AEP Ohio customers in New Albany and Gahanna are paying more each month for electricity, and data centers that may never get built are a big reason why.

AEP Ohio, headquartered in Gahanna, expects electricity demand to nearly triple over the next decade, driven largely by data center projects, the Ohio Capital Journal reported Sept. 10. But a March 2026 filing by Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) staff found some double-counting in the utility's data center growth forecast. The Ohio Consumers' Counsel and energy consultants say the inflated projections are sticking ordinary ratepayers with the tab for grid expansions that may not be needed.

The cost pressure adds a new dimension to the data center debate already playing out in New Albany.

The numbers are already showing up on bills. In April, AEP Ohio's transmission rate jumped about $7.90 per month for a typical household using 1,000 kilowatt-hours, according to an AEP Ohio press release. The increase followed PUCO's March 18 approval of a $126.8 million boost to the utility's Basic Transmission Cost Rider (BTCR). AEP Ohio itself said data center load is a significant cause of near-term growth.

That charge is non-bypassable. Every AEP Ohio customer pays it, whether they buy power from AEP or a competitive supplier.

The cost pressure extends beyond transmission. PJM Interconnection, the regional grid operator covering 13 states, sets capacity prices that pay power plants to be available during demand spikes. Those prices have surged more than tenfold since May 2025, according to the Ohio Capital Journal, because PJM's forecasts show it lacks enough generation to meet expected data center demand.

Central Ohio ratepayers bear more of the cost than most. PUCO spokesperson Matt Schilling told the Cincinnati Enquirer in May that data center energy costs stay local. That means AEP Ohio customers in the Columbus area are hit harder by Central Ohio facilities than customers elsewhere in the state.

Ohio electricity bills rose 22% from February 2025 to February 2026, second only to Virginia, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data cited in that report.

The scale of the forecasts is itself disputed. As of February 2026, AEP Ohio's load forecast reflected signed contracts for 17.8 gigawatts of data center demand through 2035. The utility later cut its large load forecast by more than 50%, from 30 gigawatts to 13 gigawatts, after regulators approved a new large load tariff in 2025, Utility Dive reported.

"If these data centers don't show up …, you're going to pay the costs," John Seryak, CEO and founder of energy consulting firm RunnerStone, said in the Ohio Capital Journal report.

Researcher Jonathan Koomey of Koomey Analytics, speaking at the Ohio Manufacturers' Association Energy Group conference on Aug. 27, said developers often shop projects across multiple locations. Many planned facilities may never get built.

Meanwhile, billions in transmission spending face little independent review. Ohio utilities proposed at least $10 billion in supplemental transmission projects from 2017 through 2025 without PJM board approval, Cleveland.com reported. The Ohio Consumers' Counsel (OCC) filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in September 2023 asking for greater scrutiny. FERC has not ruled on it. In August 2026, the OCC asked FERC to speed up its review.

Maureen Willis, agency director for the OCC, said at the Aug. 27 manufacturers' conference that supplemental transmission projects can add up to billions of dollars and that no one in Ohio is independently examining their cost-effectiveness.

Regulators have taken some steps. On Aug. 5, PUCO ordered AEP Ohio to require 180 days' notice from data centers before they return to default electric service, with all costs assigned to the data center. PUCO Chair Jenifer French said in August that the commission is "fully committed to protecting customers from added costs related to data center buildout."

A 2025 Ohio law directs utilities and regulators to consider grid-enhancing technologies as cheaper alternatives to traditional transmission projects, but how that provision will work in practice remains unclear. FERC has set no date to rule on the OCC's pending complaint.