|
|
|
|
|
NOPEC/OCC Seek Rehearing To Explicitly Prohibit FirstEnergy Utilities From Jointly Advertising With Any Retail Supplier Affiliate Via Shared Name/Logo
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The Northeast
Ohio Public Energy Council (NOPEC) and the Office of Ohio Consumers’ Counsel filed a rehearing request at the PUC of Ohio arguing that PUCO erred when, in a recent order approving an amended corporate separation plan at the FirstEnergy Ohio utilities, PUCO failed to impose certain restrictions on any potential future retail supplier affiliate of the FirstEnergy Ohio utilities
NOPEC and OCC said that PUCO erred by:
• Failing to require the FirstEnergy Ohio utilities to obtain approval of an amended corporate separation plan before any
FirstEnergy Ohio utility affiliate seeks to be certified as a competitive retail electric service (CRES)
provider.
• Failing to
prohibit the FirstEnergy Ohio utilities from jointly advertising and marketing with a CRES provider affiliate
through the use of the "FirstEnergy" name and logo.
As first reported by ECM, PUCO, in its order adopting an amended corporate separation plan at the FirstEnergy Ohio EDCs, called CRES affiliate concerns "misplaced", as PUCO noted that the FirstEnergy Ohio utilities no longer have a competitive affiliate, and further noted that as part of a PUCO-approved settlement concerning the FirstEnergy Ohio EDCs and the HB 6 scandal, the FirstEnergy Ohio EDCs have agreed, in PUCO's terminology, to, "refrain from seeking certification of a competitive affiliate for a period of five years."
See full details on PUCO's order here
NOPEC and OCC said, "The Order in this case allows FirstEnergy to reenter the competitive market through an affiliate
without first obtaining approval of a new amended plan. When FirstEnergy reenters the competitive market,
it appears from the Order that parties must raise their concerns regarding the corporation separation plan in
a future CRES application proceeding."
However, NOPEC and OCC argued that a CRES application proceeding is governed by different standards than a review of corporate separation, and that a CRES application proceeding is ill-fitted to address affiliate concerns
"The CRES application process
does not focus on whether the electric utility’s corporate separation plan has the appropriate structural
safeguards in place to prevent corporate separation violations," OCC and NOPEC said, arguing that the FirstEnergy Ohio EDCs should be required to amend their corporate separation plan, and receive approval from PUCO for such amendment, prior to any affiliate filing for a CRES license
Case 24-867-EL-UNC, 24-0867-EL-UNC
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 15, 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
|
|
|
|
|