News Stories

Additional parties filed reply comments on the proposed modifications in Ohio Adm. Code Chapter 4901: 1-37 addressing corporate separate rules.

NOPEC supports the recommendations submitted by RESA, IGS, and most of the OCC, stating that additional revisions to Ohio’s corporate separation rules are needed.

AEP Ohio supports the Staff’s proposed clarifying amendments to the corporate separation rules but opposes the broader revisions proposed by the OCC, NOPEC, and RESA/IGS. AEP Ohio argues that the proposed changes exceed the PUCO’s statutory authority because the current corporate separation framework already provides adequate protections and enforcement mechanisms, as demonstrated by the FirstEnergy audit. Specifically, AEP Ohio opposes OCC’s proposals related to defining unregulated services, affiliate transaction pricing, generation asset divestiture, transmission planning, and political contribution disclosures and NOPEC’s proposals to prohibit shared executives, shared services, warm transfers, and common branding; and the parties’ proposals for mandatory corporate separation audits. AEP Ohio contends these changes would create unnecessary regulatory litigation and urges the PUCO to adopt only Staff’s proposed clarifying amendments.

OCC filed comments in support of NOPEC’s proposed amendments to Ohio’s corporate separation rules that would prohibit regulated electric utilities and their affiliates from sharing senior executives, management, legal counsel, employees, and directors, citing findings from the FirstEnergy House Bill 6 investigations. OCC also supports prohibiting utilities from transferring or referring customers to affiliated competitive businesses, banning affiliates from using the same or similar names and logos as electric distribution utilities to reduce consumer confusion and competitive advantages, and requiring periodic compliance audits. Finally, the OCC advocates for independent audits every 3 years.

The Companies (refer to Ohio Edison Company, The Toledo Edison Company, and the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company) recommend rejecting NOPEC’s proposal to prohibit shared executives and personnel, noting that the PUCO has previously declined to find shared management to be a corporate separation violation. The Companies also oppose the Suppliers’ request for broader access to nonpublic utility data, arguing the current rules already prohibit improper data sharing and that the proposal would create unnecessary administrative burdens. Additionally, the Companies urge the PUCO to reject OCC’s proposals to define unregulated product or service, adopt asymmetric pricing for affiliate transactions, require least-cost transmission planning, mandate expanded filings of FERC audit and investigation materials, and require annual CEO and CFO compliance certifications. They contend these proposals exceed the scope of the corporate separation rules, conflict with existing law.