Energy

AEP Ohio has cut disputed customer load forecasts by as much as 33% after the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association (OMA) Energy Group challenged assumptions that did not hold up under scrutiny.

The original forecasts projected major electricity-use growth across several commercial and industrial customer classes, including some where expected data center growth was unlikely to materialize. OMA warned that those inflated projections could distort rates and shift costs among customers. PUCO staff agreed that several forecasts were significantly overstated and ordered AEP to update them.

The result is a far more realistic proposal. General service secondary and primary customers would now see increases of less than 1%, while transmission-level customers would see a 1.6% decrease.

“AEP’s original numbers did not survive contact with the evidence,” said Ryan Augsburger, president of the OMA. “We challenged the assumptions, PUCO forced a correction and customers are now looking at rates based on numbers that are actually credible. This is exactly why forecasts must be tested before they become customer bills.”

The correction is a win for customers, but it also proves the larger point. Unproven forecasts should be challenged in open PUCO proceedings, not baked into law before customers can test the assumptions and cost shifts behind them. 7/29/2026

Bad energy reporting does not just mislead readers. It can help turn speculative forecasts into billions of dollars in customer costs.

In a new RealClearEnergy column, Dave O’Neil, director of communications for The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, argues that too much coverage of electricity markets repeats crisis claims without seriously testing the assumptions behind them. Forecasts are reported as established demand. Proposed data centers are treated as operating facilities. Administrative market decisions are presented as proof of a physical power shortage.

The column points to proposed transmission projects in AES Ohio’s territory that could leave other customers exposed to more than $1.3 billion in costs, as well as a PJM capacity auction that directed roughly $16 billion to power suppliers while delivering little new generation.

“Too much energy coverage starts with the conclusion and works backward,” O’Neil said. “Reporters repeat the crisis claim, skip the hard questions and move straight to explaining why customers must pay. That is not scrutiny. It is stenography for the institutions asking Ohioans to absorb billions of dollars in new costs.”

Journalists are supposed to test claims, challenge assumptions and follow the money. When they simply repeat utility and grid-operator claims, speculative forecasts begin to look like settled facts and enormous customer costs begin to look inevitable. 7/27/2026

Data center electricity “forecasts” continue to surge, raising questions about how much projected demand will actually materialize and how much customers should be expected to finance.

BloombergNEF recently increased its estimate for U.S. data center electricity demand in 2035 to 194 gigawatts, an 83% jump from its forecast just six months earlier. Forecasts from different firms now vary by roughly 100 gigawatts, an amount approximately equal to the entire existing U.S. nuclear power fleet.

That enormous range underscores the uncertainty surrounding projects that utilities and grid operators are already using to justify billions of dollars in new generation and transmission spending. Analysts also acknowledged that much of the proposed data center capacity remains in the early stages of development and that some developers have no experience building data centers.

“A forecast that changes by 83% in six months, while differing from other estimates by the equivalent of the nation’s entire nuclear fleet, should not become a decades-long obligation for customers,” said Lindsey Short, managing director of energy and advocacy services for the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association (OMA). “Before manufacturers are asked to pay for new infrastructure, regulators should verify that the projected demand is real, committed and likely to materialize.”

OMA continues to support independent review of large-load forecasts before speculative demand is built into customer rates. 7/28/2026

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) has finalized new rules allowing electric utilities to seek rate increases based on projected spending rather than costs they have already incurred.

The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association (OMA) Energy Group proposed a one-way true-up requiring utilities to refund customers when forecasts prove too high, while preventing them from collecting more when they underestimate. The Ohio Consumers’ Counsel separately proposed refunds with interest for overcharges. The commission rejected both proposals.

Stop us if you’ve heard this one before, but utilities fared better. The PUCO declined to require automatic sharing of all supporting documents at the start of a case and gave utilities more time to calculate and return overcollections.

“So utilities can overestimate and keep customers’ money, or underestimate and come back for more?” said Lindsey Short, OMA managing director of energy and advocacy services. “The commission rejected safeguards against either outcome. Utilities make the predictions. Customers should not have to pay for every miss.” 7/27/2026

NBC4 in Columbus interviewed Ohio Manufacturers’ Association (OMA) President Ryan Augsburger this week about PJM’s latest capacity auction, rising customer costs and the need for greater scrutiny of utility load forecasts.

