AEP contends the project would be a job-creator, supporting 4,000 jobs, including 113 permanent manufacturing jobs in the solar infrastructure supply chain.
But the proposal is facing headwinds. A PUCO staff member last month weighed in against the proposal.
“Staff … finds that the company has not demonstrated a need to construct any additional resources at this time,” PUCO staff utility specialist Timothy Benedict testified.
PUCO commission members are still free to reach their own conclusions.
MORE: Lessons learned: How Lordstown might benefit from Dayton's GM experience
Jonathan Lesser, a witness for the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, concurred with PUCO staff.
“AEP’s regulatory proposal transfers financial and operating risk of power plants from AEP shareholders to AEP Ohio’s captive monopoly customer,” Lesser testified, also in December. “This is contrary to the General Assembly’s plan for Ohio that, with limited exceptions, generating plants (including renewable projects) should be developed in the marketplace, without involvement of monopoly utilities and charges to their captive customers.”
MORE: Skilled workers again the No. 1 manufacturing need
The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, Ohio Coal Association, Kroger, Industrial Energy Users, IGS and Direct Energy have also recommended against the proposal.
Evidentiary testimony before the PUCO is expected to last two weeks.