Fran Francis, counsel for the Apartment and Office Building Association (AOBA), asked the Public Service Commission at a Nov. 12 prehearing conference to reject or modify Potomac Electric Power Company’s rate application on grounds it is procedurally deficient. Francis said PEPCO’s filing includes multiple, inconsistent sets labeled as the historic test year and relies on partly forecasted and fully forecasted test‑year constructs that prevent stakeholders from verifying actual costs and revenues.

“Nowhere in PEPCO’s filing…do we find actual monthly cost by FERC account for any of the months of 2025,” Francis said, noting AOBA found three different sets of historic‑test‑year costs in the company’s materials and a bridge year developed from forecasted data even though partial actuals existed. Francis also criticized more than 1,200 pages of recent voluntary data responses that she described as “patches” to an incomplete application, arguing ad hoc uploads outside a procedural schedule impair parties’ due process and create uncertainty about the record.

PEPCO counsel Kim Curry countered that the commission’s statutory duty under the Public Utilities Article (PUA) requires convening a proceeding when a rate application is filed and that dismissal is not the proper remedy for disputed testimony or complex filings. Curry said voluntary data responses have been provided in prior PEPCO cases to aid parties — credit ratings, analyst reports and other materials the company characterizes as supplemental — and stressed intervenors retain the opportunity to file testimony and seek discovery to test PEPCO’s assertions.

Office of People’s Counsel (OPC) counsel Michael Sammartino said OPC shares many of AOBA’s concerns about the filing’s unusual treatment of the historic test year, but that OPC could work within a proposed procedural schedule while reserving rights to challenge the completeness of the record. The commission acknowledged the dispute and declined to rule immediately, inviting staff and OPC to file additional analyses by Friday addressing the extent of the commission’s authority under the PUA to reject or require modifications of a filing.

The hearing record now includes AOBA’s motion to reject or modify the filing; the commission did not grant or deny that motion at the conference. Any future decision on dismissal or modification will rely on evidence entered later in this proceeding, including testimony, exhibits and discovery responses.