A utility rate case is much more than a regulatory process and filing. It is a core business process, the mechanism through which the company earns its authorized revenue, justifies its investments and signals its strategic direction. The rate case is where capital plans are stress-tested and a company’s strategy meets stakeholder and regulatory scrutiny.
This recognition matters now more than ever. Utilities are operating in a period of unprecedented investment demand, heightened affordability concerns and evolving policy expectations. In this environment, treating the rate case as a compliance exercise is not sufficient. Success requires strategically aligning internal planning with customer and regulatory expectations long before a utility’s proposal is filed.
A landscape of rising investment and rising expectations
Utilities are entering a period of significant investment and increasing regulatory scrutiny. Capital plans across the industry have rapidly expanded in recent years, driven by grid modernization, resilience investments, electrification and growing demand, most notably from large commercial customers such as data centers. At the same time, regulators and stakeholders are placing greater emphasis on affordability and demonstrable customer benefits. Further, the number of stakeholders intervening in rate cases continues to increase, bringing with them their varying priorities. All this has resulted in both increased frequency and scrutiny of utility rate cases.
Across the country, utilities are planning the largest increase in levels of capital investment in decades. ScottMadden analysis of the capital plans of many of the largest U.S. electric utilities indicates that these companies are projecting more than one trillion dollars in capital spending over the next five years.¹ This scale of investment reflects a combination of system reinvestment, clean energy integration, reliability improvements and the infrastructure required to support future load growth.
Figure 1: Scale of capital investment
These investment needs are unfolding in a regulatory environment that is increasingly focused on affordability. Regulators and stakeholders are seeking many more details on how proposed investments translate into tangible benefits for customers and how utilities are prioritizing spending to manage bill impacts.
With this, utilities face a practical challenge: demonstrating not only that capital investments are necessary but also that they are well planned, clearly justified and appropriately prioritized. Filings that lack specificity, contain inconsistent assumptions or fail to clearly link investments to customer value are likely to face greater scrutiny as regulators balance infrastructure needs with affordability concerns.
Different rate case structures, same strategic imperative
It is important to note that rate case structures vary significantly across jurisdictions and utility types. While the specific constructs differ, most cases can be understood along several key dimensions, including whether they are forward- or backward-looking, whether they focus solely on T&D (either electric or natural gas) or include vertically integrated operations such as generation and whether rates are established for a single year or across a multi-year period.
Time orientation: Some cases rely on historical test years and focus on validating past expenditures. These backward-looking cases emphasize prudence, cost control and the utility’s ability to execute against prior commitments. Others are built on forecasted investments and future system needs. In these forward-looking cases, regulators and stakeholders place greater emphasis on the credibility of capital plans, the reasonableness of underlying assumptions and the projected benefits to customers.
Scope of operations: In T&D-focused cases, the primary focus is on infrastructure investment, reliability and system performance. In vertically integrated utilities, filings may also include generation investments, fuel costs and market considerations. Where generation is included, additional scrutiny is often applied to economic dispatch decisions, fuel cost management and the balance between market exposure and rate-based recovery.
Rate structure: Single-year cases typically evaluate a defined period with limited forward visibility, while multi-year rate plans place greater emphasis on the durability of assumptions and the utility’s ability to consistently execute over time, often with less opportunity for near-term course correction.
Despite these structural differences, the underlying expectation is consistent. Utilities must demonstrate that investments and expenditures are well planned, clearly justified and aligned with customer and policy objectives. Whether the focus is on future plans or past performance, success depends on the same core capabilities: strong internal alignment, transparent documentation and a clear, consistent narrative that connects utility actions to customer value.
From filing to framework: What a strong rate case requires
The rate case is often viewed as a linear process: prepare the filing, respond to discovery, negotiate or litigate and receive a commission order. In reality, successful rate cases begin long before the filing itself. Outcomes are shaped by the capital planning process, the clarity of investment justification, efficient execution of capital plans and how well the overall story aligns with regulatory priorities.
Strong capital planning is the foundation. Project scopes, timelines and unit costs should be well defined and traceable from internal budgeting systems into exhibits and testimony. However, in some examples of forward-looking cases, capital plans continue to evolve deep into the rate case development process. Late adjustments to forecasts or project scopes can create inconsistencies across testimony, workpapers and financial summaries. Those inconsistencies often lead to additional questions from intervenors and can weaken confidence in the underlying plan.
