News Stories

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio issued an Order on Rehearing “grants in part, and denies, in part, the application for rehearing filed by the Retail Energy Supply Association (RESA) regarding amended rules adopted pursuant to R.C. 4928.08, 4928.103, 4929.20, and 4929.222.”

“Upon review of RESA’s first assignment of error, we find that it should be granted solely for the purpose of moving the adopted language underneath the rule subsection directly related to direct solicitation. RESA believes the Commission should remove the language from Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-21-06(D) and 4901:1-29-06(D) requiring CRES and CRNGS providers to obtain proof of customer identity verification by obtaining a customer-signed verification acknowledgment and requiring CRES and CRNGS providers to maintain proof of verification.

{¶ 13} While we see no reason to remove the adopted language regarding a customer-signed proof of verification acknowledgement, we nevertheless agree with RESA that the placement of this provision is more sensible within the subsection directly addressing direct solicitation in Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-21-06(E)(1) and 4901:1-29-06(E). We note, however, that except for moving this portion of the rule under these subsections, the rationale for including the verification language articulated in the Finding and Order still applies. Finding and Order at ¶ 17. This change also renders RESA’s concern about a wet signature requirement from a customer during telephone enrollments moot since it only applies to direct solicitations.” [Emphasis Added]

{¶ 14} We also find that RESA’s second assignment of error should be denied. In its second assignment of error, RESA argues that the Commission failed to rely on facts or provide a rationale that sufficiently explains, as required by R.C. 4903.09, why proof of a customer-signed verification acknowledgment must be obtained through a customer signed acknowledgement in addition to the actual form of identification obtained during the enrollment process. RESA’s argument is unavailing.”

“{¶ 17} We find that RESA’s third assignment of error should be denied. While RESA argues that suppliers would like more guidance regarding acceptable alternative forms of identification and that such guidance would provide fair notice to suppliers for compliance purposes, we see no reason to alter our decision for the same reasons articulated in the Finding and Order. As stated in the Finding and Order, we believe, at this time, it is appropriate to keep descriptions “as broad as possible,” in line with the statutory provision. Finding and Order at ¶ 21. Again, we provided some guidance where we stated that we envision a “’sufficient alternative form of identification’ would, at the very least, contain a customer’s name and address.” Id. Furthermore, as we already noted, “[i]n the future, if the Commission believes further guidance is necessary regarding the types of acceptable forms of customers identification, we will take action at that time.”

“In its fourth assignment of error, RESA argues that the Finding and Order is unreasonable and unlawful because the new requirement in Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-21- 06(A) and 4901:1-29-06(A), mandating that suppliers use the most recently available eligible customer list when marketing to and enrolling customers, will impose significant and unreasonable costs on suppliers, which was not considered by the Commission.

{¶ 20} The Commission grants RESA’s application for rehearing as to this assignment of error solely for the purpose stated below. At the outset, we note that the amendment adopted in the Finding and Order by the Commission was initially suggested by Duke in its initial comments. While RESA responded to this argument in its reply comments, it provided only a short, general repudiation, stating “Duke’s argument and corresponding proposed language should be rejected.” RESA Reply Comments at 3, fn. 4. Therefore, RESA first offered the specifics of the potential cost burden shouldered by suppliers if required to frequently purchase the most recently available eligible-customer list in its application for rehearing, leaving this Entry on Rehearing as our first opportunity to weigh RESA’s substantive concerns. Initially, we see no reason to remove altogether the requirement that suppliers continue to use updated eligible-customer lists for the same reason articulated in the Finding and Order, “to ensure the list no longer includes customers who recently objected to being included on the list.” Finding and Order at

¶ 18. Nevertheless, we have updated Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-21-06(A) and 4901:1-29-06(A) to require that CRES and CRNG providers utilizing a utility eligible-customer list for marketing or enrolling customers must do so using a list updated within the past 12 months, unless otherwise stated in the applicable utility’s tariff, when marketing to and enrolling customers. This revision mitigates the cost some suppliers would incur to obtain an updated eligible-customer list while still requiring these CRES and CRNGS providers to continually use updated eligible-customer lists at a practical frequency such that the wishes of customers who objected to being included on the list are still respected.”

While PUCO on rehearing has approved revisions to the final rule language, the revised rules remain subject to review by the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) process.