC's original complaint, filed in September 2023, targets utilities owned by American Electric Power, FirstEnergy, AES, and Duke Energy. It alleges their local transmission and supplemental projects lack proper regulatory oversight for necessity, prudence, and cost-effectiveness.

Since the complaint was filed, the situation has escalated. The OCC states that Ohio utilities have included more than $4.3 billion of such projects in PJM Interconnection's Regional Transmission Expansion Plan. "As OCC’s complaint seeking relief for consumers languishes, Ohio transmission utilities have spent billions of dollars," the advocate said.

The Core of the Complaint

Local and supplemental projects are typically proposed by utilities to replace aging infrastructure or connect new customers. They generally receive little regulatory scrutiny. Grid operator PJM reviews them only to ensure they do not harm reliability.

The OCC contends these project plans have "ballooned." It links part of the growth to handling large data center load from companies like Meta, Amazon, and Google. The advocate argues that no authority is reviewing whether these investments are justified.

Ohio utilities present projects through PJM's Attachment M-3 process. The OCC calls this process lacking in transparency. It claims not to have received "substantive responses" from utilities or PJM regarding recent M-3 projects.

Questions about consumer impacts have been met with resistance, the OCC alleges. During PJM committee meetings, utilities and the grid operator have reportedly said such information is beyond the process's scope.

Calls for Accountability and Utility Pushback

The ratepayer advocate wants fundamental changes. It says Ohio's transmission utilities should be required to answer specific questions about their projects. These would cover the basis for need, load forecasts, customer commitments, alternatives, scope, timing, and cost impacts on consumers.

"This complaint provides FERC the opportunity to correct the major problem," the OCC stated. It sees a systemic issue where projects proceed without review.

However, the complaint faces strong opposition. In November 2023, the Ohio utilities, PJM, and the Edison Electric Institute asked FERC to reject it. They argue existing oversight is more than adequate.

American Electric Power and the other utilities point to multiple layers of review. These include a FERC-approved PJM local planning process, FERC formula rate processes, the commission's own complaint process, and Ohio Power Siting Board review for larger projects. The siting board reviews supplemental projects larger than 100 kV.

The dispute now rests with FERC, which must decide whether to act on the motion to expedite the long-pending complaint.