News Stories

On October 7, 2026 the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) issued an order granting the applications for rehearing challenging its August 19, 2026 order approving changes to administrative procedures for rate cases, including applications filed by RESA and IGS, FirstEnergy, OCC, OMAEG, OELC, and the Joint Utilities.

The order on Rehearing finds that rehearing should be granted in order to determine whether the Finding and Order issued on August 19, 2026, should be affirmed, abrogated, or modified pursuant to R.C. 4903.10.

Previously on September 28, 2026 several parties filed memorandums contra as highlighted below.

Ohio Edison, Cleveland Electric Illuminating, and Toledo Edison urged PUCO to deny rehearing requests challenging its new one-hour, per-party, per-witness limit on cross-examination in general rate cases. The utilities argue the limit will make hearings more efficient while still protecting parties’ rights because ALJs may grant additional cross-examination time for good cause.

Office of Consumer Council among other things urged PUCO to eliminate its new mandatory briefing deadlines in general rate cases, which require initial briefs within 15 days after the evidentiary hearing and reply briefs seven days later. While FirstEnergy proposed extending the reply period to 15 days, OCC argues even that is insufficient for complex rate cases and that ALJs should retain discretion to establish briefing schedules based on each case.

Columbia Gas urged the PUCO to grant rehearing and eliminate new procedural limits for general rate cases, arguing that a one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate for complex proceedings. Specifically, Columbia supports removing the new briefing deadlines and page limits and eliminating the one-hour, per-party, per-witness cross-examination limit.

OMAEG argued among other things that  the Commission erred by unjustly, unreasonably, and unlawfully amending Ohio Adm.Code 4901-1-27(B)(7) to add a one hour per party per witness restriction on cross-examination of witnesses in general rate proceedings and the Commission erred by unjustly, unreasonably, and unlawfully amending Ohio Adm.Code 4901-1-31(A) to require initial post-hearing briefs to be filed 15 days after the hearing and reply briefs to be filed 7 days later in general rate proceedings.

OLEC argued that the proposed  one-hour per party per witness limit on cross-examination in general rate proceedings is arbitrary, unnecessary, and threatens the due process rights of all parties. “Specifically, in its Reply Comments filed in this proceeding on this proposed amendment, OELC shared the concerns raised by numerous parties1 that a one-hour limit on cross-examination would undermine the fundamental right to a fair hearing while depriving the Commission of valuable information upon which to base its decision. As the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (“OCC”) noted in its comments, cross-examination is “the primary means by which parties test the accuracy, credibility, and completeness of a witnesses’ testimony, particularly where complex technical, financial, or policy issues are at stake.”2 OELC, thus, agrees with OCC that limiting cross examination would “risk obscuring the record, insulating unsupported assumptions from scrutiny, and undermining the PUCO’s obligation to base its decisions on a full and fair evidentiary record.”3 As such, “[a]n arbitrary cap, imposed without regard to the scope of direct testimony, the complexity of the issues, or the volume of supporting exhibits, improperly restricts the development of a full and fair evidentiary record.”

RESA & IGS argued the Commission adopted an amendment to Ohio Adm.Code 4901-1-11(E) such that it would provide, “[i]n a general rate proceeding, motions to intervene must be filed within ninety days after the commission finds the application to be complete.” This will require the filing of intervention motions earlier than what is the current practice and well in advance of the Staff Report and the time when the full extent of the issues in the rate case is known. This new restriction is arbitrary, unduly discriminatory, and appears to be based on an erroneous reading of H.B. 15.  By adopting the unreasonably early intervention deadline, the Commission hinders an affected stakeholder’s meaningful opportunity to be heard on matters that directly affect their interests. The adopted deadline is unreasonable because the scope of issues in a rate case (and how those issues will impact a given person) cannot always be known within 90 days following the completeness determination.

The Commission’s “one-hour per-party per-witness limit for cross-examination imposes this drastic, blanket limitation in rate cases without regard to the complexity of the issues at hand, the significance of the witness’ testimony, the number of contested issues addressed by that witness, or the extent to which cross-examination is necessary to test the evidentiary basis for the Commission’s ultimate findings. The one-hour limit is also problematic because, in a general rate proceeding, witnesses often sponsor extensive testimony on multiple technical, factual, and policy issues that cannot realistically be explored within a rigid one-hour period. The one-hour limit also creates a perverse incentive – parties and witnesses will be incentivized to block cross-examination with on-the-record motions and delays (essentially, run the clock), further frustrating the ability to compile a full and complete record. An arbitrary one-hour limitation curtails due process and undermines the Commission’s own obligation to decide the rate case on a full and complete record.”