Augsburger told the station that customers are “getting a raw deal” from a market producing record costs without delivering meaningful new generation. He also highlighted OMA’s support for the bipartisan Electricity Forecast Integrity Act, which would require independent review of utility forecasts before projected demand is used to justify higher customer costs.

The story’s headline, however, declared that data centers have caused Ohio’s energy demand to surpass supply. The reporting beneath it did not establish that claim. In fact, the story quoted PJM acknowledging that falling short of its reliability target does not necessarily mean the system cannot serve customers reliably.

That contradiction reflects a broader problem in energy coverage. Forecasts are often presented as established demand. Proposed data centers are treated as operating facilities. PJM auction results are described as evidence of a physical power shortage without adequate attention to reserve requirements, plant deratings, market rules or delays in connecting new generation.

“This is not just imprecise reporting,” said Dave O’Neil, OMA communications director. “It is reporting that can shape public policy, weaken customer protections and make enormous spending proposals appear inevitable. Ohioans deserve skepticism, context and basic factual discipline. Too often, they are getting none of the three.”

The stakes are significant. Utilities, grid operators and policymakers are asking customers to absorb billions of dollars in new costs based heavily on projections about future demand. When those projections are reported as present-day facts, the public is led to believe that expensive policy responses are unavoidable and that the only remaining question is who will pay.

OMA believes the assumptions behind those proposals deserve far more scrutiny. Reporters should examine whether projected projects are likely to be built, how PJM calculates its reserve needs, why record capacity prices have produced so little new generation and what customers are receiving in return.

Augsburger’s message was straightforward. Customers are paying more, the market is delivering too little and the forecasts driving those costs should not be accepted without independent review. 7/21/2026

New Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson told Cleveland.com that state prosecutors are preparing a clearer and stronger case against former FirstEnergy executives Chuck Jones and Mike Dowling, whose first public-corruption trial ended in a mistrial this spring.

The two men now face an expanded 22-count indictment tied to allegations surrounding the House Bill 6 scandal and a $4.3 million payment to former Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Chair Sam Randazzo. Both defendants have denied wrongdoing.

Wilson said he is “very comfortable” with the prosecution team’s strategy and expects the retrial to begin this fall.

“We are still paying the price for a system that rewarded utility influence and failed to protect customers,” said Lindsey Short, managing director of energy and advocacy services for the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association. “Accountability cannot end with House Bill 6. It must include fixing the regulatory rules and incentives that allowed customers to be put last.” 7/20/2026

New reporting from The Toledo Blade and The Statehouse News Bureau reinforced the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association’s (OMA) warning that PJM’s capacity market is imposing higher costs without producing meaningful new electricity supply.

PJM’s latest auction reached the federally approved price cap, yet the grid operator still fell short of its reliability target. The auction added only 525 megawatts of net new generation, the lowest total in a decade.

OMA President Ryan Augsburger told The Blade that the result reflects more than a simple supply shortage.

“This is a question of what PJM chooses to count, how high it sets the target, what it prevents from competing and how those decisions are used to justify billions of dollars in additional customer costs,” Augsburger said.

Both stories also examined Senate Bill 457, the bipartisan Electricity Forecast Integrity Act. The legislation would require independent verification and greater transparency before utility demand forecasts are used to drive capacity purchases and transmission spending.

“We need future utility load forecasts to have better transparency and better accountability,” Augsburger said.

The coverage underscores a basic problem. Customers are being required to pay maximum prices, but the market is still failing to deliver the new generation those prices are supposed to attract. 7/20/2026

The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association (OMA) took its energy affordability message to audiences across Ohio yesterday as President Ryan Augsburger spoke with Sarah Donaldson of The Statehouse News Bureau and Danny Eldredge of The Toledo Blade.

The interviews focused on PJM’s latest capacity auction, which again reached the price cap while producing little meaningful new generation.

“When customers are paying more, they should be getting something for it,” Augsburger said. “We should be getting more supply, and we are not. That tells us the auction is not working.”

Augsburger urged reporters and policymakers to “follow the money,” noting that generators and transmission utilities benefit when speculative forecasts create the appearance of scarcity.

