|
|
|
|
|
PUC Says Retail Suppliers "May" Have Opportunity To Address Switching Fee In Future Default Service Proceedings
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
In a second rehearing order, the PUC of Ohio affirmed its decision not to modify the switching fee at the FirstEnergy Ohio utilities as part of a rate case, but suggested several potential alternative paths that retail suppliers may potentially use to seek elimination of the switching fee
In a rate case for the FirstEnergy Ohio utilities, the Retail Energy Supply Association and IGS Energy had sought elimination of the $5 fee for switching a customer from SSO to retail supplier service. There is no switching fee for a customer to switch to SSO
The FirstEnergy Ohio utilities did not propose to change the switching fee in their rate application
As previously reported by ECM, the PUC previously affirmed that, "unmodified tariffs are not generally the subject of
review in a rate case," with PUCO further stating that RESA's and IGS's position seeking elimination of the switching fee was not supported by evidence. As such, PUCO maintained the current switching fee.
As previously reported, RESA in a second rehearing request alleged that PUCO's order erred because it not only denied RESA's sought relief, but because the order failed to provide an avenue for suppliers to challenge the switching fee. While PUCO in its original order had stated that "the more
appropriate proceeding" to address the switching fee would be a default service (SSO) application, RESA cited prior instances in which PUCO rejected addressing, in SSO cases, utility tariffs which impact the distribution revenue requirement (which switching fees do).
Thus, RESA sought rehearing, arguing that PUCO's refusal to substantively consider the switching fee issue in various case types amounted to regulatory "whack a mole", in which suppliers were left unsure of what case type is appropriate for consideration of the switching fee
In a second order on rehearing, PUCO stated, "the Commission is not under any obligation to identify future cases in which CRES retail] providers may raise their preferred issues nor should the Commission prejudge the scope of, or intervention in, any future proceedings".
However, PUCO did discuss "potential" proceedings which could potentially address the switching fee
Most notably, PUCO said that retail suppliers "may have the opportunity" to raise "any relevant issues" in applications from electric utilities for adoption of a market rate offer (a form of the SSO) as the EDCs' current electric security plans expire.
However, PUCO stressed that, "the Commission cannot prejudge that question here," concerning whether the switching fee would be appropriate to be addressed in a market rate offer application
PUCO also said that it is "necessary" for utilities to periodically propose amendments to their supplier coordination tariffs, with PUCO citing such proceedings as a potential avenue to raise the switching fee issue
PUCO cited the customary five-year rule reviews required under statute, and rules governing supplier and utility interactions, as another potential forum for the switching fee issue
Finally, PUCO said that RESA and IGS are free to file a complaint with PUCO against the FirstEnergy EDCs if RESA and IGS believe that the switching fee is unjust or unreasonable
PUCO also said that, "an electric distribution rate case is a narrow, but deep, review of the provision of distribution service by the EDU, although the General Assembly has provided statutory authority for the Commission to approve two specific types of additional programs when considering an application to increase rates. R.C. 4909.192 [relating to economic development and mercantile customer transmission cost recovery]."
PUCO also said that RESA and IGS "misinterpreted" PUCO's decision concerning the switching fee
While PUCO had stated in addressing the switching fee that "unmodified tariffs are not generally the subject of
review in a rate case," PUCO also reiterated its finding that RESA and IGS did not present sufficient evidence to support a change in the fee
"Thus, our decision was not a reversal of precedent," PUCO said (RESA had argued that PUCO has in other rate cases substantively addressed stakeholders' proposed tariff changes for tariffs in which the utility did not propose any change, and thus RESA argued that PUCO's treatment of the switching fee issue departed from this precedent)
PUCO also dismissed other arguments that RESA and IGS had raised on rehearing
Case 24-469-EL-ATA, 24-0469-EL-ATA et al.
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 14, 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
|
|
|
|
|