|
|
|
|
|
RESA Says PUC's Adopted Rule Text Does Not Align With PUC's Decision (Rule Says Retail Suppliers Must Obtain Customer "Signature" For ALL Enrollments, As First Noted by ECM)
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The Retail Energy Supply Association has sought rehearing of a recent PUC of Ohio decision which had approved new rules governing, among other things, retail supplier enrollments and verification of the customer's identity, as RESA noted that a requirement, as stated in the rules' text, mandating that retail suppliers obtain a customer's "signature" prior to all enrollments does not align with PUCO's description of the rule changes in the order
The new rules require retail electric and gas suppliers to verify a customer's identity at the time of enrollment
As first noted by EnergyChoiceMatters.com on March 4 (full details here), the rules included in PUCO's order contained language requiring suppliers to demonstrate compliance with the identity verification requirement by obtaining the customer's "signature" affirming that verification occurred
Specifically, for electricity, PUCO adopted language stating, "CRES providers must verify customer's identity at the time of enrollment. As proof of verification, CRES providers must obtain the customer’s signature acknowledging such verification occurred and must indicate which of the three types of forms of identification acceptable under subsection (D)(1), (D)(2), or (D)(3) of this rule was used for verification."
Such three forms of identity verification are:
(D)(1) "Customer account information," as that term is defined in division (A) of section 4928.103 of the Revised Code [Ed. note: 4928.103 states that "customer account information" means a unique electric distribution utility number or other customer identification number used by the utility to identify a customer and the customer's account record];
(D)(2) A valid form of government-issued identification issued to the customer; or
(D)(3) A sufficient alternative form of identification that allows the CRES provider to establish the customer's identity accurately
Similar language was adopted for natural gas enrollments
PUCO in its narrative order had said that the signature requirement for identity verification would apply to "direct solicitation", with PUCO further stating, "including but not necessarily limited to door and kiosk customer interaction".
However, as noted by ECM last month, nothing in the rule language itself limits the signature requirement to direct solicitations
Moreover, as noted by ECM, the signature requirement rule language is not housed under the section of the rule governing, "mailings, facsimiles, and direct solicitation." Rather, this signature requirement language is located in a broadly applicable part of the rule governing all enrollments (the signature language isn't even, for example, included under the rules applicable only to residential and small commercial customers, but is rather housed in a broader section of the rule)
RESA noted this incongruity in its rehearing request
RESA said, "[The] language in the decision reflects that the customer-signed verification
acknowledgement would apply only in instances of direct solicitation. Yet, the language in the
Adopted Rules attached to the decision would have a broader application -- in all enrollment
channels. Because the Commission’s decision and the customer-signed verification
acknowledgement language in Adopted Rules 4901:1-21-06(D) and 4901:1-29-06(D) are
inconsistent, the Commission’s decision is unreasonable and unlawful."
Apart from this issue of applicability, RESA on rehearing sought to remove from all types of enrollments the requirement for retail suppliers to obtain from the customer a signed acknowledgment that the supplier verified the customer's identity
RESA argued that the acknowledgment requirement goes beyond the actions that the PUC was authorized to undertake under HB 15, as HB 15 included provisions concerning how utilities shall process enrollments, but, as argued by RESA, HB 15, "did not authorize the Commission to adopt rules requiring the suppliers to follow
a new process for enrollment."
RESA further said that the customer acknowledgment requirement is contrary to the intent of HB 15 which was to enable a form of enroll-by-wallet and to streamline the customer shopping experience, by allowing the customer to enroll without the customer having to provide their utility account number.
RESA noted that the rule's language for a written customer acknowledgment would severely constrain telesales
RESA said, "This new requirement, with added steps outside the telephone call, will overcomplicate the
telephonic enrollment process and, undoubtedly, have the effect of ending telephonic enrollment
as a means of enrolling customers. If a supplier obtains a customer’s consent to enroll during a
telephone call and then proceeds through the telephonic enrollment requirements, including the
TPV, the supplier would have to verify the customer’s identity at the time of enrollment by
obtaining the customer’s signature (separate and apart from the telephone call and the TPV). The
supplier will therefore not be able to submit the enrollment to the utility until after it sends the
acknowledgement to the customer, the customer signs it, and returns it to the supplier. Customers
are likely to find completion of these additional steps to be not convenient or friendly."
Reiterating a concern previously raised in RESA's comments on the proposed rule, RESA said that PUCO's final rule remains vague concerning the, "sufficient alternative form of identification," which is acceptable for enrollment under the new rule (see a discussion of acceptable and sufficient alternative forms of ID in our prior story here)
RESA also sought rehearing of PUCO's requirement that suppliers use the most
recently available eligible customer list when, "marketing to and enrolling customers".
In the context of the order, the ostensible concern resolved by requiring the use of the latest ECL when enrolling a customer is, for enrollments based on the verification of a customer's identity (in which case the account number is obtained from the ECL), to ensure that an outdated account number is not linked to the enrolling customer. However, the rule language broadly reads as requiring the use of the latest ECL, "when marketing to and enrolling customers," and is not necessarily specific to the enroll-by-wallet mechanism
As previously reported, the rules essentially allow retail suppliers to use a customer's valid form of government-issued identification, or a sufficient alternative form of identification, for enrollment and customer identification purposes, with the suppliers then obtaining the customer's account information (number) from the utilities' eligible customer lists.
Specifically, PUCO is requiring retail suppliers to use the latest ECL when "marketing to and enrolling customers." [emphasis added]
RESA said, "The new requirement that, for every solicitation and enrollment, suppliers must use the
most recent eligible-customer list will mandate the purchase of that list again and again from the
utilities."
RESA provided examples of ECL costs as follows (as stated by RESA): Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. charges 7¢ per record,
which can amount to more than $100,000 as the entire list of eligible
customers must be purchased (no segments). The East Ohio Gas Company
charges either 4.8¢ or 7.2¢ per name and
address provided, depending on the frequency of the updated lists desired.
RESA noted that AES Ohio, AEP Ohio, and Duke Energy Ohio (electric) update their ECL monthly
"The new requirements will disproportionately and negatively affect smaller suppliers
because they mandate that the purchase costs be incurred frequently," RESA said
Case 25-729-GE-ORD
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
April 3, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Channel Partner Manager -- Retail Energy
• NEW -- Manager of Sales, Commercial -- Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Commercial Sales Support Specialist -- Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Channel Partner Manager - TX -- Retail Supplier
• NEW / Refreshed 2/24/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|
|