Record · Tariffs
The retail-tariff posture over a Wood County large load — the pending FirstEnergy Schedule DCT (PUCO 26-0697-EL-ATA), the AEP Schedule DCT precedent and its appeal, and the Toledo Edison sheets that actually govern in the meantime
firstenergy-dct-tariff-posture
meta
- subject The retail-tariff posture over a Wood County large load — the pending FirstEnergy Schedule DCT (PUCO 26-0697-EL-ATA), the AEP Schedule DCT precedent and its appeal, and the Toledo Edison sheets that actually govern in the meantime
- kind tariff-posture
- site bowling-green
- captured_for issue 1440 (epic 1433, readiness(bowling-green) — serving utility + grid posture)
- extracted_at 2026-08-05
- method The in-force terms are read verbatim off Toledo Edison's own filed tariff book, committed here. The pending tariff's docket number is taken from a trade-association compilation, also committed, because the docket itself is access-blocked; its terms are taken from trade-press reporting and are tagged accordingly and NOT dressed up as a sheet read. The distinction is deliberate — the AEP Schedule DCT was read off the filed sheets for Findlay (#1464) and this one could not be, and the difference in confidence is carried in the tags rather than smoothed over.
- sources
- primary
- file data/documents/grid/bowling-green/TE-2026-Electric-Service.pdf
- secondary
- file data/documents/grid/bowling-green/eei-large-load-projects-and-tariffs-july-2026.pdf
- url http://www.energychoicematters.com/stories/20260615y.html
- url https://www.rtoinsider.com/132361-ohio-puc-orders-separate-firstenergy-tariff-for-data-centers/
- primary
- reuses data/extracted/grid/findlay/aep-dct-tariff-posture.yaml (#1464) is the verbatim read of AEP Ohio's Schedule DCT off P.U.C.O. No. 22, Original Sheet Nos. 223-1..223-7. It is not duplicated here. What is recorded here is the AEP tariff's status AS PRECEDENT for a FirstEnergy-zone load, and the Findlay file remains the citation for its terms.
in_force
- the_negative_first
- tag [verified]
- statement THERE IS NO SCHEDULE DCT AT TOLEDO EDISON AND NO DATA-CENTRE SCHEDULE OF ANY KIND. A full-text scan of all 168 pages of the company's filed tariff book — Table of Contents effective 2026-07-01 — for "DCT" or "data center" returns zero hits, and neither term appears in the schedule list or the 45-rider list. The rate schedules are four: Rate GS (secondary), Rate GP (primary), Rate GSU (subtransmission) and Rate GT (transmission).
- source data/documents/grid/bowling-green/TE-2026-Electric-Service.pdf, 0-based PDF pages 1-3 (Sheet 1, Table of Contents) and full-text scan
- why_it_matters This is what makes the pending case load-bearing rather than academic. It is also the fact that separates Bowling Green from the Ohio data-centre-tariff story as it is usually told: the 85%-for-12-years terms that dominate coverage are AEP's, they were never in force here, and nothing has replaced them here yet.
- rate_gt
- tag [verified]
- schedule GENERAL SERVICE - TRANSMISSION (RATE "GT")
- sheet Sheet 23, 1st Revised, Pages 1-3 of 3, effective 2026-03-01, filed pursuant to Orders dated 2025-11-19 and 2026-02-18 in Case No. 24-0468-EL-AIR
- source data/documents/grid/bowling-green/TE-2026-Electric-Service.pdf, 0-based PDF pages 37-39
- availability "Available to general service installations requiring Transmission Service. Transmission Service is defined in the Company's Electric Service Regulations. Choice of voltage shall be at the option of the Company."
- terms
- id GT-CONTRACT-DEMAND-60-PERCENT
- quote "The Contract Demand shall be 60% of the customer's expected, typical monthly peak load."