“Utilities are winning. Generators are winning. Customers are losing,” he said. “Customers are having their pockets picked.”

Augsburger also explained that PJM counts uncertain future demand as though it is guaranteed, delays new generation from entering the market and then points to the resulting gap as evidence that customers must pay more.

“That is not a functioning competitive market,” Augsburger said. “That is a rigged market.”

He also pushed back on efforts to blame data centers for every increase in electricity costs, arguing that utilities are using them as a convenient scapegoat while resisting proposals that would allow large customers to pay infrastructure costs up front.

The interviews followed an OMA release detailing how PJM’s latest auction manufactured scarcity on paper while sending customers another multibillion-dollar bill.

The OMA continues to demand greater scrutiny, transparency and accountability before customers are charged billions of dollars for a shortage created largely on paper. 7/17/2026

Electricity costs are climbing, PJM’s markets are producing record-high prices, and utilities are seeking billions of dollars for new infrastructure. The Ohio Manufacturers’ Energy Conference is where the people paying those bills get the facts, challenge the assumptions and hear directly from the experts shaping what comes next.

“Too many energy decisions are being made with customers expected to pay first and ask questions later,” said Lindsey Short, managing director of energy and advocacy services for the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association (OMA). “This conference is where we examine the numbers, challenge the assumptions and focus on what actually lowers costs.”

Join the OMA on Aug. 27 for Ohio’s most comprehensive energy forum, with market intelligence, cost-control strategies, policy updates and practical solutions. Register by July 30 to secure early-bird pricing. 7/16/2026

Ohioans looking to lower their electric bills are told to find the right page of their bill, locate the “price to compare,” search a state website, compare fixed and variable rates, watch for fees and promotional traps, and remember to repeat the process later.

Do everything correctly and the estimated savings might be about $12 a month.

“Ohioans should not need a minor in electricity procurement just to keep their utility bills under control,” said Lindsey Short, managing director of energy and advocacy services for the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association. “If the best customer protection we can offer is a scavenger hunt through rate plans and fine print to maybe save $12, the system has lost the plot.”

Shopping can help at the margins. But this is an absurd amount of homework to place on customers while the largest forces driving electric bills remain beyond their control.

Ohioans need transparency, accountability and real customer protection, not more homework. 7/14/2026

A recent heat wave produced a brief $28,000-per-megawatt price in PJM’s frequency-regulation market, a specialized service used to balance the grid second by second.

The number is dramatic. Its significance is less clear.

Frequency regulation represents only a small share of total electricity costs, and PJM’s independent market monitor has questioned whether recent rule changes are inflating those payments. The spike may reveal more about flawed market design than an actual shortage of electricity.

Meanwhile, new generation remains trapped in PJM’s interconnection backlog, speculative demand forecasts continue to drive higher costs, and customers are being asked to pay more while receiving less transparency.

“PJM should not be allowed to point to every unusual price as proof of a power crisis, especially when its own market rules may be contributing to the result,” said Lindsey Short, managing director of energy and advocacy services for the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association. “Before customers are asked to pay billions more, PJM must prove the problem is real and prove it is not making the problem worse.” 7/13/2026

PJM spent months warning of a looming reliability crisis. Then extreme heat arrived, electricity demand climbed near record levels and the grid performed.

An analysis by the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association (OMA) found PJM maintained roughly 6,500 megawatts of operating reserves above required levels during the hottest hours of July 2. Even at the tightest point of the day, reserves remained 55% above the requirement.

That raises an uncomfortable question. Why are customers paying scarcity prices while viable generation remains trapped in PJM’s interconnection backlog and speculative demand forecasts are treated as guaranteed load?

“PJM cannot restrict supply, inflate demand with speculative forecasts and then charge customers for the scarcity it helped create,” said OMA Managing Director of Energy and Advocacy Services Lindsey Short.

OMA is calling on federal regulators and Congress to investigate whether PJM’s market rules, forecasting practices and administrative failures are driving unjustified costs for manufacturers, families and other customers.

The grid passed the test. PJM’s crisis narrative did not. 7/8/2026

A new Reuters report puts a national spotlight on what rising electricity costs are already doing to Ohio manufacturers.

