News Stories

On August 19, 2026 the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) issued a finding and order adopting the proposed amendments to Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 4901-1 regarding administrative provisions and procedure.

These adopted final rule amendments remain subject to review by the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCAR).  The order provides that the final rules shall be effective on the earliest date permitted by law.

The Ohio Commission largely adopted staff’s proposed amendments in their entirety.  An overview of Staff’s proposed amendments and the Commission’s conclusion adopting those proposed changes are highlighted below:

{¶ 8- 12}Docketing Division Filing Closing Time – A number of parties commented on Staff’s proposal to change the Docketing Division’s closing time from 5:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

{¶ 10} “The Commission finds that Staff’s proposed changes to the Docketing Division’s hours should be approved. As argued by EOG, the earlier closing hours could encourage parties to file documents earlier and, regardless, make documents available sooner due to the earlier closure. The Commission does not find that closing the Docketing office 30 minutes early will prejudice any party attempting to make a timely filing.”

{¶ 13} “The Commission finds that the parties’ recommendations concerning filing procedures shall not be adopted at this time. The current filing process has not proved to be unwieldy or burdensome, and under Ohio Adm.Code 4901-1-38(B), the Commission can appropriately use their discretion as individual situations arise. Further, the Commission finds that OCC’s proposed addition concerning reopening a closed case is unnecessary at this time. As noted by EOG, reopening a closed case is strictly a procedural matter unrelated to the case’s merits, therefore not triggering the ex parte statue.”

{¶ 20}Computation Of Time – Similar to the changes recommended by Staff above concerning docketing division’s hours, Staff recommends changing the relevant deadline from 5:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. when calculating certain after-hours submissions. This recommended change was opposed by OCC and OMAEG who argued that the earlier deadline could create unnecessary risks for filers and serves no administrative purpose.

{¶ 21} “Staff’s suggested changes should be adopted. Similar to the conclusions reached above, the Commission finds that it is unlikely that any party be prejudiced by the earlier closing time and notes that documents should become available earlier on the docket due to the documents being filed earlier.”

{¶ 28-30} Intervention – Staff recommended amending Ohio Adm.Code 4901-1-11(E) to, in a general rate proceeding, require motions to intervene to be filed within 90 days after the Commission finds the application to be complete. IGS, RESA, OCC, OMAEG, and other commenters opposed the proposed intervention deadline. These parties argued that requiring intervention before issuance of the Staff Report may deprive stakeholders of due process because parties frequently cannot determine whether their interests are affected until reviewing Staff recommendations. These commenters further argued that the proposal would encourage defensive or unnecessary interventions by stakeholders seeking to preserve their rights.

{¶ 31} “The Commission finds that Staff’s recommended changes shall be adopted. The new time constraints of Sub. HB 15 necessitates this timeline. Nonetheless, parties who do not meet the deadline can be granted intervention for good cause shown.”

(¶ 61-65) Hearings – Staff recommended the addition of Ohio Adm.Code 4901-1-27(B)(7)(f) which instituted a one-hour per-party per-witness limit for cross-examination in general rate proceedings, unless otherwise ordered for good cause. A number of parties commented on Staff’s proposal limiting cross-examination in general rate proceedings. OCC, RESA, OMAEG, IGS, Columbia, AES Ohio, EOG, and OELC opposed the proposed limitation. These parties argued that thorough cross-examination is essential to due process and to the development of a full evidentiary record, particularly in complex utility proceedings involving technical and financial testimony. Many commenters also argued that arbitrary time limits would encourage gamesmanship by witnesses or counsel seeking to consume available time through objections, lengthy answers, or consolidation of issues into fewer witnesses.

(¶ 66) “The Commission finds that Staff’s suggested addition related to crossexamination limits should be adopted. The concerns of gamesmanship and overburdensome objections cutting into a party’s allotted cross-examination time are recognized by the Commission, but we find that due process is not negatively affected. Parties are able to cross witnesses within their allotted time, which can be extended at the discretion of the ALJ to remedy any potential abuses. Enacting this time limit will serve to maintain proper cross examination and due process while encouraging efficiency and clarity.”

(¶ 67-69) Reports of Investigation and Objections – Staff recommended slight changes to Ohio Adm.Code 4901-1-28 which directs a party to identify and address the objection in its initial brief or the objection is deemed withdrawn. Additionally, Staff’s recommendation clarifies language addressing the admission of Staff’s reports at the time they are filed with the Commission.

{¶ 70} “The Commission finds that Staff’s recommended changes should be adopted as it clarifies the requirement for parties to identify their specific objection and address it in their initial brief or be deemed withdrawn. This clarification imposes a minimal burden on parties filing their initial brief. Moreover, this allows for further administrative efficiency and a cleaner record when there are a multitude of parties and objections.”

{¶ 76-79} Briefs and Memoranda – Staff recommended changes to the timing, in general rate proceedings, for filing of post-hearing briefs, and instituted a page limit along with other formatting rules in order to mirror compliance with Ohio Supreme Court Rules of Practice Rule 3.09(B).

{¶ 80} “The Commission finds that Staff’s recommendations surrounding posthearing briefs should be adopted. The changes mirror the current requirements contained in the Ohio Supreme Court Rules of Practice Rule 3.09(B) and will serve to provide more standardized and concise filings in line with those submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court. Addressing several parties concerns regarding the change being inappropriate in light of fully litigated rate cases, under Ohio Adm.Code 4901-1-38(B), the Commission notes that the ALJ can waive these requirements on a case-by-case basis for good cause shown. Accordingly, Staff’s suggested changes concerning briefing and memoranda should be adopted.”

{¶ 85} The Commission finds that no change should be made to Ohio Adm.Code 4901-1-01, 4901-1-03, 4901-1-04, 4901-1-05, 4901-1-06, 4901-1-08, 4901-1-09, 4901-1-10, 4901- 1-12, 4901-1-14, 4901-1-15, 4901-1-19, 4901-1-20, 4901-1-21, 4901-1-22, 4901-1-23, 4901-1-24, 4901-1-25, 4901-1-26, 4901-1-30, 4901-1-32, 4901-1-33, 4901-1-34, 4901-1-35, 4901-1-36, 4901- 1-37, and 4901-1-38. Finally, the Commission finds that the rules in this chapter, as set forth in Attachment A, should be adopted and filed with the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR), the Secretary of State, and the Legislative Service Commission (LSC).

As background, on June 30, 2025, Governor DeWine signed Substitute House Bill Number 15 (Sub. HB 15). Among other items, Sub. HB 15 adopted amendments to sections of the Ohio Revised Code (R.C.), specifically R.C. 4909 which include in part the Commission’s administrative provisions and procedure related to ratemaking. Accordingly, the Commission has opened this docket in order to review what modification to its administrative provisions and procedure in Ohio Adm.Code 4901-1 will be necessary given the legislative changes.