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