Power & ratepayers
Whose grid this load lands on, and what it does to the households on the same wires.
- the campus load is a screening bracket — the demand-pressure read is withheld until an instrument grounds it
Every megawatt figure about a data center sits over a denominator, and that denominator is somebody's grid. A real impact study names the grid and cites the source. It then states what the campus load does to the households on the same wires.
Whose grid this is
| Link | Identification | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Serving retail utility | Dayton Power & Light Co | [reference] |
| Holding company | The AES Corporation (AES Ohio) | [reference] |
| Balancing authority | PJM Interconnection | [reference] |
| Wholesale market (RTO/ISO) | PJM Interconnection (RTO/ISO) | [reference] |
| Retail rate regulator | Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) | [reference] |
What those systems already carry
| System | Annual load | Campus share |
|---|---|---|
| Dayton Power & Light Co | 13,818 GWh/yr | 18.65% |
| PJM Interconnection | 815,056 GWh/yr | 0.32% |
| State retail sales | 161,934 GWh/yr | 1.59% |
The disclosed campus draws ~327 MW — at a 0.9 load factor, ~2,577 GWh/yr, the
numerator of every share above. The draw is itself an [inference].
The campus against consumer prices
The demand → consumer-price read needs an instrument-grounded campus load — an air permit or a filed disclosure. This site's load is a screening bracket, so the read is withheld rather than computed off an inference — the gap panel below names the instrument that would ground it.
- Grid foundation layer (#94). The state, Dayton Power & Light Co, and PJM denominators are now all connector-sourced — Ohio retail from EIA (shared with #91), per-utility retail from the EIA-861 file, and PJM annual demand from EIA-930. The campus is a single load equal to a material fraction of its serving utility's entire retail sales. Denominator vintages differ (utility EIA-861 2024 / BA EIA-930 2024 / state EIA 2025 (1-year spread)): the EIA state seriesid route publishes ahead of the EIA-861 bulk file and the EIA-930 annual sum, so the three shares are not struck against one common year.
The cited service chain with its full citations, the cohort-price qualification, and the load report's inference chain are in the grid annex.
The demand-pressure figure above is withheld, and it should be. It is computed from a load that no instrument states — see the project chapter for why, and for the FERC accession where the real number is filed non-public. What follows is what the record does support about how this campus will be served.
The serving utility told a federal regulator, and a state one, in different words
AES Ohio — Dayton Power and Light Company — filed its Construction Service Agreement with Amazon
Data Services at FERC in April 2026 and had it accepted in June. [verified] In the same period it
was before the PUCO in case 25-0958-EL-AIR, whose stipulation the utility’s own press release
describes as recovering costs “under a new Data Center Tariff as recommended by the PUCO,” with
planned distribution rates through 2029. [reference] — that is a party describing its own filing;
the stipulation is the record and the press release is not it.
Nothing in that public material names AWS, Sidney, Shelby County, or any megawatt figure. [verified]
PUCO’s docket is an access failure, not an absence, and it has been re-tested. Both spellings
of the case number return HTTP 200 with a 244-byte body — “The requested URL was rejected” — a
WAF block, identical in shape to the one this network recorded at Findlay. Re-run on 2026-08-13
over both HTTP/2 and HTTP/1.1: identical both ways. The stipulation text, the tariff sheets,
the service list and any AWS-specific service agreement are all behind it. [open] ⚠️ Do not
fingerprint the block with the “support ID” in its body — it is issued per request.
The asymmetry worth naming
The water and wastewater agreement contains a clause the electric side has no counterpart to. Under Resolution 26-26rec , §2.1:
During the Term of this Agreement, Provider shall not take steps to create a separate class of water or sewer rates for data centers or similar high level, but highly variable, users of water and sewer services.
For ten years the City has contracted away its ability to put this customer, or any customer like
it, into its own municipal rate class. [verified]
In the same window, on the electric side of the same campus, the serving utility is moving in the
opposite direction — toward a data-center tariff class created through the PUCO. [reference]
[inference], and labelled: these are different utilities, different regulators and different
statutes, and neither instrument mentions the other. What is [verified] is the pair of facts. What
this study will not assert is a link between them.
The two utilities serving one campus are on opposite trajectories about whether a data center is its own class of customer — and only one of those trajectories was decided by a body Sidney’s voters elect.
What the grid backdrop can and cannot carry
The denominators in this chapter are connector-sourced and real: the state retail figure from EIA,
the utility and PJM figures from their own reporting. The numerator is the screening bracket, so
the campus-share percentage above is [inference] twice over — once for the bracket and once for
the division.
Read it as an order of magnitude that says this is a material fraction of a utility’s load, and
not as a number. It becomes a real figure the day ER26-2303’s load table is public, or an air PTI
names the generator bank it is sized against — and the air application filed on 2026-08-03 does not
even say whether the source is major or minor. [verified]
The record behind this chapter
What this chapter stands on: the records it reads, the inputs its modeled figures rest
on, and the reference data behind its baselines — the same pages the record screens
serve, not a second copy. A figure the record does not support stays [open] and links nothing.
- Grid & consumer energy (US EIA)Reference dataset