Ohio Utilities Planned 4.3 Billion in Local Transmission While a FERC Complaint Sat for Three Years
- FERC & Federal Policy & Markets Regulatory
Marin Holt
- 0
- 7 minutes read
- Unreviewed spending since complaint: $4.3 billion
- Supplemental projects added since 2017: $6.5 billion
- FERC docket: EL23-105-000
- Complaint filed: September 2023
The Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel returned to federal regulators on August 27, 2026. It asked them to rule on a complaint it filed almost three years earlier. The complaint, FERC docket EL23-105-000, targets local transmission spending by American Electric Power, FirstEnergy, AES Ohio and Duke Energy Ohio. Ohio utilities have planned more than $4.3 billion in local and supplemental transmission projects since that September 2023 filing. No regulator reviewed the spending for need, prudence or cost-effectiveness.
The original complaint targets a gap in the PJM Interconnection tariff and operating agreement. Neither document gives FERC a mechanism to test whether a local transmission project is needed. PJM screens supplemental projects through its Attachment M-3 process. That review checks whether a project degrades grid reliability. It does not ask whether the project earns its price. OCC put the gap at roughly $6.5 billion of PJM-approved supplemental projects added to Ohio plans since 2017.
AEP and FirstEnergy urged FERC to reject the complaint. They argued that the FERC-approved local planning process already gives stakeholders visibility into supplemental projects. OCC counters that visibility is not review. Under the current structure a utility proposes a replacement line, PJM confirms the line does not degrade reliability, and the cost flows into transmission rates.
The August 27 filing is a motion for expedited action. Three years of silence at FERC has become part of the substance of the case, not just its procedural history. Each month the docket stays open, more supplemental spending enters PJM’s Regional Transmission Expansion Plan.
Why It Matters
Local and supplemental transmission is the fastest-growing line item on many PJM bills. Regional projects compete in an open planning process. Supplemental projects do not. A single utility proposes them, and no authority weighs the cost against alternatives.
The Ohio figure covers one state inside one RTO. A FERC ruling for OCC would set the review precedent for supplemental projects across all 13 PJM states. Industrial buyers and data center developers negotiating transmission riders have a direct stake in docket EL23-105.
Enforcement Reality
FERC faces no statutory deadline to rule on a complaint brought under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act. Relief under Section 206 generally runs forward from a refund effective date. A ruling in 2026 would reshape how future projects get reviewed, but it would not undo the lines already built and rolled into Ohio rates. That asymmetry explains why OCC moved for expedited action instead of waiting. Ohio consumers pay for the delay through transmission riders in the meantime.
Critical Perspective
The $4.3 billion figure comes from the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, an advocate with every interest in making that number look large. AEP and FirstEnergy answer that PJM already publishes supplemental projects through Attachment M-3, and publication is not nothing. The harder question is what a win at FERC would actually buy, because a needs test adds review time to replacements the utilities call overdue, and Ohio consumers pay for outages too. If federal regulators have left this docket open for three years, is that a failure of process or a sign that nobody has yet shown which of those projects should not have been built?
Sources
- Utility Dive
- Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel
- OCC Complaint at FERC (PDF)
- PJM FERC filing EL23-105-000
- Utility Dive: utility response
