To enact sections 4908.01, 4908.02, 4908.021, 4908.022, 4908.023, 4908.03, 4908.031, 4908.032, 4908.033, 4908.034, 4908.04, 4908.041, 4908.042, 4908.05, 4908.051, 4908.052, 4908.053, and 4908.06 of the Revised Code to require the Public Utility Commission's approval of agreements to interconnect data centers to the electrical grid.
SB381 would create a new regulatory framework for data centers seeking to connect to Ohio’s electric grid. It defines “data center” broadly to include facilities used for electronic information services, including cryptocurrency mining, with a monthly maximum demand above 25,000 kilowatt hours, and requires those facilities to obtain Public Utilities Commission approval before formally applying for interconnection service with an electric utility or transmission owner.
The bill directs the Commission to hire an independent entity to forecast the proposed data center’s effects on electric rates, grid resiliency, resource adequacy, transmission constraints, outage risk, and projected demand over five- and ten-year periods. The applicant must pay the full cost of that forecast, and the Commission may charge an application fee. The Commission must then decide whether the project is in the public interest and whether it would materially degrade grid reliability or materially increase residential electric rates. Depending on that review, the Commission may approve, deny, or conditionally approve the project, and any final interconnection agreement must also be submitted to and approved by the Commission before it can be executed.
If enacted, the bill would add a new chapter of the Revised Code governing data center interconnection approvals and would give the Public Utilities Commission direct oversight over large data center hookups to the electric grid. It would shift the approval process from a utility-led interconnection arrangement to a state-regulated process that can block or condition projects based on grid reliability and residential rate impacts. The bill also requires data center owners to bear the full cost of forecast studies and any infrastructure changes needed to connect the facility or preserve grid reliability, affecting data center developers, electric distribution utilities, transmission owners, and potentially regional grid planning.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer-protection and grid-reliability bill, with supporters emphasizing fairness, public interest review, and shielding residential customers from rate increases caused by large power users. The absence of recorded committee testimony or votes means there is no documented public debate in the provided materials, but the structure and title suggest an intent to respond to concerns about rapid data center growth, electricity demand, and cost allocation. Overall, the bill’s tone is precautionary and regulatory rather than promotional of data center development.
The main points of contention are likely to be whether the Public Utilities Commission should have veto power over data center interconnection agreements, how “material” harm to reliability or residential rates should be defined, and whether the bill creates a burdensome or uncertain approval process for new investment. Data center operators may object to mandatory pre-approval, independent forecasting, and the requirement that they pay all study and infrastructure costs, while consumer advocates and grid reliability proponents may support those provisions as necessary to protect ratepayers and system stability. Another likely issue is the bill’s broad definition of data center, which explicitly includes cryptocurrency mining and portable or distributable load facilities.