Ohio Consumers' Counsel Presses FERC to Act on $4.3 Billion Local Transmission Backlog
Three years after filing its complaint, Ohio's ratepayer advocate says regulatory inaction has let utilities embed billions in unchecked grid costs into PJM's expansion plan.
Ohio's ratepayer advocate moved Thursday (2026-08-27) to force a federal decision on a complaint that has sat unresolved at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for three years, arguing the delay has cost consumers dearly. Since the original filing, Ohio utilities owned by AEP and other holding companies have inserted more than $4.3 billion in local transmission and supplemental projects into PJM's Regional Transmission Expansion Plan, the Ohio Consumers' Counsel said in its motion for expedited action.4
That figure gives the dispute its weight. Local transmission projects in PJM are built by utilities under rules that largely shield them from competitive procurement, meaning costs flow directly to ratepayers in the relevant zone with limited checks on scope or spending. The OCC's three-year-old complaint was filed precisely to address what it described as "unchecked investment" in these projects. Allowing the complaint to age while the investment ledger keeps growing is, from the advocate's perspective, the core problem.4
FERC has not been idle on transmission policy more broadly. In June, the commission voted unanimously to issue show-cause orders under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to all six regional transmission organizations and independent system operators under its jurisdiction, directing each to justify or rewrite its large-load interconnection tariffs. FERC staff said those orders address pressing needs affecting 200 million Americans across more than 30 states and the District of Columbia, covering nearly two-thirds of electricity load under commission jurisdiction.1
But broader rulemaking and specific complaint resolution run on separate tracks, and speed on one does not guarantee movement on the other. The OCC's motion signals that the advocate believes the commission's general activity has not translated into progress on the Ohio case. Three years is a long time in transmission planning cycles, and $4.3 billion added to PJM's expansion plan since the complaint was filed represents a substantial change in stakes.4
The broader PJM ratepayer environment has grown more contested in parallel. In July (2026-07-21), five state ratepayer advocates told FERC that the commission's framework for connecting data centers to the PJM grid fails to adequately protect ordinary consumers from data center-driven transmission costs, suggesting the Ohio case sits within a wider pattern of cost-allocation disputes playing out across the region.3
State-level consumer advocates have limited direct leverage at FERC. Their principal tools are the complaint process and motions practice — filing, briefing, and pressing for decisions through the commission's docket system. When FERC moves slowly, as it has in this instance, there is little advocates can do beyond escalating through formal filings. Whether a motion for expedited action shifts the commission's queue is an open factual question; FERC dockets carry no statutory deadline for complaint resolution in most circumstances.4
The competitive solicitation question hangs over local transmission spending more broadly. American Transmission Co. filed a complaint during the week of June 22 (2026-06-22) alleging that the Midcontinent Independent System Operator mishandled the competitive bid process for a $350 million power line and four substations in Wisconsin, adding to a pattern of disputes over how grid infrastructure gets built and who bears the cost.2
For PJM-zone utilities and their investors, the OCC's escalation introduces regulatory uncertainty around local transmission capital programs. If FERC ultimately rules in the advocate's favor, it could impose tighter scrutiny on the category of projects the complaint targets, potentially affecting project timelines or cost recovery for work already in the plan. How far back any remedy might reach into the $4.3 billion pipeline is unclear from the materials available.4
The immediate question for FERC is procedural: whether to grant the expedited treatment the OCC is requesting and set a schedule for resolving the underlying complaint. A decision to grant expedited action would not resolve the merits, but it would put a timeline on a proceeding that has so far moved at a pace the advocate finds explicitly unacceptable. If the commission declines, the projects already embedded in PJM's expansion plan will continue to be built under existing rules, with cost recovery flowing to Ohio ratepayers in the interim. The size of that pipeline is now on record.4