|
|
|
|
|
Alleged Utility Employee Allegedly Sent Email To Data Center Customer Offering To Facilitate Intro To Affiliated Retail Supplier
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
An "employee" alleged to be responding to interconnection questions from a prospective data center customer on behalf of AEP Ohio allegedly offered, in an email addressing such interconnection questions, to facilitate a conversation between the customer and AEP Energy
The alleged email, a redacted copy of which was produced in testimony in the PUC of Ohio proceeding addressing AEP Ohio's proposed data center tariff (Case No. 24-508-EL-ATA), is alleged by the Retail Energy Supply Association to be from an, "AEP Ohio employee[] working on regulated distribution service interconnection matters."
The email itself was filed by the Ohio Blockchain Council in the data center tariff proceeding, as part of a chain of correspondence included in the Ohio Blockchain Council's testimony as an exhibit identified as "Ohio Power Emails". EnergyChoiceMatters stresses that while the emails were filed by Ohio Blockchain Council, Ohio Blockchain Council is not itself making any allegations concerning any competitive issues raised by other parties based on such emails
EnergyChoiceMatters also stresses that personally identifiable information concerning the alleged employee, including title and/or position, were redacted, and as such the specific nature of the alleged employee's status at AEP Ohio (Ohio Power) or another AEP subsidiary, and whether their function is on an "employee" basis or another basis, is unknown, and such does not appear to have been addressed at length by parties (it is unclear if such issue was raised in live testimony in the data center tariff proceeding, but such specifics do not appear to have generated any attention in briefs)
The alleged email from the alleged AEP Ohio employee, which is addressed to a representative of Bitdeer, a blockchain and high-performance computing company, addresses several interconnection-related questions.
However, the alleged email from the alleged AEP Ohio employee states in part: "I don't think we've discussed AEP Energy, but they are AEP's deregulated affiliate and one potential option for
Bitdeer in securing market generation. You're not under any obligation to work with them as an AEP Ohio customer,
but I'd be happy to facilitate a conversation with them if you would like."
In a separate proceeding, relating to consideration of AEP Ohio's application to own and operate a fuel cell generation system at an Amazon data center (Case No. 25-0133-EL-AEC, details here), RESA alleged, citing the alleged email described above, "evidence of AEP Ohio’s undue
preference for its affiliates was introduced into the record in that case [the data center tariff case]. That evidence, an
email exchange between AEP Ohio and a data center looking to interconnect with AEP
Ohio included the regulated operations employee, in the same email as regulated
interconnection discussion, referring customers to AEP Ohio’s affiliate CRES provider."
RESA further alleged, "As evidenced in the data center case, AEP Ohio has utilized
distribution service employees to market its unregulated products and services to
customers with information and access not provided to competitive market participants."
RESA further alleged, "An exhibit
in the Data Center Case proceeding reveals AEP Ohio employees working on regulated distribution service interconnection matters referring data center customers to their
competitive market affiliate and offering to facilitate that meeting."
RESA alleged, "This recommendation comes in an email exchange, all included in the exhibit,
discussing issues associated with a customer receipt of noncompetitive distribution
service from AEP Ohio. The email exchange discusses interconnection issues and the
process and timelines for the customer to sign service agreements with AEP Ohio for
noncompetitive distribution service."
"This email alone should warrant further investigation
by the Commission," RESA said
In addition to concerns about preferential treatment as it relates to retail supply, RESA also more broadly raised concerns about the potential for AEP Ohio, being in possession of non-public data concerning its transmission system and new loads, to potentially generate leads for its non-utility business or affiliated businesses, or third-parties with which the utility may partner, based on such non-public transmission or load information, or to potentially steer customers, seeking to interconnect and facing transmission constraints, towards its non-utility business or affiliated businesses, or third-parties with which the utility may partner, for services such as behind-the-meter generation or other solutions to remediate otherwise required transmission upgrades or payments that the customer may otherwise face in order to interconnect
RESA alleged that AEP Ohio was aware of potential large loads seeking to interconnect while at the same time, in public filings, forecasting negligible load growth, which RESA called a "delay" in sharing such load growth information
RESA alleged, "In April 2023, AEP Ohio’s 10-year long-term forecast Report ('LTFR') showed negligible
load growth out 10 years for both the AEP Ohio footprint as well as the entire AEP
Transmission zone covering Ohio and several other states."
However, RESA said that this April 2023 forecast of negligible load growth was filed one month after, as alleged by RESA, "AEP Ohio unilaterally issued a nonpublic moratorium against signing new
service agreements with data centers interested in locating in Central Ohio," in March 2023.
RESA argued that, "AEP Ohio’s delay in sharing the data center load and
foray into the competitive market with the fuel cell deal with [a third party] also warrants
review to determine if AEP Ohio was providing undue preference and advantage to its
affiliates involved in this deal and its proposed internal competitive line of business."
RESA said that the alleged email cited above, as well as the non-public load growth issue, warrant rejection of AEP Ohio's fuel cell system applications, or, alternatively, require that PUCO must comprehensively review the applications to ensure compliance with the utility's corporate separation plan and ensure no anti-competitive behavior is permitted
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
March 5, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
|
|
|
|
|