The current budget bill (HB 59) proposes adding the following language in R.C. 4905.31: “(2) During the period beginning on the effective date of this amendment and ending on January 1, 2018, the commission may approve any application for, or modification or extension of, a schedule or arrangement that provides for a device described in division (E)(1)(a) of this section that recovers costs from retail electric service customers in this state. The schedule or arrangement may continue in effect after that ending date for any period approved by the commission.”

If enacted, this language would allow the PUCO to approve and apply reasonable arrangements across all ratepayers in the state.  This is different than the existing structure, as described above, in which reasonable rates are applied to ratepayers in a specific utility’s territory.

The benefit of applying reasonable arrangements across the state to all electric ratepayers is that ratepayers in a particular territory would not have to carry the entire burden of funding a reasonable arrangement (i.e. ratepayers in AEP-Ohio’s service territory would pay less toward delta revenues for Ormet’s reasonable arrangement because all ratepayers across the state would contribute, rather than just ratepayers in AEP-Ohio’s territory).  While the detriment of applying reasonable arrangements to all electric ratepayers across the state is that many ratepayers would essentially be subsidizing businesses in which they do not receive a direct benefit (i.e. ratepayers in Cincinnati, which is Duke’s service territory, paying towards the delta revenue for Ormet’s reasonable arrangement; this would be a direct benefit to Hannibal, Ohio, but not ratepayers in Cincinnati).