Equally important is the narrative and overall investment justification. Utilities must clearly explain why the investments are needed and how they support reliability, policy mandates and customer outcomes. Establishing key themes early helps ensure the filing reflects a consistent and credible strategy.
Depending on the jurisdiction, white papers and/or testimony play a central role in laying out that story and providing the underlying support. These materials typically include cost estimates, methodology explanations, alternatives considered and detailed descriptions of the proposed work, among many other elements that regulators and stakeholders rely on when evaluating the filing.
Figure 2 illustrates how the rate case process extends well beyond the filing itself and functions as a continuous cycle tied to planning, documentation and regulatory engagement.
Figure 2: The continuous rate case life cycle
While the emphasis may differ between forward- and backward-looking cases, this life cycle applies, encompassing both the planning of future investments and the evaluation of past performance.
Post-filing dynamics
Once a rate case is filed, the workload doesn’t wind down and in some cases, it may even ramp up. Intervenors issue discovery questions that often total in the hundreds or thousands in some jurisdictions. Responding quickly and consistently requires established processes, tools for tracking responses and clear ownership across functions such as engineering, finance, operations and regulatory affairs.
The post-filing phase also includes settlement negotiations and/or litigation. Utilities that enter these discussions with strong internal alignment (i.e., having identified key risk areas, prioritized positions and prepared subject matter experts) are better positioned to negotiate. When a lack of internal alignment surfaces late in the process, it can weaken the company’s position and complicate negotiations.
What gets approved and why
Approval outcomes vary by jurisdiction, but certain patterns tend to emerge. Investments backed by strong, transparent justification are more likely to be approved. In contrast, broad programs without detailed scoping, with ambiguous cost assumptions or with inconsistent documentation are more likely to be scaled back or challenged.
Affordability is also a central consideration for regulators. Even investments that are widely viewed as necessary for reliability, safety, modernization, policy mandates, etc. can face scrutiny if they are presented without clear prioritization or without a plan for managing customer rate impacts. As a result, rate cases increasingly require utilities to demonstrate not only the need for investment but also how those investments deliver measurable value for customers.
The relationship between investment justification and policy alignment often shapes how regulators evaluate capital requests.
Figure 3: What drives regulatory outcomes
While this framework is often applied to forward-looking investment decisions, the same dynamics apply in backward-looking cases, where regulators evaluate the prudence of past expenditures using similar considerations of justification and alignment with customer and policy outcomes.
Turning the rate case cycle into a core enterprise function
Utilities that consistently achieve stronger outcomes tend to treat rate cases not as isolated filings but as part of an ongoing enterprise process. Capital planning, budgeting and regulatory strategy are closely connected, with documentation and investment rationale developed well before drafting of the filing begins. This approach reduces last-minute changes, improves consistency across materials and strengthens the overall credibility of the filing.
Practical steps in this direction include standardizing business case templates, maintaining documentation of project assumptions and cost estimates throughout the planning cycle and creating tools that track capital plans and changes over time. Clear governance across engineering, finance and regulatory teams also helps ensure that proposed investments are well understood internally before they are presented externally.
Why strategic advisory and project management matter
Many of the issues that determine outcomes in rate cases arise early in the process or before the process even kicks off. Capital planning, investment prioritization and the development of clear and consistent supporting materials, along with dedicated and focused management of the rate case process, are essential.
Strategic advisory and dedicated rate case management can help utilities strengthen these foundations and successfully navigate the rate case process. At ScottMadden, we work with utilities to align internal planning processes with regulatory strategy, helping organizations develop stronger investment justifications, improve coordination across functions and prepare materials that clearly explain the value of proposed investments. The goal is not simply to support the filing itself but to strengthen the processes that shape it.
Figure 4: Aligning internal utility capabilities with external regulatory expectations
The rate case is much more than a filing requirement, particularly in today’s regulatory environment. It is the primary opportunity for utilities to demonstrate that their capital plans are disciplined, well justified and aligned with customer and policy priorities. Utilities that approach the process in this way are better positioned not only to achieve favorable regulatory outcomes but also to maintain the credibility needed to support continued investment.
References
