Ohio's ratepayer advocate is pushing federal regulators to act on a three-year-old complaint alleging that utilities in the state have spent more than $4.3 billion on local transmission and supplemental projects without proper oversight. The Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel filed a motion Thursday urging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to resolve its September 2023 complaint, which argues that transmission projects built by companies owned by American Electric Power, FirstEnergy, AES, and Duke Energy lack regulatory review for necessity, prudency, or cost-effectiveness.
Since the initial complaint was filed, utilities in Ohio have added over $4.3 billion worth of local transmission and supplemental projects to PJM's Regional Transmission Expansion Plan, according to the ratepayer advocate. These projects—typically proposed by utilities to replace aging infrastructure or connect new customers—generally receive minimal regulatory scrutiny. PJM, the regional grid operator, reviews proposed projects primarily to ensure they don't compromise grid reliability, but the OCC contends this falls short of a full examination of whether the projects are needed or cost-effective. The advocate argues that spending on local and supplemental projects has ballooned in part to accommodate massive load from data centers operated by companies including Meta, Amazon, and Google.
"As OCC's complaint seeking relief for consumers languishes, Ohio transmission utilities have spent billions of dollars for local transmission and supplemental projects that no regulatory authority has reviewed," the ratepayer advocate stated. The OCC also said it hasn't received meaningful answers from Ohio's utilities or PJM regarding projects in the most recent Attachment M-3 process, which the advocate describes as lacking transparency. According to the complaint, questions about how certain projects will affect consumers have been "met with resistance" by PJM and the utilities, with claims that such information falls outside the scope of FERC's approved process. The OCC argues that utilities should be required to answer questions about the rationale for project needs, load forecast assumptions, customer commitments, alternative options considered, project scope and timing, and expected consumer cost impacts.
The complaint highlights a tension in how transmission infrastructure is planned and approved in regional grids like PJM. Local and supplemental projects—as opposed to regional projects that address broader grid needs—are largely driven by individual utilities and face less rigorous review. The OCC contends that this creates a gap in accountability, especially as utilities invest billions to serve high-demand customers like data centers while ratepayers foot the bill through transmission charges. Ohio utilities and PJM pushed back in November 2023, asking FERC to reject the complaint. They argued that oversight is adequate, citing PJM's local planning process, FERC's formula rate processes, the commission's complaint mechanism under section 206 of the Federal Power Act, and the Ohio Power Siting Board's pre-construction review of supplemental projects larger than 100 kV.
The ratepayer advocate is now calling for expedited action, arguing that the unresolved complaint allows unchecked spending to continue. The OCC frames the case as an opportunity for FERC to address what it calls a major problem: that local transmission and supplemental projects in Ohio aren't being reviewed for need, prudence, or cost-effectiveness. With billions already spent and more projects in the pipeline, the advocate's push for regulatory intervention underscores growing concerns that utility-driven transmission investments may outpace oversight designed to protect consumers from unnecessary costs.