News Stories

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) directs Ohio’s electric distribution utilities to publish distribution hosting capacity maps on their websites by May 31, 2026.

Distribution system hosting capacity maps, a requirement of House Bill 15, will allow the public, engineers, and stakeholders to access the hosting capacity of the electric grid.

In the Finding and Order “the Commission adopts Staff’s proposed distribution system hosting capacity maps uniform reporting standards, subject to the clarifications made in this Order.”

As background, “[o]n May 15, 2025, Governor DeWine signed Substitute House Bill Number 15 (Sub. HB 15). Among other items, Sub. HB 15 adopted a new section to the Ohio Revised Code (R.C.), 4928.83. 1 Specifically, R.C. 4928.83 requires every electric distribution utility (EDU) in the state to develop and publicly share distribution system hosting capacity (DSHC) maps.  . . . . Furthermore, R.C. 4928.83 requires the Commission to establish uniform reporting standards to ensure consistency among all EDUs.”

Commission Conclusion

{¶ 29} “The Commission adopts Duke’s modification to what it has classified as the sixth uniform reporting standard, specifying hosting capacity information of an EDU’s electric distribution system. The new reporting standard will accordingly read: Be interactive, meaning the map will display the EDU’s electric distribution system hosting capacity information overlayed on a base map, with the ability to zoom in/out, pan in any direction, and/or search for a desired location.” [Emphasis added.]

{¶ 30} The Commission is also persuaded by the arguments put forth by Duke, FirstEnergy, AEP Ohio, and AES Ohio that the circuits and substations data should be reported in megawatts rather than megawatts and kilowatts to avoid redundancies and unnecessary information. In addition, the Commission agrees that system-wide updates should be limited to an annual occurrence for new loads given the infrequency of necessary information required to properly update system-wide data. The Commission therefore clarifies that the quarterly updates will include all in-queue generation exceeding one megawatt per circuit and substation as well as updated models for those circuits where there has been a major reconfiguration, with full system analyses updated annually. The updated reporting standard will remove “system-wide” and instead read “identify total available distribution hosting capacity, expressed in megawatts, for new loads.” In making this 25-765-EL-UNC -18 – determination, the Commission notes that this standard may be re-evaluated or modified at the next annual stakeholder meeting should it be determined at that time that revising this approach will yield more value from the maps. [Emphasis added.]

{¶ 31} Numerous stakeholders and EDUs advocated for the clarification that separate hosting capacity availability for DERs, expressed in megawatts, be accomplished with a separate DER specific map. The Commission finds AEP Ohio’s proposed display of information to be informative but grants flexibility in the development of each EDU’s DSHC maps which can be fine-tuned or changed as Staff and EDUs communicate and develop this process. The reporting standard is modified accordingly: Separate hosting capacity availability for distributed energy resources, expressed in megawatts. This may also be accomplished with a separate distributed energy resources specific map. [Emphasis added.]

{¶ 32} Regarding the Joint Commenters suggested “best practices,” the Commission agrees with the EDUs that these requirements are unduly burdensome and, moreover, premature. The novelty of this process requires Ohio’s EDUs to develop internal review systems as well as direct labor and investment costs toward developing the DSHC maps. The Commission recognizes the best practices implemented by other states across the country and notes that this is an evolving process. The purpose of the DSHC maps is to allow the public, engineers, and interested stakeholders access to the hosting capacity of the electric grid. We agree with AEP Ohio and AES Ohio that any updates or best practices may be contemplated the following year and discussed during the annual stakeholder meetings. We note that Joint Commenters have recognized this option as well, including the “ongoing stakeholder engagement process” offered in initial comments. (Joint Commenters Initial Comm. at 13; 4-5). The Commission does agree with Joint Commenters that another stakeholder meeting prior to the implementation date of May 31, 2026 could be beneficial given this is the first implementation of this process. Given the general support from EDUs for continued stakeholder meetings, the Commission leaves the opportunity for additional meetings to Staff’s discretion and need regarding the development and production of the DSHC maps. However, in subsequent years, the Commission believes that the annual stakeholder meetings prescribed under R.C. 4928.83(C) would serve to account for the needed updates that Joint Commenters suggest. That being said, the Commission declines to limit the scope of discussions at stakeholder meetings, as suggested by AEP Ohio in its recommendation that meetings be focused on implementing a process to perform HCA and the process to perform HCA, rather than entertain interpretations that would be unduly burdensome to EDUs. The Commission feels it counterintuitive to put such a caveat on discussions at stakeholder meetings as the intent behind such meetings is to receive relevant information, interpretations, and improvements of the data currently available from interested stakeholders including EDUs, advocacy groups, customers, and regulators. [Emphasis added.]

{¶ 33} Considering that the modified reporting standards have simplified the requirements of the EDUs, the Commission finds it unnecessary to contemplate any flexible time or delay in meeting the May 31, 2026 implementation date at this time. Should issues arise, EDUs are encouraged to communicate with Staff. Similarly, regarding sensitive receptors or single customer-service circuits or substations, the Commission grants utilities limited discretion in circuits it chooses to not disclose, subject to proprietary considerations, sensitive information, or critical infrastructure. However, this is to be construed narrowly, and EDUs will be required to file protective motions per specific circuits or substations that are not disclosed publicly on the DSHC maps. The Commission notes that EDUs have also requested the opportunity to defer costs incurred in the production of its DSHC maps, including carrying costs and cost allocation per customer classes. The Commission finds this request is outside the scope of this proceeding and therefore declines to discuss ratemaking and contemplated cost recovery mechanisms in this Finding and Order. However, the Commission notes that nothing precludes an EDU from filing an application for deferral authority should they choose. The Commission will take those applications under advisement after interested stakeholders are afforded an opportunity to opine on said application. [Emphasis added.]

{¶ 34} The Commission also agrees with Duke that Joint Commenters recommendations as it pertains to the reliability metrics contemplated for the statewide reliability maps are improper in this forum. While this proceeding’s comment period occurred prior to the final order in Case No. 25-826-EL-UNC, the comment period in that case was closed October 20, 2025. Furthermore, OEC participated in that comment period with similar recommendations that were already properly reviewed. The Commission issued its Finding and Order in that case on January 22, 2026. Accordingly, the Commission declines to review or further consider these recommendations as this is the improper forum. [Emphasis added.]

{¶ 35} Finally, to the extent that a specific recommendation has not been addressed, it has, nonetheless, been considered by the Commission and is hereby rejected. Accordingly, the Commission adopts the proposed uniform reporting standards established in the December 30, 2025 Entry, as clarified in this Finding and Order. [Emphasis added.]

Changes to Ohio Administrative Code will be submitted to the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review before becoming effective. Read more about the PUCO rulemaking process.