OMA members Belden Brick, Plaskolite and Tosoh SMD describe soaring costs, difficult operating decisions and growing threats to their competitiveness. Belden Brick’s monthly capacity charge alone jumped from $1,600 to $12,000.

The story focuses heavily on data-center growth. But the more fundamental problem is not new customers seeking power. It is a market that allows aggressive, unverified load forecasts to drive up costs for manufacturers before that demand ever materializes.

“Ohio manufacturers are paying real bills today based on electricity demand that may never show up,” said Lindsey Short, managing director of energy and advocacy services for the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association. “That is not planning. It is speculation with someone else’s money. Policymakers should require independent proof before another dollar is shifted onto the factory floor.”

Reuters is right to show the consequences. Now policymakers must confront the cause. 7/7/2026

AES Ohio says its proposed data center tariff protects customers. The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association (OMA) says the math says otherwise.

According to OMA Energy Group testimony filed with the PUCO, two data center projects in AES Ohio territory could trigger $2.77 billion in guaranteed transmission revenue requirements over 40 years, while data centers would provide only about $1.4 billion in guaranteed payments under the proposed tariff. That leaves more than $1.3 billion potentially at risk to manufacturers, families and other electric customers.

“This is exactly why policymakers need to check the math before blessing these kinds of deals,” said Lindsey Short, OMA managing director of energy and advocacy services. “A tariff is not customer protection just because a utility says it is. If data centers do not pay the full cost of the grid upgrades they cause, everyone else is left paying the gap.”

OMA continues to urge lawmakers and regulators to follow the oldest rule in ratemaking. The customer that causes the cost should pay the cost. 6/29/2026

The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association (OMA) this week warned that a proposed AES Ohio data center tariff could leave manufacturers, families and other customers exposed to more than $1.3 billion in transmission costs tied to just two data center projects.

An analysis filed by OMA energy consultant John Seryak found that AES Ohio could receive roughly $2.77 billion in guaranteed transmission cost recovery over 40 years, while the data centers would be responsible for only about $1.4 billion under a 12-year payment obligation. That leaves a $1.37 billion shortfall that could fall on other customers.

“Utilities are trying to sell these tariffs as customer protection, but the math tells a different story,” said Lindsey Short, OMA managing director of energy and advocacy services. “AES Ohio gets decades of guaranteed recovery, data centers get limited obligations and manufacturers and other customers could get stuck with the gap. That is not protection. It is risk-shifting.”

The OMA said the issue is not whether tariffs can protect customers, but whether utility-backed tariffs actually assign costs to the customers causing them. The association is urging regulators to reject proposals that leave manufacturers and other ratepayers exposed to speculative grid costs they did not cause. 6/23/2026

With nine breakout sessions across three focused tracks, the 2026 Ohio Manufacturers’ Energy Conference will give manufacturers and energy professionals practical insight into the issues shaping energy costs, reliability and long-term planning.

Hosted by the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association (OMA) on Thursday, Aug. 27, at the Hilton Columbus Downtown, the conference is Ohio’s most comprehensive energy forum for manufacturers and energy professionals.

“The breakout sessions are built to give manufacturers more than headlines,” said Lindsey Short, OMA managing director of energy and advocacy services. “Attendees will get practical insight into what is changing in Ohio’s energy landscape, what it means for their costs and reliability, and what questions they should be asking inside their own organizations.”

Members are encouraged to bring colleagues to cover more sessions, compare takeaways and make the most of the full agenda. The conference also includes a welcome reception at Stories on High on Wednesday, Aug. 26.

Early Bird registration is now open. OMA members can register for $125, non-members for $250 and government attendees for $99. Register today to secure Early Bird pricing. 6/26/2026

Rick Platt, a member of the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association (OMA) and president and CEO of the Heath-Newark-Licking County Port Authority, recently wrote that Ohio’s energy economy is “anything but mundane.”

OMA members saw that firsthand during last month’s Energy Committee meeting and tour at Cenovus’ Lima Refinery, the oldest continually operating refinery in the United States. From refining and pipelines to rail, supply chains, power generation and grid planning, Ohio’s energy system is complex, interconnected and essential to manufacturing competitiveness.

