Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 4905
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 4905.31 (2026)

Reasonable arrangements allowed - variable rate

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
July 31, 2008
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 221 - 127th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

Chapters 4901., 4903., 4905., 4907., 4909., 4921., 4923., 4927., 4928., and 4929. of the Revised Code do not prohibit a public utility from filing a schedule or establishing or entering into any reasonable arrangement with another public utility or with one or more of its customers, consumers, or employees, and do not prohibit a mercantile customer of an electric distribution utility as those terms are defined in section 4928.01 of the Revised Code or a group of those customers from establishing a reasonable arrangement with that utility or another public utility electric light company, providing for any of the following:

(A) The division or distribution of its surplus profits;

(B) A sliding scale of charges, including variations in rates based upon stipulated variations in cost as provided in the schedule or arrangement.

(C) A minimum charge for service to be rendered unless such minimum charge is made or prohibited by the terms of the franchise, grant, or ordinance under which such public utility is operated;

(D) A classification of service based upon the quantity used, the time when used, the purpose for which used, the duration of use, and any other reasonable consideration;

(E) Any other financial device that may be practicable or advantageous to the parties interested. In the case of a schedule or arrangement concerning a public utility electric light company, such other financial device may include a device to recover costs incurred in conjunction with any economic development and job retention program of the utility within its certified territory, including recovery of revenue foregone as a result of any such program; any development and implementation of peak demand reduction and energy efficiency programs under section 4928.66 of the Revised Code; any acquisition and deployment of advanced metering, including the costs of any meters prematurely retired as a result of the advanced metering implementation; and compliance with any government mandate.

No such schedule or arrangement is lawful unless it is filed with and approved by the commission pursuant to an application that is submitted by the public utility or the mercantile customer or group of mercantile customers of an electric distribution utility and is posted on the commission's docketing information system and is accessible through the internet.

Every such public utility is required to conform its schedules of rates, tolls, and charges to such arrangement, sliding scale, classification, or other device, and where variable rates are provided for in any such schedule or arrangement, the cost data or factors upon which such rates are based and fixed shall be filed with the commission in such form and at such times as the commission directs.

Every such schedule or reasonable arrangement shall be under the supervision and regulation of the commission, and is subject to change, alteration, or modification by the commission.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases, 1956–2015 · leading case: Sunoco, Inc. (R & M) v. Toledo Edison Co., 2011 Ohio 2720 (Ohio 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sunoco, Inc. (R & M) v. Toledo Edison Co., 2011 Ohio 2720 (Ohio 2011). · cites it 26× “The contract is a “special contract,” approved by appellee Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“PUCO” or “commission”) pursuant to R.C. 4905.31, which permits “reasonable arrangement[s]” between public utilities and their customers.”
In re Application of Ormet Primary Aluminum Corp., 2011 Ohio 2377 (Ohio 2011). · cites it 21× “{¶ 1} Under R.C. 4905.31, the Public Utilities Commission may approve “reasonable arrangement[s]” between utilities and customers.”
Martin Marietta Magnesia Specialties, L.L.C. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2011 Ohio 4189 (Ohio 2011). · cites it 7× “These special contracts had been approved by the PUCO pursuant to R.C. 4905.31, *486 which permits “reasonable arrangements” between public utilities and their customers.”
Weiss v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 734 N.E.2d 775 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 8× “After CEI determined that because of the locations of Weiss’s office buildings, Weiss was not entitled to discounts and other benefits extended under the Competitive Pilot Program, Weiss complained to the commission that his exclusion from CEI’s Competitive Pilot Program…”
In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co., 2014 Ohio 462 (Ohio 2014). · cites it 4× “Delta revenues are derived from discounted rate arrangements under R.C. 4905.31. Delta revenue refers to the amount of the discount: it is the difference between what the utility would have collected under its tariffs and what it actually collected under the discounted rate.”
Time Warner AxS v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 75 Ohio St. 3d 229 (Ohio 1996). · cites it 6× “Chapter 4927. Thus, reducing rates under R.C.”
In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co., 2011 Ohio 2638 (Ohio 2011). · cites it 2× ““[RJeasonable arrangements” are permitted under R.C. 4905.31 if filed with and approved by the commission.”
Migden-Ostrander v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 812 N.E.2d 955 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 2× “For these reasons, OCC’s reliance on R.C. 4905.31 in support of this position is misplaced, and this argument is unpersuasive as to the requirement of commission approval.”
DiFranco v. FirstEnergy Corp., 2012 Ohio 5445 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 2× “{¶ 36} After review of the customers’ complaint, we find that the act complained of here was the companies’ offer to charge a discount rate to customers who used electricity as their main source of energy.”
Ohio Edison Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 678 N.E.2d 922 (Ohio 1997). “34 as authority to contract with a political subdivision at a below-tariff rate, much the same way that a utility must intend to use R.C. 4905.31 as authority for competitive-response contracts that provide service that is below the standard commercial tariff.”
In re Complaint of Pilkington N. Am., Inc. (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 4797 (Ohio 2015). “The commission approved the special contract under R.C. 4905.31, which allows a public utility to enter into a “reasonable arrangement” with “one or more of its customers.”
Radio Relay Corp. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 341 N.E.2d 826 (Ohio 1976). · cites it 2× “Under those circumstances Section 4905.31, Revised Code, would require Commission approval Very truly yours, Sally W.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4905.31(D) — 1 case
Weiss v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 734 N.E.2d 775 (Ohio 2000). “After CEI determined that because of the locations of Weiss’s office buildings, Weiss was not entitled to discounts and other benefits extended under the Competitive Pilot Program, Weiss complained to the commission that his exclusion from CEI’s Competitive Pilot Program…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4905.31(E) — 8 cases
Sunoco, Inc. (R & M) v. Toledo Edison Co., 2011 Ohio 2720 (Ohio 2011). “The contract is a “special contract,” approved by appellee Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“PUCO” or “commission”) pursuant to R.C. 4905.31, which permits “reasonable arrangement[s]” between public utilities and their customers.”
In re Application of Ormet Primary Aluminum Corp., 2011 Ohio 2377 (Ohio 2011). “{¶ 1} Under R.C. 4905.31, the Public Utilities Commission may approve “reasonable arrangement[s]” between utilities and customers.”
In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co., 2014 Ohio 462 (Ohio 2014). “Delta revenues are derived from discounted rate arrangements under R.C. 4905.31. Delta revenue refers to the amount of the discount: it is the difference between what the utility would have collected under its tariffs and what it actually collected under the discounted rate.”
Time Warner AxS v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 75 Ohio St. 3d 229 (Ohio 1996). “Chapter 4927. Thus, reducing rates under R.C.”
In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co., 2011 Ohio 2638 (Ohio 2011). ““[RJeasonable arrangements” are permitted under R.C. 4905.31 if filed with and approved by the commission.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.