In a new guest column published by the Dayton Daily News, Lindsey Short, managing director of energy and advocacy services for the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, argues that Ohio lawmakers should reject House Bill 646 and its utility-backed approach to serving data centers and other large electricity users.

The central question is simple. Who should pay for the infrastructure required by a massive new customer?

“Who should pay for the enormous cost of serving new data centers and other large electricity users? The answer should be straightforward. The customer creating the cost should pay the full cost upfront.”

Short warns that House Bill 646 would give utilities a path to build more infrastructure, recover those costs and an approved profit for decades, and leave existing customers exposed when projects are delayed, downsized or abandoned.

She also challenges the use of speculative load forecasts to justify new spending before demand is proven. Projected electricity use should be independently reviewed and supported by signed, enforceable commitments, not treated as certain simply because it appears in a utility forecast.

A pending AES Ohio case illustrates the stakes. Two proposed data centers could require $837.5 million in new grid projects, while other customers could ultimately be left covering a gap of more than $1.3 billion.

As Short writes, “Lawmakers should not write a utility business model into statute and call it customer protection.”

Manufacturers take responsibility for the risks and costs of their own expansion plans. Utilities and data centers should be held to the same standard. 7/15/2026