“Rick Platt is right. Energy is anything but mundane for the manufacturers that depend on it every hour of every day,” said Lindsey Short, OMA managing director of energy and advocacy services. “Ohio’s challenge is to support real growth while making sure customers are not forced to pay for unverified demand or costs they did not cause.”

As Ohio confronts rising demand and major energy infrastructure decisions, OMA continues to urge policymakers to protect affordability and reliability by focusing on verified demand, transparent planning and cost causation. 6/22/2026

A new Crain’s Cleveland Business report on rising electric costs in Ohio includes a revealing admission about data center tariffs, an issue the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association (OMA) has warned could shift costs onto manufacturers and other customers.

Matt Schilling, director of public affairs for the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, said Ohio regulators created a new AEP Ohio data center customer class to put “guardrails” between data centers and other customers. But in describing whether those costs will stay with data centers, Schilling said, “All the associated costs to support those data centers will hopefully only be borne by data-center customers.”

Hopefully?

That is not customer protection. It is wishful thinking dressed up as regulatory policy.

The article notes that Ohio Edison retail prices in northeast Ohio have essentially doubled in the past five years, FirstEnergy’s Ohio utilities are seeking a rate increase that would cost the average household about $180 more per year, and PJM capacity prices for 2026-27 reached $329 per megawatt-day, 10 times the price for 2024-25.

That is the flaw in the entire argument. A state tariff may promise to isolate some data center costs, but it cannot stop unverified utility forecasts from driving regional PJM costs that can still be spread across manufacturers, families and other Ohio customers.

“Ohio customers do not need hope. They need proof,” said Lindsey Short, OMA managing director of energy and advocacy services. “Before monopoly utility forecasts are used to justify billions in grid costs, those forecasts should be independently reviewed and verified. If data centers are willing to pay their own way, utilities should be required to prove the demand is real before everyone else is asked to pay for it.”

OMA continues to support the Electricity Forecast Integrity Act, bipartisan legislation that would require greater transparency, independent review and oversight before utility load forecasts are used to drive planning decisions and costs. 6/15/2026

The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association (OMA) this week said federal regulators are now confronting the same large-load cost-shifting risks OMA has warned about in Ohio. FERC’s action requiring regional grid operators, including PJM, to address large-load interconnection, transmission cost transparency and cost shifting reinforces a basic principle. Data centers and other large energy users should pay for the infrastructure needed to serve them, not shift those costs onto manufacturers, families and small businesses.

“Of course utilities do not like reforms that make it harder to pass the bill to existing customers,” said OMA President Ryan Augsburger. “That is exactly why reform is needed. If a data center causes new grid costs, the bill should go to the data center, not to Ohio manufacturers and other customers. Utilities should not get to turn speculative load forecasts into guaranteed revenue and call that customer protection.”

OMA said FERC’s action should be a warning to Ohio policymakers, not an excuse for weaker state-level protections. Last week’s rushed push to pass Substitute House Bill 646 reinforced the need for real safeguards, not utility wish lists repackaged as customer protection.

Real customer protection requires verified demand, cost causation, upfront payment for caused upgrades and nondiscriminatory rules that apply fairly to all customers. Ohio policymakers should not leave manufacturers, families and small businesses on the hook for infrastructure built around forecasts that may never materialize. 6/18/2026

A new guest column in The Columbus Dispatch urged lawmakers to pass the Electricity Forecast Integrity Act, the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association (OMA)-backed legislation aimed at bringing greater accountability to electric load forecasting.

The piece noted OMA’s concerns that AEP has exaggerated future electricity demand and highlighted OMA’s leadership in a coalition supporting truth-in-forecasting reforms. The bipartisan legislation would require transparency, independent review and oversight before utility forecasts are used in planning decisions that can affect customer costs.

“Customers should not be asked to pay for demand that exists only on paper,” said Lindsey Short, OMA managing director of energy and advocacy services. “The Electricity Forecast Integrity Act is a commonsense step to require transparency, independent review and accountability before utility forecasts are used to justify major energy planning decisions.”

OMA has repeatedly warned that unverified forecasts can turn speculative demand into real costs for manufacturers and other customers. 6/18/2026