News Stories

On July 22, 2026  the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio adopts a finding and order regarding proposed amendments to the standard filing requirements in Ohio Adm. Code 4901-7-01.

The Commission initiated this docket to review what modifications to the standard filing requirements for rate increases in Ohio Adm.Code 4901-7-01 will be necessary given the legislative changes.

Among other items, Sub. HB 15 adopted various changes to the law governing rate increases with respect to utility property, regarding how it is reported to the Commission, valued, determined to be used and useful, and regarding its valuation effect on rate determinations. R.C. Furthermore, changes within Sub. HB 15 will permit electric light companies to utilize forecasted test periods that will propose base rate changes for three consecutive 12-month periods, with each 12-month period subject to a true-up, as an alternative for determining utility revenue and expenses in a rate increase application. Sub. HB 15 also modified certain deadlines for rate case applications filed after the legislation’s effective date.

Overview of Comments and Commission Conclusions

 Additional Schedule for Project Completion Verification – “OCC further proposes that the SFRs should include a project completion verification schedule that would remove from rate base a project that is not physically in service by the true-up date.” . . . “Initially we note that under TYRPs, rates will be based on forecasts. As such, there would be no way for the Commission to “verify” that a certain project is used and useful in the future. Instead, during the true-up cases, we will review whether the applicant’s projects are used and useful, and will make adjustments if needed, as compared to the applicant’s forecasts. Thus, we reject OCC’s proposed “project completion verification” schedule.”

 Pre-Staff Report – We reject RESA’s proposed “pre-Staff Report” process. This proposal would complicate the rate case process and create additional administrative burdens for something intervenors to these proceedings are already able to do. If an intervening party has a tariff proposal they wish to share, they are free to do so without the need for it to be codified.

Review of Stale Tariff Provisions – “We agree with several commenters that imposing an affirmative requirement to review tariff provisions is unnecessary. If an interested party has concerns with a particular tariff provision, there are better forums for those issues to be raised, such as a complaint proceeding filed under R.C. 4905.26. Thus, we reject RESA’s proposed requirement for review of tariff provisions in the SFRs.”