Events

Email Alerts

Retail Energy Jobs

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search

PUC Denies Rehearing Of Interim Data Center Default Service Order Which Results In "De Facto Minimum Stay"

September 30, 2026

Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com

The PUC of Ohio has denied rehearing of an order addressing, on an interim basis, default service for data centers at AEP Ohio, as the PUC said that concerns raised by retail suppliers about minimum stays under the interim provisions are outweighed by the need to protect customers against costs that could arise from data centers being dropped to regular default service

As first reported by ECM, PUCO in its original order 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

Several competitive supply parties in rehearing requests raised concern with the 180-day notice required from data centers to return to an SSO (unless the load wishes to be served by spot purchases), and minimum stays generally. A policy that data center default service costs are not to be shifted to other customers inherently contemplates a minimum stay on data center default service to allow the recovery of such costs from the users of such default service

PUCO noted that, in its original order, "the Commission acknowledged that the proposed Interim Relief could lead to an associated temporary stay."

On rehearing, PUCO reiterated its conclusion that, "on balance, the alternative of unfair cost shifts to customers outweighed the industry-specific inconvenience of a de facto minimum stay for data center customers in AEP Ohio’s service territory."

PUCO generally dismissed retail suppliers' rehearing requests as not raising new or novel arguments

PUCO also said that, at this point in the AEP Ohio data center SSO proceeding, PUCO is not prepared to make any substantive determinations as to other proposed long-term solutions for data center SSO, including IGS Energy’s previously reported Supplier of Last Resort proposal.

PUCO disagrees with retail suppliers' assertions that PUCO's original order delegated the Commission’s ratemaking authority to AEP Ohio, as PUCO said that its original order authorized the specific components of the data center SSO process that AEP Ohio was directed to implement through a compliance filing

PUCO again declined to initiate a statewide process for consideration of data center default service issues

"To initiate a statewide solution now would be counterintuitive to the developing regulatory framework where each EDU in the state either has a pending data center tariff (i.e. Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Case No. 26-755-EL-ATA), The Dayton Power and Light Company d/b/a AES Ohio (Case Nos. 25-958-El-AIR et al.), and FirstEnergy Ohio Corp. (Case No. 26-697-EL-ATA))," PUCO said

Case 26-113-EL-ATA, 26-0113-EL-ATA

ADVERTISEMENT
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

Email This Story

HOME

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

 

Events

Email Alerts

Retail Energy Jobs

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search