|
|
|
|
|
PUC Clarifies Whether Switching Fee Was Before Commission In Rate Case Order
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The PUC of Ohio has further clarified whether the issue of the switching fee was before the Commission in the recent electric rate case of the FirstEnergy Ohio utilities
In the 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, PUCO in prior orders said 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
PUCO also, however, said that RESA and IGS's switching fee proposal was not supported by evidence
RESA and IGS in their latest rehearing request said that there was ambiguity regarding whether their arguments regarding the switching fee were within the scope of the rate case
RESA and IGS interpreted prior decisions in the case as holding that the challenge to switching fee was not appropriate for review in the rate case, but said that PUCO's latest rehearing order provides that the switching fee issue was decided, and that PUCO denied the RESA/IGS proposal on the proposal's merits
RESA and IGS believe that PUCO's most recent rehearing order confirms that supplier intervenors can challenge tariff issues in a rate case, but that the burden of proof falls on the party proposing the change, and sought confirmation of such from PUCO
PUCO held that, "the Commission reiterates that, under the specific facts and circumstances of this case, the switching fee proposal was properly before the Commission."
"Therefore, the Commission confirms that the switching fee proposal was decided on the merits in this proceeding," PUCO said
Case 24-469-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
June 11, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• Refreshed 5/27/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Channel Partner Manager -- Retail Energy
|
|
|
|
|