- why_it_matters THIS IS THE NUMBER TO PUT BESIDE THE 85%. Schedule DCT's minimum billing demand is the higher of 85% of Contract Capacity or actual usage; Rate GT's Contract Demand — the floor its billing demand cannot fall below — is SIXTY per cent of expected peak. A large load taking transmission service in Toledo Edison's territory today therefore commits to a demand floor 25 PERCENTAGE POINTS lower than the AEP data-centre floor — about 29.4% lower in relative terms — on a customer-supplied estimate of its own expected peak. That gap is the practical content of the pending case for Wood County. Note the two bases are not strictly commensurable: Rate GT's 60% applies to the customer's "expected, typical monthly peak load" while Schedule DCT's 85% applies to an agreed Contract Capacity, so the comparison is of tariff structures, not of two percentages of one quantity.
- id GT-BILLING-DEMAND
- quote "The billing demand for the month shall be the greatest of: 1. Measured Demand, being the highest thirty (30) minute integrated kVA. 2. 100.0 kVA 3. The Contract Demand"
- id GT-TERM-TWO-YEARS
- quote "Electric service hereunder shall be furnished in accordance with a written contract, which by its term shall be in full force and effect for a minimum period of two years and shall continue in force thereafter from year to year unless either party shall give to the other not less than 60 days notice in writing prior to the expiration date of any said yearly periods that the contract shall be terminated at the expiration date of said yearly period."
- why_it_matters Two years and out on 60 days' notice, against Schedule DCT's ramp-plus-eight years and an exit fee. There is no exit fee anywhere in Rate GT.
- id GT-REOPENER
- quote "If the customer's capacity or service requirements substantially increase, the Company, at its sole and exclusive judgement, may at any time require the customer to enter into a new contract for electric service."
- why_it_matters The utility's only unilateral lever in the current book, and it is a discretionary one with no stated standard, no threshold and no timetable. A tariff that gives the company "sole and exclusive judgement" to reopen is a weaker instrument than one that defines New Load quantitatively, which is what Schedule DCT does.
- id GT-RATE
- quote Distribution Charges — Service Charge: $450.00; Capacity Charge: For Each kVA of billing demand $0.1253. Transformer Charge (existing Company-owned transformation only): 13 cents per kVA of Measured Demand.
- note Distribution charges only. Generation and transmission arrive through the riders summarised on Tariff Sheet 80, and in a restructured state a large customer's generation is typically a CRES contract, not a tariff rate. Do not read $0.1253 per kVA as the cost of service to a data centre.
- electric_service_regulations_II_G
- tag [verified]
- title Large Capacity Arrangements
- sheet Sheet 4, 2nd Revised Page 3 of 23, effective 2026-03-01, Case No. 24-0468-EL-AIR
- source data/documents/grid/bowling-green/TE-2026-Electric-Service.pdf, 0-based PDF page 7
- quote "Existing customers who seek to substantially (by at least 500 kW) increase or decrease (including the effects of the addition of onsite generation) their existing capacity requirements and new customers who seek to purchase substantial capacity (at least 500 kW) from the Company shall negotiate agreements with the Company containing equitable arrangements both as to the term of the contract and other terms and conditions requiring special consideration, in recognition that serving such increases in capacity may require changes in area facilities or rearrangement of facilities owned by the Company and/or the customer. These arrangements may be subject to the approval of The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio."
- why_it_matters
- tag [inference]
- statement THIS IS THE SHEET THAT REACHES A BEHIND-THE-METER CAMPUS, AND IT IS ALREADY IN FORCE. The parenthetical is the whole point: a capacity change counts under §II.G "including the effects of the addition of onsite generation". A customer whose requirement from the utility falls by 500 kW or more BECAUSE it built its own plant is inside the clause exactly as a customer whose requirement rises is. The Apollo posture is a 350 MW addition of onsite generation beside a campus in this territory; whether §II.G has been invoked, and whether any resulting arrangement went to the Commission, is [open] and is the most concrete thing to ask for. See open_leads/SECTION-II-G-ARRANGEMENT.
