News Stories

On May 18, 2026,  RPA d/b/a Green Choice Energy filed a support motion for stay and memorandum in support with the Ohio Public Utility Commission of Ohio (PUCO).

In response on May 21, 2026 PUCO Staff filed  a limited memorandum of contra motion in support of Green Choice Energy’s motion for temporary stay.

In response on May 21, 2026, filed  a limited memorandum of contra motion in support of Green Choice Energy’s motion for temporary stay.

In its filing PUCO Staff indicates it supports allowing Green Choice Energy and intervenors an additional 2 weeks to submit any new testimony and rescheduling the hearing to June 24, 2026.

As background on March 13, 2026  the Ohio Supreme Court issued an order where the Court upheld PUCO’s order revoking RPA’s license but found that PUCO’s order did not include support for the $1.44 million forfeiture amount ordered by PUCO.  Therefore, the Court  remanded the proceeding to PUCO regarding the forfeiture amount.

Specifically, the case before the Commission on remand following the Supreme Court of Ohio decision in In Re RPA Energy, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-563 (Feb. 24, 2026), which affirmed in part and reversed in part an October 18, 2023 Commission Order directing, among other things, that RPA pay a civil forfeiture of $1.44 million and re-rate certain customers. The Court directed the Commission to “to identify and thoroughly explain the evidence it used to support the ordered forfeiture” (Slip Op. ¶76) and “clarify which consumers it is ordering RPA to rerate.” (Id. at ¶ 84.)

A subsequent PUCO entry issued on March 10, 2026 directed Staff to file new testimony, if any, by May 11, for RPA and intervenors to file testimony by May 25^th.

On May 11, 2026 Staff filed testimony explaining how Staff arrived at Staff’s proposed $1.5 M forfeiture amount.  Although Staff’s remand testimony maintains its $1.5M forfeiture recommendation, its testimony amended the number of alleged violations from 156 to 281 violations.

In light of Staff’s revised alleged violations, RPA said, “the current schedule does not provide sufficient time to review and respond to Staff’s May 11 testimony. The Commission’s October 13, 2023 Opinion and Order assessed a forfeiture based on ‘approximately 150 violations’ but Staff’s remand testimony now alleges ‘281 total violations.’ Reviewing and responding to these alleged violations will require extensive effort that simply cannot be completed effectively by May 25.”

Also, in its motion for stay RPA reported that discussions among counsel for the parties, “reveal a mutual interest in exploring the possibility of settlement.”

It also stated that “[t]he current schedule does not accommodate the preparation of responsive testimony and settlement discussions simultaneously. The requested stay would allow the parties to focus their efforts on settlement, which is the preferred resolution of contested proceedings under long-standing Commission policy.”