News Stories

Parties filed reply comments with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) on the standard filing requirements for utility rate increases. As background, PUCO initiated this docket as part of its implementation of Sub. HB 15. The scope of this proceeding is to review what modifications to the standard filing requirements for rate increases will be necessary in light of the legislative mandates of the bill.

Below are highlights from some of parties reply comments in this matter.

OMAEG – As discussed in OMAEG’s, the Ohio Energy Leadership Council’s (OELC), the Ohio Energy Group’s (OEG), Nucor Steel Marion, Inc.’s (Nucor), and the Ohio Power Company’s (AEP) initial comments, the proposed definition of “energy-intensive customer” is unreasonably narrow to the point of being discriminatory and threatens to undercut the benefits provided by the programs set forth in R.C. 4909.192 and as envisioned by HB 15.

“In short, the proposed definition of “energy-intensive customer” would unreasonably restrict participation in interruptible and economic development programs under R.C. 4909.192, and result in the exclusion of numerous currently participating customers (including members of OMAEG, OELC, and OEG). Such programs have provided well-documented benefits to all Ohio customers, and restricting participation in both current and future programs (AES, for example, has proposed a new interruptible rate program as part of its pending rate case application) would ultimately harm reliability in Ohio by preventing numerous large load customers from participating in programs that incentivize them to curtail their load during peak hours, and to take actions that further economic development in the State. The plain text of the statute states that R.C. 4909.192 programs must be nondiscriminatory and available to all energy-intensive customers. Therefore, any definition of energy-intensive customer should be inclusive, not exclusive. As such, OMAEG urges the Commission to reject the proposed definition of “energy intensive customer” and instead adopt the following definition, which provides for a much broader and inclusive definition of “energy-intensive customer” and thus better reflects the intent of the statute.

“The Commission Should Reject Various Utilities’ Recommendations to Eliminate and/or Weaken Proposed Forecasting Data Requirements.

As conceded by Duke Energy Ohio (Duke), “All forecasts are inherently inaccurate.”24 In part due to this inherent inaccuracy, even more so than traditional rate plans, multi-year rate plans with forecasted test years incentivize utilities to inflate their projected expenses while at the same time underestimating their projected revenues in order to increase the amounts collected from customers. Therefore, it is imperative that utilities proposing multi-year rate plans provide as much information as possible so that Commission Staff and intervenors can examine and analyze the utility’s projections.”

OELC, OEG and Nucor –  The draft rules in the Commission’s December 3, 2025 entry in this matter contained the following proposed definition of “energy-intensive customer:”

For purposes of R.C. 4909.192(A), an “energy-intensive” customer is one with a contract capacity greater than 25 MW at a single location and can demonstrate that the cost of electric power is at least 20% of the customer’s annual operating cost.”

“On January 23, 2026, OELC, OEG and Nucor separately filed initial comments addressing the PUCO’s proposed definition of “energy-intensive customer,” and expressed their concerns related to that definition.

Shortly after those initial comments were filed, OELC, OEG and Nucor began working on a definition of “energy-intensive customer” that would resolve their concerns. As a result of those conversations, OELC, OEG, and Nucor have agreed to support the following alternative definition of “energy-intensive customer:”

For purposes of R.C. 4909.192(A), an “energy-intensive customer” is one that meets any one of the following criteria: (i) the customer has a billing demand greater than 25 MW at a single location, (ii) the customer self-assesses the kWh tax under section 5727.81 of the Revised Code, or (iii) the customer has a peak demand of greater than 1 MW and has a demonstrated ability to curtail or self generate over 70% of its monthly peak electricity demand within 120 minutes.

This OELC/OEG/Nucor definition incorporates elements of the definitions proposed by OELC, OEG, and Nucor in their initial comments and would strike a reasonable balance between a definition that is too broad and one that is too narrow. As a result, the joint definition would better reflect the intent of the statute than the definition included in the draft rules and would ensure that the important reliability and economic development benefits the legislature sought to promote can be realized.”

Ohio Power  – “The Commission should reject RESA’s proposal to require affirmative support for longstanding tariff provisions. RESA urges the Commission to require utilities to provide affirmative support for supplier tariff provisions that are older than 10 years. (RESA Init. Comments at 6-8.) The age of a tariff provision has no statutory relevance to the Commission’s evaluation of a TYRP application, and requiring affirmative support on that basis would improperly impose a new burden of proof on utilities with respect to existing Commission-approved tariffs, expanding TYRP proceedings beyond their intended scope.”

“Nothing in House Bill 15 or the statutes governing TYRPs makes the age of a tariff provision relevant to whether forecasted costs, proposed rates, or rate mechanisms are just and reasonable. TYRP proceedings are designed to evaluate forecasted revenues, expenses, rate base, and rate design over a multi-year period—not to reopen, as a matter of course, every legacy tariff provision that has previously been reviewed and approved by the Commission. Conditioning filing obligations or evidentiary burdens on the vintage of a tariff provision would introduce an arbitrary criterion untethered to any statutory standard.

RESA’s proposal would also impose a new and unwarranted burden of proof on utilities to re-justify Commission-approved tariff provisions absent any showing of defect, changed circumstances, or material impact on the TYRP filing.”

Duke commented that the PUCO should reject Nationwide Energy Partners’ proposal to expand the standard filing requirements to mandate detailed disclosures for all distribution plant transfers.

See all comments at docket link.