- caution The clause speaks of an EXISTING customer decreasing its requirement. A greenfield campus that was never a customer arrives instead as a "new customer... who seek[s] to purchase substantial capacity", and if its purchase is standby-only the 500 kW test may or may not be met. Both readings are available on the text and neither is asserted.
- other_relevant_sheets
- tag [verified]
- entries
- Sheet 70 — Cogeneration and Small Power Producer, effective 2017-08-03
- Sheet 76 — Interconnection Tariff, effective 2016-05-06
- Sheet 130 — Commercial High Load Factor Experimental TOU, effective 2026-06-01
- Sheet 111 / 113 — Experimental Real Time Pricing / Experimental Critical Peak Pricing, both effective 2026-06-01
- note Listed because a behind-the-meter generator interconnecting at distribution voltage, or a high-load-factor customer, would touch these rather than Rate GT alone. None of them was read in full in this pass — only the Table of Contents entries. Do not cite their terms from this file.
pending_tariff
- id FIRSTENERGY-SCHEDULE-DCT
- docket
- tag [reference]
- value PUCO Case No. 26-0697-EL-ATA
- quote "26-0697-EL-ATA: In June 2026, FirstEnergy subsidiaries Ohio Edison Company, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and Toledo Edison Company jointly filed a proposal for a new Data Center Tariff (DCT)."
- source data/documents/grid/bowling-green/eei-large-load-projects-and-tariffs-july-2026.pdf, 0-based PDF page 13 (printed page 14), "Ohio" entry
- why_reference_not_verified The Edison Electric Institute is the investor-owned utilities' trade association and describes its own list as compiled "from public sources and announcements". The filing itself was NOT obtained — see blocked_routes/PUCO-DIS — so the number is corroborated by an interested but well-placed compiler and is not confirmed against the docket. It answers the issue's "docket number [open]" as far as a secondary source can, and no further. THE FIRST THING TO DO WITH BROWSER ACCESS IS CONFIRM THIS NUMBER.
- status
- tag [reference]
- value filed, pending — no order located as of 2026-08-05
- detail RTO Insider reported on 2026-05-16 under the headline "Ohio PUC Orders Separate FirstEnergy Tariff for Data Centers" that "The Ohio Public Utilities Commission has directed FirstEnergy to carve out a tariff exclusively for data centers"; the article body is paywalled and only the headline, byline (Sean Reilly), date and that one sentence were read. EnergyChoiceMatters reported the compliance filing on 2026-06-15. Which PUCO case carried the May 2026 directive was NOT established — the ordering docket and the tariff docket need not be the same, and 26-0697-EL-ATA is the latter. See open_leads/ORDERING-DOCKET.
- proposed_terms
- tag [reference]
- read_from EnergyChoiceMatters, 2026-06-15 — trade press quoting the filing, NOT the filed sheets. Every term below is therefore one remove from the instrument. Contrast the AEP Schedule DCT terms in data/extracted/grid/findlay/aep-dct-tariff-posture.yaml, which were read off P.U.C.O. No. 22 itself. DO NOT CITE THESE AS TARIFF TEXT.
- entries
- id FE-DCT-CRES-REQUIREMENT
- term "Customers receiving service under this Schedule shall select competitive service from a CRES Provider."
- significance THE TERM WITH NO AEP ANALOGUE, AND THE ONE THAT MATTERS MOST STRUCTURALLY. It would push data-centre generation supply entirely out of the standard service offer and into the competitive market. FirstEnergy's Ohio utilities are wires-only; requiring a CRES contract keeps a hyperscale load off the SSO entirely, which is a different mechanism from AEP's, where the protection runs through minimum billing demand rather than through supplier choice.
- id FE-DCT-MINIMUM-BILLING-DEMAND
- term A minimum billing demand of the higher of 85% of contract capacity or actual usage, applied to all retail charges for the customer's service voltage, including distribution and transmission.
- significance Numerically the AEP figure. Against Rate GT's 60% Contract Demand, this is the concrete change the case would make in Wood County.
