|
|
|
|
|
Retail Supplier Seeks Statewide Review Of Default Service Product Type
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 encouraged the PUC of Ohio to use a recently opened rulemaking, which was opened to implement parts of HB 15 (namely the elimination of electric security plans), to clearly define the default service product to be procured under the market rate offer SSO process which will be used going forward
As first reported by ECM (details here), other than revisions to reflect recent statutory changes, PUCO does not propose any substantive revisions to the SSO rules in the new rulemaking
RESA cited recent discussion concerning SSO design arising in various proceedings -- from whether class-specific procurements should be used rather than slice of system, to proposals for a data center-only SSO, and with PJM's proposed backstop reliability auction also potentially requiring changes to default service. RESA said that the rulemaking provides an opportunity, "for
[a] statewide review that the Commission has previously indicated it would want to undertake
before considering any changes to the existing slice-of-the-system SSO auction structure."
RESA noted that the MRO statute requires a "clear product definition" for the SSO product being procured in a competitive bid process, with RESA stating that the rulemaking serves as an "excellent opportunity" for discussion of such definition
"RESA recommends that the Commission initiate and lead collaborative discussions about
whether to continue or modify the existing slice-of-the system SSO auction structure.
Certainly, the Commission and stakeholders would benefit from discussions continuing
until after the reliability backstop procurement process is finalized," RESA said
With other forums (such as rate cases) foreclosed for certain retail tariff policy changes (as previously reported, story here), RESA also said that PUCO in the SSO rulemaking should adopt a rule that requires that the costs of processing switching (switching fees) and accessing customer data should, "cease being discriminatorily assessed against shopping customers and
their suppliers."
At certain utilities, switching fees and customer data access fees are charged to retail suppliers, but not SSO customers (with a switch to SSO, for example, not incurring a switching fee)
RESA sought the elimination of the switching and data access fees. In the alternative, RESA said that such fees should be imposed in a non-discriminatory manner
As to the SSO rules implementing HB 15, RESA opposed a previously reported PUCO Staff proposal in the draft rules to eliminate the current requirement for an EDC to hold a technical conference at the start of a newly proposed SSO application. RESA said that such technical workshop will be of assistance especially as the EDCs transition from the current ESP framework to an MRO, which RESA said will
likely present novel issues requiring stakeholder review
In separately filed comments, the Ohio Consumers' Counsel reiterated calls for PUCO to adopt a policy, in this case via rule, that data centers should pay all costs related to serving such data center load, including generation costs, and that residential customers should not pay any costs related to a data center-specific SSO. OCC generally repeated several previously reported OCC recommendations favoring the use of a separate data center SSO, and favoring advance notice requirements for data centers to return to SSO
In separately filed comments, AEP Ohio proposed that the rule should provide utilities with flexibility to propose changes to the SSO procurements
AEP Ohio proposes that, during the term of an electric utility’s approved SSO, the electric utility may file
for an amendment of the CBP [competitive bid plan] component of the SSO to make procedural updates or
modifications to the auction process in lieu of filing a new SSO application.
Notably, AEP Ohio proposes that such SSO modification would be automatically approved after 45 days if PUCO does not act upon the proposal within such timeframe
Case 26-0059-EL-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
May 13, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Director of Broker Relations -- Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Channel Partner Manager -- Retail Energy
• Manager of Sales, Commercial -- Retail Supplier
• Commercial Sales Support Specialist -- Retail Supplier
• Refreshed 2/24/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|
|