Industry leaders say Ohio can meet rising data‑center demand but call for transparency and grid upgrades

At a Columbus Metropolitan Club forum in Columbus, industry and policy experts said Ohio must pair market signals with clearer transmission information and targeted grid upgrades to meet rising electricity demand from hyperscale data centers and manufacturing.

Panelists said Ohio’s existing competitive market structure and regional transmission organization membership give the state tools to attract new generation and private investment, but they urged more transparency so customers and developers can identify locations where the grid can serve large new loads without long waits for costly upgrades. "Customers are paying 300% more in transmission charges per power bill than they were in the baseline year of 02/2016," said Bridal Pettway, construction executive with Arch Key Solutions, calling for clearer evidence that customers get commensurate benefits from those charges. Ryan Augsberger, president of the Ohio Manufacturers Association, said that transparency is needed so economic developers and businesses can know "where the grid is ready for energy intensive businesses."

Why it matters: Central Ohio has become a major data‑center hub in recent years, and panelists said that rapid growth tied to artificial intelligence and cloud services has changed demand patterns. "We are a number 3 location in the country for installed operational data center capacity," Kenny McDonald, president and CEO of 1 Columbus, said of Central Ohio’s recent gains. Panelists repeatedly emphasized that large data‑center requests — occasionally a gigawatt or more — require planning that accounts for whether multiple site proposals are being counted against the same transmission capability.

Panelists representing competitive generators and power suppliers said competitive markets keep investment risk off captive customers by letting investors bear the cost of new generation. "If we make a bad investment, you know who loses the money? We do," Todd Schnitzler, president and CEO of the Electric Power Supply Association, said, arguing that privately financed generation avoids non‑bypassable charges that would otherwise be passed to utility customers. Schnitzler added that natural gas facilities remain the fastest to deploy for short‑term reliability needs, while acknowledging longer‑term options such as storage and small modular nuclear reactors could be part of the mix.

Multiple speakers flagged another planning challenge: developers and utilities commonly plan as if each prospective hyperscaler will win a site, so the same prospective load can be counted several times in forecasts. That can lead to overbuilding or poorly timed investment, panelists said. "You're gonna build out infrastructure for 6,000 megawatts when a thousand is all that needed," Schnitzler warned as a hypothetical example of double‑counting proposals.

Policy developments in the Ohio General Assembly also drew attention. Panelists said recently proposed bills aim to increase utility transparency and require more frequent reviews of utilities’ costs and investments; they described those reforms as a step toward giving regulators and customers more visibility into how wires and upgrades are being paid for. At the same time, some panelists urged caution about proposals that would accelerate approvals for certain power‑plant projects without adequate time for technical review and public participation.

The forum highlighted a mix of short‑term needs (identifying where the grid can accept new load now and adding wires where cost‑effective) and longer‑term choices about generation mix and market rules. Panelists generally favored keeping the competitive framework while using targeted policy changes to improve information and to ensure that customers are not saddled with avoidable long‑term charges for speculative infrastructure.

Looking ahead, panelists said the likely path combines private investment in generation, strengthened transmission and distribution planning by utilities, and improved demand‑side programs. "Let's get some additional transparency. Let's let market forces make the decisions," Pettway said. "Investors get to make those decisions on where to invest, not captive customers."