Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multiyear Rate Making topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel holds fourth hearing on SB103 to extend multiyear rate-making to gas, water and wastewater; utilities and consumer advocates split
Summary
Substitute Senate Bill 103 would let natural gas, water and wastewater utilities elect multiyear (up to three-year) rate plans similar to House Bill 15 for electric utilities. Utilities told the committee the change reduces regulatory lag and aids investment; consumer and manufacturing representatives warned it could allow utilities to 'double-dip' with riders and called for transparency and guardrails.
The Senate Public Utilities Committee held the fourth hearing on substitute Senate Bill 103, which would extend concepts from House Bill 15 to natural gas, water and wastewater utilities by allowing optional multiyear rate-making and a streamlined process for certain large-load contracts.
Utility and industry witnesses said the substitute brings parity and modernization. Joe Clark of Columbia Gas told the committee Columbia serves about 1,500,000 customers across 61 of Ohio's 88 counties and said SB103 would "reduce regulatory lag, improve cash flow and enhance competitiveness" by adopting the multiyear rate concepts used in House Bill 15. He and other utility witnesses framed the change as a tool to make timely infrastructure investment less costly and to harmonize rules across energy sectors.
Duke Energy's witness said the bill mirrors reforms already in force for electric utilities and argued multiyear plans provide transparency, predictability and more frequent review of investments. Proponents emphasized optionality for smaller utilities and carve-outs for federally required safety-related expenditures.
Opponents said the substitute leaves important protections out of the bill. Maureen Willis, director of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, said SB103 "still tilts too heavily in favor of utilities" and urged a trade-off similar to the electric reforms: if utilities get multiyear plans they should give up riders that recover costs outside full rate cases. Willis called for ending duplicative riders, reforming the infrastructure development rider she described as regressive, and requiring public reporting of infrastructure charges so regulators and customers can see how much is already collected.
Kim Boiko of the Ohio Manufacturers Association urged additional safeguards and criticized forecasting processes, citing commission filings that showed at least one utility forecast was off by about 25 percent and arguing that inaccurate forecasts can lead to higher rates. David Proania, representing the Ohio Energy Leadership Council, suggested an amendment preventing utilities from using forecasted three-year rate cases for any period already covered by an alternative rate plan unless they first amend the alternative plan at the PUCO—a proposal aimed at preventing overlapping charges for the same investments.
Witnesses also debated large-load arrangements and negotiated contracts. Proponents said expedited approval for special contracts can support economic development; opponents warned such deals can shift costs to other customers if revenues or costs from those arrangements are not transparently included in rate cases.
The committee adopted a working substitute document and heard multiple proponent and opponent witnesses; there were no final votes on the underlying bill during this session. The hearing concluded after written proponent testimony from several business groups was noted and the committee adjourned.
