Ohio PUC Denies Rehearing Requests Concerning Grant Of Broker License To FirstEnergy Advisors

June 17, 2020

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-20 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio denied the applications for rehearing filed by Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council, the Retail Energy Supply Association, and Ohio Consumers’ Counsel concerning PUCO's prior order which granted an electric broker and aggregator license to Suvon, LLC, d/b/a FirstEnergy Advisors and FirstEnergy Home

EnergyChoiceMatters.com had been first to report that PUCO granted a broker license to FirstEnergy Advisors (see story here)

Among other things, rehearing requests from parties alleged that PUCO erred in addressing the broker license application before addressing a pending corporate separation compliance audit which, among other things, recommended that the FirstEnergy brand name not be used by then-affiliate FirstEnergy Solutions (with the rehearing parties arguing that the same rationale applies to the new broker FirstEnergy Advisors)

In denying rehearing on these grounds, PUCO said, "we find that holding our decision in this case in abeyance, as requested by OCC, would be unduly prejudicial to Suvon, which has demonstrated that it has the managerial, technical and financial capability to provide CRES power brokerage and aggregation service in Ohio."

"If, in the Corporate Separation Audit Case, the auditor and other parties persuade the Commission to deviate from our established precedents regarding the use of trade names or if the Commission determines the approved corporate separation plan to be inadequate, the Commission will take the necessary and sufficient steps to remedy the issue in that proceeding. However, denying Suvon the ability to compete as a CRES broker and aggregator while parties litigate the Corporate Separation Audit Case would be unduly prejudicial to Suvon. On the other hand, neither OCC nor Suvon’s competitors, NOPEC and RESA, have demonstrated any prejudice stemming from the approval of Suvon’s certificate. Competition should be decided by the marketplace rather than through duplicative litigation in a Commission certification proceeding," PUCO said

"[T]he Commission will reiterate that no one disputes that Suvon will use shared service employees, including officers and directors. However, in the April 22, 2020 Finding and Order, the Commission, consistent with past decisions, rejected the argument by NOPEC and OCC that use of shared service employees is per se unlawful. Finding and Order at ¶ 21. The Commission has not prohibited electric distribution utilities and affiliated CRES providers from using shared service employees, officers and directors, as long as that sharing does not violate the code of conduct. In re the Commission’s Review of Chapter 4901:1- 20, Ohio Administrative Code, Case No. 04-48-EL-ORD (Transition Plan Rule Review), Finding and Order (July 28, 2004) at 10. The code of conduct contains provisions prohibiting the improper flow of information between shared service employees and employees of competitive affiliates, and, as stated above, the audit report in the Corporate Separation Audit Case specifically addresses compliance with the code of conduct. Thus, any issues OCC has with respect to compliance with the code of conduct are best addressed in that proceeding," PUCO said

PUCO stated, "The Commission rejected the arguments opposing certification, finding that issues regarding Suvon’s use of a trade name and compliance with the statutory corporate separation plan requirements by FirstEnergy Corp. affiliates are best raised in other proceedings, specifically the ongoing review of the corporate separation plan audit of the FirstEnergy Utilities conducted in the Corporate Separation Audit Case. Finding and Order at ¶¶ 19-20. The Commission further explained that no party in the case had materially disputed Staff’s determination that Suvon had the managerial, technical and financial capability to serve as a CRES power broker and aggregator, and the Commission adopted the recommendation filed by Staff on April 7, 2020."

With respect to various other alleged assignments of error raised by rehearing parties, PUCO denied such assignments of error, stating that the issues raised by rehearing parties were thoroughly considered in the original Finding and Order, and/or the assignments lacked support.

Case 20-103-EL-AGG

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Senior Manager, Energy Market Research & Analytics -- Houston
• NEW! -- Pricing Analyst -- Houston
• NEW! -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst -- Energy Procurement
• NEW! -- Channel Partner Sales Manager -- Retail Supplier