|
|
|
|
|
Buckeye Energy Brokers Says Activities Comply With Rule & Law, Objects To Intervention Of Competitors In Renewal Proceeding
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Buckeye Energy Brokers, Inc. said, in response to objections to the application of Buckeye for renewal of Buckeye's natural gas broker/aggregator license in Ohio, that Buckeye's activities have not violated applicable rule or law.
A PUCO ALJ has suspended automatic approval of the Buckeye natural gas broker and aggregator renewal application to allow for further consideration of the matters. The effectiveness of Buckeye's existing broker/aggregator license was extended until such time as PUCO addresses the matter
As previously reported, Palmer Energy Company, Inc. alleged that the aggregation certification applications of Newton and Howland Townships, filed by Buckeye on behalf of the Townships, allegedly did not comply with law because, among other reasons, Palmer alleged that the townships impermissibly relied on a prior vote governing opt-out aggregation for unincorporated areas of a county as authorizing their Township aggregation plans. Palmer alleged that Buckeye undertook a similar application with respect to Charlestown Township. NOPEC made similar allegations. Palmer has said that PUCO should deny Buckeye's renewal due to such alleged actions
See full background here
In a response, Buckeye said that, "it has been
generally understood since 2000 that aggregation questions need only be approved once by
residents."
Buckeye alleged, "In 2022, when NOPEC dropped
550,000 customers, other communities such as Lorain, Cleveland, and Shaker Heights left
their buying groups to have their own program without placing the aggregation question
back on the ballot, and it has been uniformly understood since 2000 that the aggregation
question only needs to be approved once by residents."
Buckeye further said that, "Several other communities have left their buying groups to create their own program
without placing aggregation back on the ballot."
Addressing the allegations concerning the various townships cited by Palmer or NOPEC, Buckeye noted that PUCO approved Newton Township's application, and that, contrary to allegations by NOPEC, Charlestown Township held the requisite public hearings
Buckeye said, "Palmer cites prior instances involving Newton Township, Howland Township, and
Charlestown Township. With regard to Trumbull County, Palmer alleged it is a 'county-wide'
program, but as stated in Mr. Bellish's [Thomas M. Bellish, president of
Buckeye] affidavit, only half of the townships participated, and the
list is frequently changing. In fact, some townships have never been members, nor were townships
forced to be members in the program. In addition, the Commission accepted Newton Township's
application (Certificate No. 26-145513G) on May 18, 2026. Moreover, Howland Township's
application was withdrawn; thus, any argument regarding that application is irrelevant. Palmer
suggests that Buckeye attempted to cut corners in Charlestown Township and cites the Trustee
Meeting Minutes. However, as Mr. Bellish explains in his affidavit, Buckeye was not even present
at the meeting, nor did it make those statements. Furthermore, Charlestown Township had two
public hearings on February 9, 2026, and February 23, 2026. Palmer acknowledges the previous
ballot, but, as Mr. Bellish explained in his Affidavit, and his extensive history and understanding
of this industry, there is no rule requiring the question to go on the ballot a second time."
Buckeye averred that, "Palmer's argument that Buckeye submitted and/or omitted information is flatly wrong. Buckeye
was in contact with the Commission staff before filing applications for both Charlestown and
Newton Townships, and the staff recommended filing."
Buckeye stated, "Buckeye has been in business for more than twenty (20) years, and its work
continues to positively impact communities throughout the State of Ohio. NOPEC's
Motions are attempting to put Buckeye out of business, yet such Motions have presented
no valid or supported reason to do so. True and accurate copies of correspondence from
customers of Buckeye are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit
A, as they express appreciation and satisfaction for the services and work Buckeye has
performed for them. Buckeye looks forward to continuing to provide exceptional service
to its customers."
Buckeye said, "NOPEC's concerns about Buckeye's alleged failure to comply with Ohio law and the
Commission's rules as it relates to three incidents are frankly unfounded and inaccurate. Buckeye
is a well-recognized and long-standing entity in this industry, and denying its applications on
speculation and falsehoods will deprive Buckeye and its customers of the ability to continue their
lawful operations and relationship."
Buckeye also alleged a violation by Palmer, alleging that an, "agreement between Palmer Energy and
the Trumbull County Commissioners violated the commission's rules since it was signed by CCAO
Service Corporation, which is not PUCO certified."
Buckeye also argued that Palmer and NOPEC have not demonstrated that each meets the standard for intervention, and said that any compliance concerns are within the domain of PUCO Staff and the Commission, and should not be policed by competing enterprises
Case 02-1676-GA-AGG
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
July 24, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Manager, Product I - VXRetail (Retail Energy)
• Refreshed 5/27/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|
|