- id FE-DCT-CONTRACT-CAPACITY
- term The utility and the customer would agree on an amount of monthly peak load requirements for each month ("Contract Capacity"), with service subject to suspension, on Commission approval, if the customer exceeds Contract Capacity by more than 1,000 kW.
- id FE-DCT-BEHIND-THE-METER
- term Equipment required to "instantaneously curtail load equal to or greater than the behind-the-meter generation output".
- significance
- tag [inference]
- statement THE TERM THAT WOULD REACH THIS SITE IF ANY WOULD. It is materially the same obligation AEP's sheets impose on a customer electing to net BTM output against Contract Capacity (Findlay #1464, sheets 223-6/223-7). Whether it binds a campus that takes NO tariff service at all — Apollo is barred from the PJM Transmission System by Condition 15, so there may be no Contract Capacity to net against — is exactly the question, and it is [open]. A tariff reaches a customer through a service relationship; the whole design of this campus is to not have one.
- id FE-DCT-DEFINITION
- term A data center defined as "a centralized facility used primarily or exclusively for electronic information services such as the management, storage, processing, and dissemination of electronic data and information through the use of computer systems, servers, networking equipment, and related components."
- note No cryptocurrency-mining carve-out was reported, and AEP's separate "Mobile Data Center" definition — which names crypto mining outright and carries a sworn foreign-adversary attestation (Findlay #1464) — has no reported FirstEnergy analogue. Absence in a press summary is not absence from the filing.
- id FE-DCT-OTHER
- term Collateral requirements for new load; the cost to construct incremental transmission and distribution facilities; exit fees.
- note No amounts, percentages or terms were reported for any of these three.
precedent
- aep_schedule_dct
- tag [verified]
- case PUCO Case No. 24-508-EL-ATA (rendered 24-0508-EL-ATA by PUCO and by EEI; both forms are accepted and neither is an error — AEP's own tariff sheets print 24-508-EL-ATA)
- statement The Commission's order of 2025-07-09 adopting a settlement produced Schedule DCT at P.U.C.O. No. 22, Original Sheet Nos. 223-1..223-7, effective 2025-07-23 — the 85%-of-Contract-Capacity minimum, the four-year ramp plus eight-year term, and the 36-month exit fee. Terms are transcribed off the sheets themselves at data/extracted/grid/findlay/aep-dct-tariff-posture.yaml (#1464) and are not repeated here.
- relevance_to_bowling_green
- tag [verified]
- statement NONE, DIRECTLY, AND THAT IS THE POINT. Schedule DCT is Ohio Power Company's tariff. Bowling Green is in the FirstEnergy / PJM ATSI zone — Toledo Edison's territory by its own Definition of Territory sheet — so no Wood County load has ever been subject to it. It is precedent, template and political weather, not law here.
- ohio_supreme_court_appeal
- tag [verified/open]
- case Supreme Court of Ohio, Case No. 2025-1458 — In the Matter of the Application of Ohio Power Company for New Tariffs Related to Data Centers and Mobile Data Centers
- appellant The Ohio Manufacturers' Association Energy Group
- statement OMA appealed the 2025-07-09 order in November 2025 on grounds including undue discrimination and equal protection, sufficiency of the evidence, and the specificity of the Commission's reasoning under R.C. 4903.09. The Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel filed a merit brief as intervening appellee on 2026-03-24. Full procedural detail is at data/extracted/grid/findlay/aep-dct-tariff-posture.yaml.
- disposition
- tag [open]
- checked_on 2026-08-05
- statement NO DECISION LOCATED, AND NO ORAL ARGUMENT DATE LOCATED. The case remains pending. Findlay's #1464 recorded the same state on 2026-07-31; five weeks later nothing has changed. DO NOT WRITE THAT THE TARIFF WAS UPHELD OR VACATED. If it is vacated the AEP template that FirstEnergy's filing is built on loses its footing mid-case, which is why this is a Bowling Green watch and not merely a Findlay one.
