Billions of dollars in transmission investments could be on the line as utilities prepare for projected data center demand that may never materialize. AEP Ohio maintains that its existing tariff protects customers from those risks, but significant questions remain about who ultimately pays when forecasts fall short and whether its protections go far enough.

The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association (OMA) has repeatedly warned that financial commitments from data center developers do not necessarily protect existing customers from the full costs of infrastructure built to accommodate those projects. OMA’s agreement with AES Ohio takes a different approach, emphasizing upfront financial responsibility for infrastructure investments driven by new demand rather than exposing existing customers to costs that developers fail to cover.

The distinction is becoming increasingly important as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) considers new requirements governing large electricity loads and transmission cost allocation. AEP’s existing tariff should not automatically become the benchmark for federal protections simply because it is already in place. Any new standard must be judged by how effectively it assigns costs and financial risks to the customers responsible for creating them.

“AEP doesn’t get to set the standard just because it got there first,” said Lindsey Short, managing director of advocacy and energy services for the OMA. “FERC needs to determine what actually protects existing customers, not simply validate what’s already on the books. When data center forecasts don’t materialize, manufacturers shouldn’t be stuck paying for infrastructure somebody else demanded.”

With billions in potential infrastructure investments at stake, the consequences of getting those rules wrong could extend decades beyond the original forecasts. Existing customers should not become the financial backstop for speculative electricity demand. New demand should pay for new demand. 10/8/2026