Events

Email Alerts

Retail Energy Jobs

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search

PUC Affirms That Switching, Other Utility Fees Charged To Retail Suppliers Are Not Appropriate For Adjudication In Rate Cases, If Utility Does Not Seek Any Changes To Fees

February 18, 2026

Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com

The PUC of Ohio denied rehearing sought by retail energy suppliers concerning PUCO's November 2025 order in the electric distribution rate case of the FirstEnergy Ohio utilities in which PUCO had rejected changes to various fees charged by the EDCs to retail suppliers

See background here on PUCO's November 2025 decision, which left unchanged the switching fee and data access fees

In denying changes to the fees which had been sought by retail electric suppliers, PUCO had cited its precedent that tariff provisions and charges which a utility does not propose to change are not generally the subject of review in a rate case, and the utility is not required to, in the rate case, provide data in support of the unmodified provisions or charges

The Retail Energy Supply Association and IGS Energy each sought rehearing of PUCO's decision

PUCO on rehearing affirmed its earlier finding and precedent concerning rate case proceedings

"[T]hese proceedings were not the appropriate venue to raise such concerns," about the fees, PUCO said

Addressing substantive arguments about the level of the fees, PUCO on rehearing said, "RESA and IGS failed to produce any such evidence [evidence meeting the burden of proof] warranting a change in the applicable switching fees." PUCO reached the same conclusion on rehearing with respect to the data access fees

PUCO did reiterate that, "Staff did acknowledge these switching fees should be reexamined in another, more appropriate, proceeding".

PUCO said, "As such, RESA and IGS will have the opportunity to raise their concerns at a later, more appropriate, juncture."

PUCO in its November 2025 order had said that, "the more appropriate proceeding to review such fees would be in an SSO proceeding."

Case 24-469-EL-ATA et al.

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
NEW -- Billing Analyst - Retail Supplier
NEW -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
Refreshed 2/2/26 -- Account Executive (Commercial Retail Energy)

Email This Story

HOME

Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com

 

Events

Email Alerts

Retail Energy Jobs

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search