- how_it_was_checked see blocked_routes/OHIO-SUPREME-COURT-ECMS
adjacent
- amp_posture
- tag [reference]
- statement American Municipal Power — the City of Bowling Green's own wholesale supplier — DECLINED TO JOIN the AEP settlement. AMP General Counsel Lisa McAlister said AMP supported the settlement's stranded-transmission-cost protections but did not sign "in order to preserve the right to ensure that funds collected by AEP Ohio are properly attributed to transmission customers that contribute to the infrastructure caused by the data centers."
- source American Public Power Association, "Utility, Other Parties in Ohio Reach Agreement on How to Address Data Center Power Needs", 2024-10-24, publicpower.org — i.e. AMP's position is recorded at the SETTLEMENT stage (October 2024), nine months before the Commission adopted it (2025-07-09). Whether AMP's posture changed between the stipulation and the order is [open]; the trade body reporting it is public power's own, which makes it well-placed on AMP and interested on the merits.
- why_it_matters Bowling Green's supplier is, on the record, a party in interest against how Ohio allocates data-centre-driven transmission cost — while the largest data-centre load in its own city's county is being built. That is not a conflict of interest, but it is the reason the muni's institutional position on this question is already written down somewhere, and it is worth finding.
- ferc_grid_growth_ohio
- tag [reference]
- statement AMP and consumer advocates for Ohio and Maryland filed at FERC on 2026-03-27 protesting the rates proposed for GRID GROWTH OHIO — an AEP/FirstEnergy transmission venture of approximately $1.1 billion in 765 kV and 345 kV lines, driven by data centre development, in service 2032, with roughly 60% of costs reported as borne by Ohio ratepayers. Grid Growth Ohio sought a 10.8% return on equity; AMP argued that "Grid Growth's own filing indicates that following the Commission's preferred approach for establishing base return on equity produces a return on equity of 10.66%." Advocates argued the proposal lacked ratepayer protections and worked "an impermissible transfer of risk onto ratepayers."
- source Utility Dive, 2026-03-30
- docket
- tag [open]
- statement THE FERC DOCKET NUMBER WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. The reporting does not give one. This is a gap worth closing because FERC eLibrary is a scriptable, unblocked route — unlike PUCO DIS and unlike the Ohio Supreme Court's docket — and this repo already carries a FERC layer (watermark.grid.ferc, data/reference/ferc/). See open_leads/GRID-GROWTH-DOCKET.
- why_it_matters FirstEnergy is a co-venturer, so this is transmission cost landing in the ATSI zone that contains Bowling Green — the one channel through which a data-centre build elsewhere in Ohio reaches a Wood County bill regardless of who serves whom.
- hb_706
- tag [reference]
- statement Ohio HB 706 (statewide data-centre contracting terms) was recorded as in committee in this issue's 2026-07-10 research.
- freshness_warning NOT RE-CHECKED IN THIS PASS. Carried forward unrefreshed and explicitly not asserted as current. Anyone citing it must re-verify against the General Assembly's status page first.
blocked_routes
- id PUCO-DIS
- tag [verified]
- route PUCO/OPSB Docketing Information System — https://dis.puc.state.oh.us/
- status access-blocked to automated retrieval
- checked 2026-08-05
- evidence Two probes, both against the AEP data-centre case record. A plain request returned a 244-byte page reading "The requested URL was rejected. Please consult with your administrator," with support ID 5914278294328952967. The same request carrying a full desktop browser User-Agent returned the identical page with support ID 5914278294329917958. This is the third independent confirmation in this repo, after Findlay #1464 (2026-07-31) and Bowling Green #1437 (2026-08-01), and the behaviour is unchanged.
- consequence NOT OBTAINED: the FirstEnergy DCT application in 26-0697-EL-ATA and its proposed tariff sheets, the May 2026 PUCO entry directing the filing, the procedural schedule, any intervenor filings, and the AEP Schedule DCT compliance history. Every proposed term recorded above is trade-press reporting for exactly this reason, and the docket number itself rests on a trade-association compilation. NO INFERENCE IS DRAWN FROM THIS DOCKET'S SILENCE.
