News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
Utility Delivers Strong Rebuke to Commissioner’s Statement in Rate Case
Utility argues statement violates due process rights and presents other harmful implications
On August 9, 2026 Pepco filed a response to Commissioner Beverly’s statement contending that the statement: (1) “contradicts and threatens reversal of the Commission Orders establishing interim rates during the remand proceeding”; (2) “deprives Pepco of due process by opining on a predetermined outcome to dismiss the Application”; (3) “improperly imposes new and/or additional requirements on the MRP filing”; (4) “predetermines his decision on this matter, prior to the conclusion of the DC Court of Appeals (the “Court”)-ordered direction to hold an evidentiary hearing”; and (5) “ignores Pepco’s traditional test year filing.”
As previously reported, in his statement, Commissioner Beverly sets forth his opinions as follows:
- The only valid tariff is the one in effect on December 31, 2024, and customers who were billed above that rate starting on January 1, 2025, are entitled to a refund or credit up until the majority set an interim rate on May 8, 2026.2
- The Application on its face must satisfy the oversight responsibilities of the Commission under D.C. Code § 34-11063 and D.C. Code § 34-11164 – statutory provisions that have not previously been applied to the Application or case.5
- The Application does not clearly identify or explain how the proposed MRP satisfies each of the ten framework principles established in Order No. 20273, nor how it will enable the Commission to reconcile actual spending with projected spending.
- The parties remain free to settle this matter to achieve a faster resolution than may be available through litigation.7 For these reasons, Commissioner Beverly states that he is “strongly disinclined to do anything other than dismiss an application that’s deficient on its face.
Also, on August 9, 2026 OPC, District of Columbia Government, and Apartment and Office Building Association filed a joint motion to modify procedural schedule.
In he parties said that: (1) “To ensure accuracy, review of the most relevant and available data, such as the 2026 actuals, is necessary,” and these will be available by the time submission and review of the CY 2026 projections [would] begin or be complete,” given the late date of initial hearings; and (2) Proposed that: (i) “a single hearing be held to adjudicate CYs 2025-2026”; and (ii) “this hearing be held after Pepco files its actuals for CY 2026 with supporting testimony and parties have the opportunity to conduct discovery and file testimony in response.”
Previously on August 4, 2026 Pepco filed remand rebuttal testimony.
