Ohio Utilities Planned $4.3 Billion of Local Transmission While a FERC Complaint Sat for Three Years
- FERC & Federal Policy & Markets Regulatory
Marin Holt
- 0
- 7 minutes read
- Local transmission planned since the complaint: More than $4.3 billion
- Supplemental projects at issue since 2017: Nearly $6.5 billion
- FERC docket: EL23-105, filed September 28, 2023
- Ohio siting review threshold: 100 kV
- Utilities named: AEP, FirstEnergy, Duke Energy and AES
The Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel asked federal regulators on August 27, 2026 to finally rule on a transmission complaint it filed three years earlier. The state consumer advocate says Ohio utilities have planned more than $4.3 billion of local transmission since the case opened, with no regulator testing whether the work is needed. American Electric Power, FirstEnergy, Duke Energy and AES all build under that arrangement. The original complaint reached the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as docket EL23-105 on September 28, 2023. It targeted nearly $6.5 billion of PJM-approved supplemental projects added since 2017.
The gap between two regulators
Supplemental projects sit in a seam. PJM Interconnection clears them through its local planning process. That process does not test cost-effectiveness, and neither does the state.
“Ohio does not oversee the need for transmission facilities under 100 kV, and does not review the cost-effectiveness of any transmission facilities,” the OCC wrote in its 2023 complaint. It told FERC that no mechanism exists to assure Ohio consumers their transmission rates are just and reasonable. The advocate called the result a regulatory Catch-22.
What oversight the utilities say already exists
AEP, FirstEnergy and other Ohio utilities told FERC in November 2023 that the gap does not exist. They named four existing checks: PJM’s FERC-approved local planning process, FERC formula rate procedures, section 206 complaint rights, and Ohio Power Siting Board review of projects above 100 kV. Dominion Energy, PPL and Public Service Electric and Gas filed alongside them. PJM, the Edison Electric Institute and WIRES also asked FERC to deny the complaint.
The 100 kV threshold decides the argument. Ohio’s siting board reviews lines above it. The OCC built its case on the projects that fall below it.
What the complaint asks for
The OCC wants FERC to require approval of supplemental projects before construction starts. It asked the commission to appoint an independent transmission monitor for local projects. It also asked FERC to consider barring Ohio utilities from recovering supplemental project costs through formula transmission rates. The advocate requested fast-track processing in 2023 and never received it.
Why It Matters
Formula rates turn this into a billing question rather than a planning question. Costs cleared through a formula rate reach customers without a project-by-project prudence review. That is why the OCC counts dollars planned instead of dollars litigated.
A three-year delay compounds. Silence at FERC is not a neutral outcome here. Each month the docket stays open, more supplemental spending enters the formula and starts earning a return. Anyone modeling Ohio transmission rates should treat EL23-105 as an open exposure with no scheduled resolution date. The $4.3 billion figure is the advocate’s own count, and no regulator has tested it either.
Critical Perspective
The $4.3 billion figure belongs to the complainant, and no regulator has audited it. That cuts both ways. The OCC has an institutional interest in a large number, and the utilities have one in a small number. FERC’s silence means neither side has been tested. Treat the total as an advocacy estimate until the docket produces a record.
The utilities’ four-check defense also deserves more than dismissal. Section 206 complaint rights and formula rate procedures are real, if slow and costly to invoke. The OCC’s stronger point is narrower than its headline. The Ohio Power Siting Board reviews lines above 100 kV, so projects below that line get no state test of need. That gap is specific and checkable. The independent-monitor remedy is a weaker fit, because PJM already has an independent market monitor whose recommendations carry no binding force.
Sources
- Utility Dive
- Utility Dive (original complaint)
- Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel
- OCC complaint filing (PDF)
- Utility Dive (utility response)
