|
|
|
|
|
Retail Suppliers Allege PUC Unlawfully Delegated Authority To Utility To Design Default Service, Cite New Terms Under "Compliance" Filing
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Retail suppliers have alleged that, in a recent order addressing default service for data centers at AEP Ohio, the PUC of Ohio unlawfully delegated PUC authority to AEP Ohio for designing the specific provisions governing a Standard Service Offer for data centers
As first reported by ECM, PUCO recently approved, at AEP Ohio, an interim approach to the return of data center customers to default service, which includes, if needed, AEP Ohio serving the returning load with PJM spot market purchases to the extent the data center load does not provide a 180-day required notice, which is intended to allow a separate data center SSO procurement to occur
See full details of the adopted policy here
In separate requests for rehearing, the Retail Energy Supply Association and IGS Energy each alleged that PUCO's order failed to adopt a specific design and specific procedures for data center SSO at AEP Ohio, and therefore the retail suppliers alleged that PUCO's order constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative and ratemaking authority to AEP
Ohio
RESA noted that, in the PUCO proceeding, AEP Ohio did not present a proposed SSO tariff or similar documents (SMA, etc) to govern data center SSO, and PUCO's order did not address such specific items either.
As a result, RESA said that the following are unknown concerning data center SSO at AEP Ohio:
• The form of the procurement: Auction? RFP?
• The criteria for selecting the best supply offer (or offers). The process if no bid
or eligible bid is offered.
• The term of the procurement.
• Whether AEP Ohio would require a minimum stay such as what AEP Ohio proposed in its
prior data center case.
• Who would be eligible to participate in the SSO procurement process.
• The SSO product type: fixed-price, real-time energy with a pass through of
capacity/ancillary.
• The Master Supply Agreement contract structure
• The process that would occur if the data center SSO supplier defaults
• Whether a data center customer that provides notice to return to the SSO can
cancel that notice and remain a shopping customer
• Whether a data center customer that didn’t provide notice and was being
served at real-time pricing would be able to leave the SSO before the SSO
procurement occurred
RESA further said that AEP Ohio's compliance tariff is illustrative of the authority PUCO erroneously delegated to AEP Ohio, as the compliance tariff introduces new provisions, terms, and concepts not addressed in AEP Ohio's original filing nor adjudicated by PUCO
RESA said that, under the compliance tariff, "AEP Ohio has
now indicated it will not take on any obligation to procure capacity on behalf of the data
center SSO customer, and will require the data center customers to post collateral."
Citing these provisions, RESA alleged, "The concepts were not before
the Commission for approval, and yet they are now pending in a 'compliance' tariff with no
defined process for parties to comment on these new additions or for the Commission to
consider and address these additional issues."
RESA alleged, "By approving a
framework before the operative tariff provisions were known, the Commission has left AEP
Ohio to exercise discretion that the General Assembly entrusted to the Commission. As
such, rehearing is necessary to both eliminate ambiguity and ensure the Commission meets
its statutory duty to decide tariff terms."
RESA said that under the order, "the Commission
authorized SSO tariff provisions that were never actually proposed and whose material
terms remain undefined."
RESA and IGS also opposed minimum stays, to the extent any minimum stay was adopted in PUCO's data center SSO order at AEP Ohio
RESA reiterated its call for PUCO to initiate
a statewide process to address large load default service, which would also serve as a forum to address state issues implicated by PJM's various backstop capacity (RBP) and related proposals, including the impact on LSEs and assignment of costs
RESA also proposed that data centers be required to be served by a competitive retail electric supplier at AEP Ohio (as proposed at other Ohio EDCs), which RESA said would make most SSO concerns about data centers moot, except for "fringe" cases (retail supplier default, initial month of service, etc).
Case 26-113-EL-ATA, 26-0113-EL-ATA
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
September 8, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Enrollment & Rate Management Director - Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Strategic Sales Channels Manager - Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Controller - Retail Provider
• NEW -- Manager, Product I - VXRetail (Retail Energy)
• Refreshed 5/27/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|
|