The Ohio Supreme Court is weighing whether Duke Energy can make customers pay for a roughly $14 million calculation mistake, a move that would stack on top of a 2022 rate agreement and nudge the total consumer charge toward $37 million. The state’s consumer advocate is fighting the plan, arguing that a math error in Duke’s books should not turn into a higher bill in Cincinnati living rooms.
The Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel says the dispute tracks back to a settlement that allowed Duke and 15 partners to recover about $23 million through an electric security plan. An audit later found that Duke had under-collected roughly $14 million because it plugged in the wrong accumulated deferred income tax, or ADIT, figure. OCC argues that extra $14 million was added after the fact and that residents should not be drafted to fix a company miscalculation. The agency pushed the case from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to the state’s high court, arguing that the adjustment amounts to retroactive ratemaking, according to the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel.
What the commission approved
Staff at the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and Duke worked out a settlement that corrected the ADIT calculation by tweaking the distribution capital investment rider, and the commission signed off in January 2025. Regulators say that rider is separate from Duke’s base distribution rates and can be periodically true-up, so fixing the math there does not cross the legal line into retroactive ratemaking. Those technical findings and the commission’s reasoning are laid out in a Supreme Court oral-argument preview from Court News Ohio.
Where the $14 million shows up
Duke’s own financial reporting shows the issue moving into its regulated books after PUCO acted. A 2023 SEC filing notes that the PUCO decision produced roughly $14 million in regulated electric revenue and that rates were revised effective Sept. 1, 2023. In other words, the company recorded the corrected amounts in its financial statements while the consumer advocate insists customers should not be on the hook for a corporate math blunder. The accounting line appears in Duke’s 2023 quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Supreme Court hearing and the arguments
The Ohio Consumers’ Counsel told the Supreme Court on Feb. 11 that letting Duke recover money it under-collected because of its own mistake is exactly the kind of retroactive ratemaking state law forbids. “That’s what we consider to be retroactive ratemaking,” OCC attorney Jon Blackwood said in documents filed with the court. The oral argument is available on the state’s public stream and was summarized by local reporters; residents can watch the hearing video on The Ohio Channel or read coverage from CityBeat.
Precedent and what a ruling could mean
The fight is bigger than this one rider. In recent years, Ohio’s high court has handed consumer advocates a string of wins that forced PUCO to revisit and, at times, order refunds of millions of dollars in charges. Those rulings are a big part of why OCC took this dispute upstairs to the Supreme Court and why the agency says the outcome could reset how the commission handles similar rider adjustments going forward. For background on those earlier consumer victories and the push for refunds, see the summary of prior cases from the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel.
What to watch next
The Supreme Court’s decision could take months, and a ruling that favors consumers would likely send the case back to PUCO for more review or other remedies. The case is listed on the court’s docket as Case No. 2025-0620. Consumer groups and interested residents will be combing through new filings and the eventual written opinion for fresh guidance on how far Ohio’s ratemaking rules really go. For the court preview and docket details, see Court News Ohio.
