The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that public utility regulators cannot issue orders to grant themselves extensions for deciding applications for rehearing. This decision directly impacts the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), which had a practice of extending its decision-making period beyond the statutory 30 days.
Justice R. Patrick DeWine, writing for the majority, explained that once PUCO issues an order, a party can request a rehearing. The PUCO can deny it, grant it, and affirm or modify the original order. If no action is taken within 30 days, the application is denied by "operation of law." Only after this denial can an opponent appeal to the Supreme Court.
In November 2023, PUCO granted Carbon Solutions Group LLC (CSG) a rehearing application “for the limited purpose of further consideration.” The Court found this practice improper and ruled that by not making an affirmative decision within 30 days, PUCO effectively denied the application.
“Nowhere did the General Assembly grant PUCO the authority to extend the statutory deadline,” Justice DeWine wrote. Today's ruling allows CSG to continue its appeal contesting out-of-state wind farm certifications before the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer and Michael P. Donnelly joined in the decision. In dissent, Justice Melody Stewart argued that PUCO followed state law by granting a rehearing within 30 days and that CSG’s case was still pending before PUCO. Justice Jennifer Brunner dissented without opinion, and Justice Joseph T. Deters did not participate.
Ohio law mandates electric utilities obtain part of their electricity from renewable sources like wind power from certified suppliers approved by PUCO. Six out-of-state wind farms applied for certification in September 2023; CSG opposed these applications and filed for a rehearing in October 2023.
CSG appealed to the Supreme Court in January 2024 while awaiting PUCO's reconsideration on their rehearing request from November 2023. The Supreme Court ruled today that since PUCO did not decide within 30 days whether to grant or deny a rehearing, it was denied by operation of law—giving CSG grounds for appeal.
Justice DeWine noted that under R.C. 4903.10 if no action is taken within 30 days on a rehearing request, it is considered denied as a matter of law.
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Stewart maintained that because PUCO granted CSG’s application within legal timeframes stated in R.C. 4903.10 and R.C. 4903.11, there were no grounds for appeal until February when another denial occurred.
The full text of this court opinion and others are available online.
---