daily · Clean Energy
SWEPCO Texas settlement would lift typical 1,000 kWh bills; PUCT approval pending
An EPI analysis says the pending settlement would raise a Texas 1,000 kWh monthly bill from $135.28 to $145.72 before a backdated-rate surcharge. The settlement is not yet a final commission approval.
By Greener Numbers Editorial Team · Published October 24, 2026 · Updated 10/24/2026
A proposed settlement in Southwestern Electric Power Company's Texas base-rate case would raise the monthly bill for a typical residential customer using 1,000 kWh from $135.28 to $145.72, according to an October 22 analysis by the Energy and Policy Institute. The roughly 7.7% increase excludes a separate surcharge for backdated rates. The agreement remains before the Public Utility Commission of Texas for approval.
SWEPCO initially sought a $95 million increase in base-rate revenue in its October 2025 filing, EPI reports. The September settlement with commission staff and intervenors would reduce the net increase to $47.5 million. SWEPCO serves customers in Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas, but this proposal concerns its Texas rates, not a uniform increase across all three states.
The settlement is described as a black-box agreement because it presents aggregate outcomes without a line-by-line explanation of each change. EPI says the authorized return on equity would move from 9.25% to 9.53%. That is an allowed return on shareholder-financed capital, not a guaranteed return on every dollar of customer revenue.
The analysis says a surcharge would allow collection of the new rates backdated to March 2026, partially offset by a $28.5 million refund from an earlier case. It also reports $10.6 million in rate-case legal expenses to be recovered over two years, including expenses of intervenors as well as the utility. The stated monthly-bill comparison does not include every possible surcharge or change in usage.
EPI raises questions about proposed trade-association and legislative-monitoring cost recovery. Its article says the settlement does not disclose whether several disputed expenses would be recovered. This brief therefore does not present those disputed amounts as approved customer charges or treat the watchdog's analysis as a commission finding.
Households should distinguish a pending settlement from a final rate order. Actual bills depend on electricity use and applicable charges. The figures here are attributed to EPI's reading of the case; this brief does not independently establish that PUCT has approved the agreement or that any specific customer's next bill will rise by the example amount.
Official source: energyandpolicy.org ↗