PUCO denies Ohio Consumers’ Counsel rehearing on rules
A line of enormous power towers and electric cables in Muskingum County, Ohio. (Photographs in the Carol M. Highsmith Archive, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division.)
The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio adopts procedural changes every five years that guide the agency’s review of utility rate cases.
On June 24, PUCO issued a Finding and Order in Case No. 25-695-AU-ORD amending rules that govern practice before the commission. Those rules, stemming from House Bill 15, aren’t sitting well with the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, which demanded more authority than the law permits.
OCC, filing for a rehearing, called the measures unreasonable and asserted that the adopted rules “harmed consumers” because “they do not require one PUCO Commissioner to have a background representing consumers and for failure to require approval of one Commissioner by OCC.”
The OCC’s demand to approve at least one commissioner was met with a curt explanation of the governor’s appointment authority.
Under Ohio Revised Code Section 4901.02, the governor appoints the five commissioners from lists prepared by a nominating council, subject to Senate confirmation. Qualifications focus on experience in fields such as law, economics, finance, or engineering.
No statute requires a consumer-background seat or OCC approval of any commissioner. However, the OCC has long sought such changes through legislation.
OCC also made an error, according to the PUCO’s denial, when alleging that the rules “do not require sitting Commissioners to disclose and annually update disclosures of their financial interests in the companies and industries the Commission regulates.”
In the denial, PUCO cites various provisions of state law that explicitly prohibit any member of the commission and their family members from owning stock or having a financial interest in regulated utilities. Despite OCC’s rehearing request raising additional points beyond the procedural limits, the OCC released a public statement in response, alleging that the PUCO had made “major changes” to the rules on August 19.
In a press release, OCC said the changes “will make it harder for consumer advocates to uncover and challenge the information underlying utility requests for more consumer money.”
The new rules limit questioning of utility witnesses, shorten filing deadlines and restrict the length of written arguments. Together, these changes further widen the information advantage utilities already possess when seeking higher rates and charges.”
Recent nominating processes have required applicants to submit disclosures upfront, though PUCO’s procedural rules package did not alter this separate ethics framework.
“These new limits give utilities, which already control the underlying information, even more advantage while making it harder for consumer advocates to test their claims,” Ohio Consumers’ Counsel Maureen Willis said in a statement. “That is not efficiency; it is a weaker process and a greater risk that consumers will pay more than they should.”
