|
|
|
|
|
RESA Alleges PUC Decision Unlawfully Creates "Whack-A-Mole" Process For Addressing Retail Supplier Issues
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
In a second rehearing request, the Retail Energy Supply Association alleged that the PUC of Ohio's recent decision affirming that, if not proposed to be changed by a utility, EDC fees charged to retail suppliers are not appropriate for adjudication in a rate case, with PUCO failing to explain what forum is an appropriate venue for such review, fails the PUC's obligation to "explain its rationale" for decisions, and is thus allegedly unlawful
As previously reported, PUCO in a rehearing order affirmed 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
Among other things, RESA had been seeking, in a rate case for the FirstEnergy Ohio utilities, elimination of the switching fee imposed on retail suppliers (the tariff does not impose a switching fee on returns to default service). However, as the FirstEnergy Ohio utilities did not propose any change to the current switching fee, PUCO ruled that the issue should not be addressed as part of the rate case
See more background here
PUCO in an original November 2025 order (which was the subject of the first rehearing) had said that, "the more appropriate proceeding to review such fees would be in an SSO proceeding."
However, PUCO in prior SSO cases has declined to substantively address, in such SSO cases, utility charges that impact the distribution revenue requirement (which switching fees do). For example, in a prior SSO proceeding, while PUCO adopted (on a $0 placeholder basis only) a rider mechanism to further unbundle distribution rates, PUCO said that a rate case was the appropriate venue for consideration of the actual level of the riders, so that the PUCO could benefit from a "thorough analysis" in the rate case
With neither rate cases nor SSO cases being a clear venue accepted by PUCO as a venue for concerns about retail supplier fees charged by utilities, RESA alleged that PUCO is creating a game of "regulatory whack-a-mole," in which parties are unsure of what venue PUCO will deem appropriate to address the issues
RESA said that PUCO's first rehearing order, "leaves parties seeking to raise tariff-related issues,
including those like the switching fee that directly impact the level of the rate increase and
distribution rates approved in a rate case, in a dilemma: parties must guess the forum that
they may participate in and will only learn that their input is not welcome after expending
significant time and financial resources."
RESA alleged, "The Commission’s Rehearing Order is unlawful and unreasonable in failing to explain
the proper venue, i.e. case, for RESA to address tariff and miscellaneous fees issues, thus
violating R.C. 4903.09."
RESA alleged that PUCO, "fails to identify the future case or process for which
RESA could obtain the relief sought here to eliminate the switching fee. [T]he Commission’s
suggestion that RESA will have 'a future opportunity' to raise these issues likewise falls short, given there is no identification of when the opportunity will occur, in what forum, or
under what governing standards."
Even if traditional SSO proceedings were ultimately deemed the proper venue, RESA noted that with statutory changes eliminating electric security plans, which had addressed broad utility issues in addition to default service, in favor of market-rate offers (MRO) (whose proceedings are to narrowly address SSO auctions), it remains unclear if tariff-related issues may be addressed in the MRO proceedings
RESA also said that, while PUCO cited precedent from 2015 (which has been reiterated several times recently in addition to the instant case) providing that tariffs not proposed by the utility to be changed will not be reviewed in a rate case, PUCO in doing so ignored multiple subsequent PUCO decisions and more recent precedent since 2015 (prior to PUCO's recent re-invocation of the 2015 precedent), in which PUCO did address, in a rate case, supplier tariff and switching fee issues, despite no change being proposed by the EDC.
RESA alleged that PUCO's failure to explain PUCO's departure from this more recent precedent, in which switching fee and other fee issues were addressed in a rate case (20-1651-EL-AIR, et al., 2022 decision), violates R.C. 4903.03 and Ohio Supreme Court precedent
Case 24-469-EL-ATA et al.; 24-0469-EL-ATA
ADVERTISEMENT 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
March 20, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Channel Partner Manager - TX -- Retail Supplier
• NEW / Refreshed 2/24/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
• Refreshed 2/2/26 -- Account Executive (Commercial Retail Energy)
|
|
|
|
|