|
|
|
|
|
PUC Denies Changes To Rate Case Filing Requirements Sought By Retail Suppliers
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The PUC of Ohio has adopted new rules governing the standard filing requirements for electric and natural gas distribution rates cases and, in doing so, denied proposals from the Retail Energy Supply Association concerning the rate case process
Under PUCO precedent, if a utility does not propose a change in an existing tariff as part of a rate case, then the utility is not required to provide evidentiary support for the tariff (or the amount of an existing charge under the tariff). Such precedent has, in prior rate cases, stymied consideration and review of utility tariffs which impose charges and other obligations on retail suppliers, to the extent the utility does not propose any change to the existing tariff in the rate application
RESA had proposed that PUCO should require utilities, in rate case applications, to affirmatively support
any charges imposed on retail suppliers that have not been substantively reviewed in more than ten years
RESA had said that, "To facilitate just and reasonable rates, the Commission should adopt a rebuttable
presumption that any supplier charge in effect for ten years or more without substantive
review must be supported with an updated evidentiary justification in the utility’s next rate
case."
However, PUCO said that imposing an affirmative
requirement to review existing tariff provisions, which are not proposed to be changed, 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," PUCO said
RESA had also proposed that PUCO implement a "pre-Staff Report" process for rate case intervenors to raise objections with a utility's application prior to the PUCO Staff report
RESA explained that, currently, PUCO's rate case process requires the development of a PUCO Staff report. Only after such Staff report is published do intervenors provide objections to the Staff report to address the following: (1) tariff issues affirmatively proposed by the utility and addressed by
Staff, (2) tariff issues raised by Staff, and (3) tariff issues that Staff failed to address and that
an intervenor intends to pursue in the proceeding.
RESA noted that, under this process, objections to the Staff report,
especially regarding new issues, come many months into the case, "at a point in time when
the Commission’s rules do not permit additional discovery."
RESA had suggested that PUCO could require parties, within 90 days after a rate application is
found complete, to submit a Statement of Issues identifying specific tariff provisions or issues
that a party intends to contest. "The filing would serve as an early notice mechanism to place
tariff-related concerns on the record while Staff’s investigation is ongoing," RESA had said
PUCO rejected this "pre-Staff Report" proposal from RESA, with PUCO stating, "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," PUCO said
Case 25-815-AU-ORD, 25-0815-AU-ORD
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
July 22, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Manager, Product I - VXRetail (Retail Energy)
• Refreshed 5/27/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|
|