For a Cuyahoga Falls residential customer on Schedule RS, the City’s July 2026 published components produce modeled subtotals of $75.82 at 500 kWh, $137.38 at 1,000 kWh, and $198.95 at 1,500 kWh. Each result includes the $14.25 monthly customer charge, the $0.119540 per-kWh Schedule RS rate, and July’s $0.003590 per-kWh Power Cost Adjustment.

Those are not complete bills. They are a reproducible calculation of three City-published electric-rate components for one rate class and one month.

July’s calculation at three usage levels

The City’s 2026 utility-rate summary lists a $14.25 residential monthly customer charge, $0.119540 per kWh, and a variable Power Cost Adjustment. The Electric Department’s Schedule RS page repeats the first two amounts and says the monthly charge is adjusted by the PCA.

The City’s PCA history posts July 2026 at $0.003590 per kWh. Combining the two per-kWh components gives $0.123130 per kWh for this model. That combined number is our arithmetic, not a separately published City rate.

Modeled July Schedule RS subtotal; calculations retain source precision and round only the final result
Usage Base energy July PCA Customer charge Modeled subtotal
500 kWh $59.770 $1.795 $14.25 $75.82
1,000 kWh $119.540 $3.590 $14.25 $137.38
1,500 kWh $179.310 $5.385 $14.25 $198.95

The formula is:

$14.25 + (usage × $0.119540) + (usage × $0.003590)

At 500 kWh, for example, the unrounded result is $75.815. We carry all six published decimals through the arithmetic and round the final modeled subtotal to $75.82. The reviewed pages do not document the City’s line-level billing-rounding implementation, so this report does not claim to reproduce every intermediate value on an account statement.

The PCA changes what the base rate alone produces

The PCA is not a fixed 2026 number. The City says it determines the adjustment monthly from a six-month power-purchase-cost calculation, then publishes the resulting factor. Through July, the posted 2026 values were:

Month PCA per kWh Effect at 1,000 kWh
January$0.004603+$4.603
February-$0.002610-$2.610
March-$0.001690-$1.690
April-$0.000477-$0.477
May$0.002252+$2.252
June$0.002660+$2.660
July$0.003590+$3.590

A negative factor reduces this modeled component; a positive one adds to it. At a constant 1,000 kWh, July’s PCA contribution is $0.93 higher than June’s. The high-to-low span across the seven published months is $7.213 at the same usage, from February’s -$2.610 to January’s +$4.603.

That comparison holds usage constant to isolate the adjustment. It does not say a household’s total bill moved by those amounts, because actual usage and other account lines can change too.

Why this is not a complete bill estimate

The calculation intentionally stops at the three published Schedule RS inputs. It does not add or infer taxes, credits, arrears, deposits, account adjustments, or other municipal services that might appear on a statement. It also does not apply to the City’s all-electric Schedule RS/AE, commercial service, another municipal system, or an investor-owned utility.

To check a July statement without overclaiming:

  1. Confirm the account is billed under Schedule RS.
  2. Record the billed kWh and billing period rather than substituting one of our example levels.
  3. Match the applicable PCA month shown by the City.
  4. Recalculate the three modeled components at full precision.
  5. Reconcile every remaining bill line separately instead of forcing it into the energy rate.

August was blank at the original August 1, 2026 review. On September 20, the City had posted August at $0.006094 per kWh and September at $0.011040; October–December remained blank. Those newer observations do not change this article’s historical July calculation. For a later bill, use the applicable posted month, not July by default or a forecast for a blank cell.

Source and methodology

LSL originally reviewed the three official City pages on August 1, 2026 and rechecked their operative rate and PCA text on September 20. The January–July inputs remain unchanged. We used the published Schedule RS customer charge, per-kWh charge, and July PCA; calculated examples at 500, 1,000, and 1,500 kWh; retained six-decimal source precision; and rounded only the final modeled subtotal to cents. A second calculation in integer millionths of a dollar reproduced the half-cent results without binary floating-point ambiguity; half cents round up in this LSL model, not as a claim about the City’s billing implementation.

For the seven-month comparison, we multiplied each January-through-July PCA by a constant 1,000 kWh. No private bills, customer sample, contractor quote, supplier offer, forecast, or market average was used. The City did not review our arithmetic, and Local Service Ledger did not inspect an account.