News Stories

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) issues a Finding & Order adopting Staff’s recommendation to make no changes to Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-28, regarding net metering standards.

As previously reported, the Commission initiated this proceeding to conduct its mandated five-year review of Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-28, pursuant to R.C. 111.15 and R.C. 106.03.

A workshop was conducted on May 20, 2025, to allow stakeholders to propose revisions to Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-28 for the Commission’s consideration. While representatives of several interested stakeholders attended the workshop, no comments were offered. Subsequentially Staff evaluated Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-28 and, following its review, proposed no changes.

On November 5, 2025, the Commission issued an Entry seeking comments on the proposal of no changes to Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-28 Initial and reply comments were due by November 28, 2025, and December 12, 2025, respectively.

Initial comments were filed on November 26, 2025, by Ohio Power Company (AEP Ohio); and on November 28, 2025, by Solar United Neighbors (SUN) and Interstate Gas Supply, LLC (IGS). Reply comments were filed on December 12, 2025, by AEP Ohio, Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (OCC), Retail Energy Supply Association (RESA), IGS, Citizens Utility Board of Ohio (CUB Ohio), and jointly by Ohio Environmental Council (OEC) and Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC).

Also as reported previously, most parties with the exception of AEP Ohio recommended that no changes to the existing rule are not needed at this time.  

In initial and reply comments AEP Ohio argued that the current effective net metering standards conflict with the authorizing statute, R.C. 4928.67. According to AEP Ohio, the statute only prohibits the Commission from requiring electric distribution utilities (EDUs) to offer net metering to shopping customers. The company’s analysis of the language of R.C. 4928.67 leads to its conclusion that net metering only applies to standard service customers, since a competitive retail electric services (CRES) provider, not a utility, “supplies” electricity to shopping customers. For shopping customers, AEP Ohio argues, the CRES provider supplies electricity and the utility delivers it.

AEP Ohio also challenged the existing language of Ohio Adm.Code 4901-1:10-28 as unlawful.

In reply comments most parties summarily rejected AEP Ohio’s contentions position and proposals.  

In its final order the Commission ultimately ruled:

{¶ 21}  “The current net metering standards were exhaustively litigated and considered in the Net Metering Rules Case, lawfully enacted after six Entries on Rehearing, and are properly in effect today. Regarding the specific issue raised by AEP Ohio – that R.C. 4928.67 does not contemplate an EDU extending net metering to shopping customer generators – the Commission explicitly addressed the matter in the Net Metering Rules Case. There, upon consideration of IGS’s argument that net metering should apply to all customer-generators, we accepted the argument and determined the following: 

Although, in the long-term, net metering service should be a competitive retail electric service delivered to shopping customers by their CRES providers, we agree that further deployment of advanced meters and improvements to the EDU’s billing systems are necessary before the EDU net metering tariffs can be limited to SSO customers. We will continue to explore and develop the question of when and how to transition net metering service to a competitive service through our . . . initiative. Further, we will consider a waiver of this rule, on a case-by-case basis, for any EDU that can demonstrate full deployment of appropriate advanced meters in its service territory and demonstrate that its billing systems are fully compatible with net metering service provided by CRES providers.”

{¶ 20} “Furthermore, while we appreciate AEP Ohio’s concerns about customer generators not paying their “fair share” for distribution costs, we agree with several commenters that AEP Ohio’s comments do not provide the detail and actual data necessary to warrant a change in the billing structure for customer-generators at this time. The existing net metering framework in Ohio continues to promote various goals of this Commission, such as the mitigation of peak demand, reduced line losses, deferred infrastructure upgrades, and enhanced resilience and price stability, and this, at the very least, complicates AEP Ohio’s contention that the existing framework somehow creates a burden to the distribution utility.”

{¶ 21} “For these reasons, we adopt Staff’s recommendation and determine that Ohio Adm.Code 4901:10-28 should be adopted with no changes at this time. However, we will remain responsive to any demonstration that the current framework does not adequately capture and/or allocate a customer-generator’s “fair share” of distribution costs.

25-0349
(Review of 4901:1-10- 28 Regarding Net Metering Standards)