- what_would_resolve_it
- a browser-session capture of case 26-0697-EL-ATA
- a public-records request to the PUCO under R.C. 149.43
- FirstEnergy's own filing, if the company posts it to its Ohio tariff library
- id OHIO-SUPREME-COURT-ECMS
- tag [verified]
- route Supreme Court of Ohio, Clerk's electronic case management system — https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/#/caseinfo/2025/1458
- status not machine-readable — client-rendered, no discoverable data endpoint
- checked 2026-08-05
- evidence The case-info URL is a fragment route into a single-page application; fetching it returns a shell whose only content is the heading "Public Docket". Four candidate JSON endpoints under /Clerk/ecms/api/ were probed and all four returned IIS 404. The application bundle (scripts/dist/site.min.js, 230,544 bytes) contains the docket field names — case.CaseNumber, case.Status, docket.dateFiled, decision.disposesCase — but no absolute API host, so the service could not be located from the client.
- consequence The docket for 2025-1458 was NOT read, so "no decision located" above rests on the absence of press reporting of one, not on the court's own record. That is a weaker negative than it looks and is tagged [open] rather than [verified] for that reason. NOTE THE ASYMMETRY: individual filings ARE reachable when their document IDs are known — the OCC merit brief was read for Findlay #1464 at supremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=1000491.pdf&subdirectory=2025-1458\DocketItems. It is the docket LISTING, not the documents, that is closed.
- what_would_resolve_it
- a browser-session capture of the public docket
- the court's opinion announcements / weekly case summaries, which are static pages
- enumeration of DocketItems PDF ids under the 2025-1458 subdirectory
open_leads
- id FE-DCT-SHEETS
- statement Obtain the proposed FirstEnergy Schedule DCT sheets themselves and re-read every term above off the instrument — minimum billing demand, Contract Capacity, the CRES requirement, the behind-the-meter curtailment obligation, collateral, exit fees, and any threshold MW. The Findlay #1464 precedent is the standard: a tariff posture in this repo is read off the filed sheets or it is labelled as not having been.
- id ORDERING-DOCKET
- statement Identify the PUCO case in which the Commission directed the FirstEnergy Ohio utilities to file a data-centre tariff (reported 2026-05-16). It is not necessarily 26-0697-EL-ATA, which is the resulting tariff application. Candidate: one of the FirstEnergy proceedings settled in December 2025 and approved in 2026, or the distribution rate case 24-0468-EL-AIR under which the current sheets are filed.
- id SECTION-II-G-ARRANGEMENT
- statement Whether Electric Service Regulations §II.G ("Large Capacity Arrangements", at least 500 kW, expressly reaching capacity changes caused by "the addition of onsite generation") has been invoked for the Meta/Liames campus, and whether any resulting arrangement was submitted to the Commission. This is the one in-force sheet that plausibly reaches a behind-the-meter campus, and a Commission-approved special arrangement would be a public filing.
- id GRID-GROWTH-DOCKET
- statement Pin the FERC docket number for the Grid Growth Ohio rate filing and the 2026-03-27 protests, and pull AMP's protest. FERC eLibrary is scriptable and this repo has a FERC layer; of the four regulatory forums in this file it is the only one that is not blocked, which makes it the cheapest to close.
- id FE-DCT-VS-BTM
- statement The doctrinal question this site poses to the whole tariff debate: can a data-centre tariff reach a campus that takes no tariff service? Schedule DCT-type instruments bind through a service relationship and a Contract Capacity. Apollo's certificate forbids the PJM transmission interconnection (Condition 15) and requires Board approval before any export (Condition 16). If the answer is no, then Ohio's HB 15 self-generation pathway is not merely an alternative to the tariff — it is an exit from it, and Bowling Green is the fleet's clearest instance. Nothing here asserts that; it is the question to put to the filing when the sheets are in hand.
Where it connects
grid/bowling-green/firstenergy-dct-tariff-posture.yaml · — · grid