|
|
|
|
|
PUC Says Retail Supplier Applications Not Automatically Approved If 90 Days Pass Without Commission Action During Suspension Of Review; Denies Rehearing Of Prior License Denial To Applicant
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Ohio statute does not provide that retail energy supplier applications are automatically approved if the PUC of Ohio does not approve or deny the application within 90 days of the application being suspended for further review, PUCO held in denying rehearing of its prior order denying the retail electric and gas supplier license applications of PALMco Energy OH, LLC and PALMco Power OH, LLC ("Palmco")
As previously reported by ECM, PUCO in a July 2026 order had found that, "Applicant [Palmco] is not managerially fit and capable of performing as either a CRES [competitive retail electric service] or a CRNGS [competitive retail natural gas] marketer and broker to large commercial and industrial customers in Ohio in compliance with all applicable regulations adopted pursuant to R.C. Chapters 4928 and 4929." PUCO denied Palmco's applications.
Palmco sought rehearing on various grounds, including arguing that Palmco's applications were granted by operation of law due to a statutory 90-day limit for PUCO action in cases of retail supplier application suspension, and PUCO's inaction during such 90 days
See more details on Palmco's rehearing arguments in ECM's prior story here
PUCO had suspended consideration of Palmco’s applications prior to 30 days after the applications were filed (statute does provide automatic approval after 30 days if PUCO does not suspend or deny the application during such 30-day period)
PUCO said that the electricity statute governing suspensions provides that the Commission, "shall act to approve or deny certification or certification renewal to the applicant not later than ninety days after the date of the suspension." [similar language is in the gas statute]
Citing In re Application of Moraine Wind, LLC for Certification as an Eligible Ohio
Renewable Energy Resource Generating Facility, 2024-Ohio-3224, Palmco argued that after 90 days have passed after a suspension, a supplier application is approved by operation of law, absent PUCO action within such 90 days.
PUCO said in a rehearing order that Palmco misapplies Moraine Wind, and that
In re Application of Columbus S. Power
Co., 2011-Ohio-1788, controls, which provides that the relevant statutory language, "is directory rather than
mandatory."
PUCO held that, "The governing language does not provide that the relevant application is
automatically approved 90 days after being suspended, but encourages the prompt review
of such applications by instructing that the Commission 'act to approve or deny the
application within ninety days [of suspension].'"
"Since the applicable language does not
mandate a specific result should the act not occur in the allotted time, these rules and statues
should be construed as directory in nature," PUCO said
PUCO said that, in Columbus S. Power Co., the Supreme Court of
Ohio explained: "As a general rule, a statute which provides a timeline for the performance
of an official duty will be construed as directory so far as the time for
performance is concerned, especially where the statute fixes the time simply
for convenience or orderly procedure."
PUCO said, "The relevant statutes and rules state that the Commission shall or will act to
approve or deny the application within 90 days after a relevant application is suspended.
Notably, the relevant portions do not provide any consequence for exceeding the 90-day
deadline," with PUCO contrasting the retail supplier application suspension statute with other statutes governing PUCO which specifically mandate an outcome if PUCO does not act within a timeframe (for example, such non-retail statutes are explicit that PUCO inaction results in an application becoming approved by operation of law)
Palmco on rehearing had also argued that PUCO's denial was inconsistent with PUCO's prior grant of broker licenses to CGE Renewables, a Palmco affiliate, which Palmco said has identical ownership structure and identical enforcement action history to Palmco
However, PUCO noted, among other things, that CGE's license was limited to broker services, while Palmco sought licensure as both a supplier and broker.
While Palmco proposed to limit service to large C&I customers, PUCO said, "While industrial and large commercial customers can be
more sophisticated shoppers than residential customers, all classes of customers deserve
protection from unscrupulous business practices."
PUCO also alleged that PUCO was not presented with the same information by CGE and Palmco in their respective applications, with PUCO highlighting such difference as supporting different outcomes
PUCO stated, "We ... disagree with Palmco’s argument that its applications disclosed the
same regulatory actions as those disclosed in CGE. A review of the disclosures made in
Exhibit B-3 of the instant applications and the corresponding exhibit numbers in the
applications made in CGE reveals notable discrepancies. The instant applications show only
three disclosures of liabilities and investigations, while at least seven were listed in CGE’s
application. Additional regulatory liabilities and investigations from Connecticut (PALMco
Power CT, LLC), Massachusetts (PALMco Power MA, LLC d/b/a Indra Energy), New
Jersey (PALMco Power NJ, LLC and PALMco Energy NJ, LLC), and Pennsylvania (PALMco
Energy PA, LLC) -- all of which involve Palmco affiliates and/or managerial personnel -- are
listed in the CGE filings but were omitted in the instant filings. These differences are not
less troubling because fewer disclosures were made in the instant applications than in the
CGE applications. Indeed, these differences of omission are more troubling; the concern is
the lack of consistent and transparent disclosures. Again, in addition to the liabilities and
investigations disclosed here and in CGE, the Commission notes that additional regulatory
actions listed in Palmco’s previous certificate applications are not disclosed in the current applications. In short, to the extent that our Finding and Order in CGE is precedential, the
Commission appropriately explained why we ultimately disagreed with Staff’s
recommendation and reached a different outcome here."
Palmco uses the trade name Indra Energy
Case 10-138-GA-CRS, 10-139-EL-CRS
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
September 3, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Enrollment & Rate Management Director - Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Strategic Sales Channels Manager - Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Controller - Retail Provider
• NEW -- Manager, Product I - VXRetail (Retail Energy)
• Refreshed 5/27/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|
|