Ohio Consumers' Counsel warns AEP Ohio rate increases could raise Lima bills; urges residents to attend PUCO hearings

Angela O’Brien, deputy consumers’ counsel for the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, told the Lima City Council during its meeting that AEP Ohio’s pending application at the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) could raise electric bills for local residents. O’Brien said AEP Ohio’s requested change to electric distribution rates would amount to about $4 a month for an average customer — roughly $50 a year — and that other components of electric bills (supply and transmission) are rising as well.

O’Brien said the Consumers’ Counsel has intervened in PUCO case number 25392 and is analyzing AEP’s filing. “When you put them all together it amounts to a drastic increase in your electric utility bills,” she said. She described three drivers of higher bills: rising capacity costs set through PJM auctions, increasing transmission costs tied to system upgrades, and utility investments that can push up customers’ bills.

The Consumers’ Counsel urged residents to participate in the PUCO process. O’Brien said PUCO staff typically issues a staff report about five months after a filing and that the council should expect an order in the case around January 2026 based on typical timelines. She said PUCO will schedule local public hearings in AEP service areas and OCC had filed a motion seeking at least one virtual local public hearing so people who cannot travel can still provide testimony or comments.

Councilors asked how residents can influence outcomes. O’Brien said filing comments to the PUCO docket (referencing case 25392), attending local public hearings, and contacting state legislators are practical steps. She said OCC staff can help draft resolutions or provide outreach materials and was distributing an OCC consumer alert at the meeting.

Councilor Glenn and Councilor Wilkerson pressed O’Brien on why customers bear increases while AEP reports strong profits. O’Brien said Ohio law permits investor-owned utilities to earn a reasonable return but that OCC argues consumers should not be responsible for “gold-plated” investments that exceed what is necessary for reliable service. She noted OCC has legal teams — attorneys, accountants and engineers — that review utility requests and challenge unreasonable costs at the PUCO.

O’Brien also described secondary resources OCC posts online, including information on utility assistance programs and aggregation options. She encouraged residents to scan the OCC QR code provided at the meeting or visit occ.ohio.gov for case documents and instructions on filing comments.

The council did not take a formal vote tied to the presentation. O’Brien left contact information and outreach materials and said OCC would notify the public when PUCO local hearing dates are set.

Ending — The Consumers’ Counsel emphasized that public participation in the PUCO process matters, and council members urged residents to use the available channels — local hearings, the PUCO docket, and outreach materials — to register concerns about rate impacts.