PUC Proposes Changes To Retail Energy Rules

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio has invited comment on, and proposed specific changes to, the competitive retail electric service and competitive retail natural gas service rules in Ohio Adm.Code Chapters 4901:1- 21, 4901:1-23, 4901:1-24, 4901:1-27, 4901:1-28, 4901:1-29, 4901:1-30, 4901:1-31, 4901:1-32, 4901:1-33, and 4901:1-34

The rules address, among other things, marketing and solicitation, disclosures, customer enrollment and consent, minimum service standards, supplier licensing, and billing

The only substantive changes proposed by PUCO would implement prior rule waivers regarding supplier license renewals adopted last year

Specifically, PUCO proposed to codify that suppliers may file for renewals up to 90 days prior to certificate expiration, rather than 60 days. A supplier filing a renewal application fewer than 30 days before expiration (as required) would be granted an automatic - extension of the existing certificate for a period of 31 days from the date the renewal was filed. A supplier who files for renewal after expiration of a certificate may request an extension of the existing certificate for a period of 90 days. Currently, this extension for suppliers filing after certificate expiration lasts "during the pendency" of the renewal review.

PUCO also proposed to codify that suppliers may file credit reports and credit ratings under seal when submitted as part of their license applications (similar to the current protection provided to financial statements)

PUCO's proposed changes also include housekeeping changes to remove certain rules concerning utility obligations related to the retail market, as such rules were previously moved to the utility minimum service standards rules, and are now duplicative.

While PUCO itself has not proposed significant changes to the rules as part of the rules' periodic re-adoption, other stakeholders may seek to do so

Notably, PUCO had previously said that its (now withdrawn) order requiring suppliers to use the specific labels "fixed" and "variable" for products was better suited for the instant rulemaking review, though PUCO itself has not, in its latest order, proposed to revisit this issue via any proposed change. The current rules do include requirements specific to fixed and variable plans, but the rules do not define the terms, and specific definitions had previously been proposed to address issues related to regulatory out clauses or similar pass-throughs

See background on the product labeling order here

Cases 17-1843-EL-ORD et al.