News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
PUC Grants Extension in Evidentiary Hearing in Supplier Investigation
On July 15, 2026, the Public Utility Commission of Ohio (PUCO) issued an order granting the motion for a continuance, rescheduling the evidentiary hearing for August 26, 2026, and established a briefing schedule requiring any memorandum opposing the motion to strike to be filed by July 27, 2026, with any reply due by August 3, 2026.
Previously on July 13, 2026, PUCO issued an order that any memorandum contra RPA’s motion to strike be filed by July 14, 2026.
On July 14, 2026, PUCO filed a motion requesting a continuance of the July 15, 2026 hearing, along with expedited treatment, to allow sufficient time to respond to Green Choice Energy’s motion to strike. Staff stated that the requested continuance is consistent with Ohio Administrative Code requirements, which provide parties 15 days to file a memorandum of opposition.
Note that RPA sought to strike portions of Staff testimony related to the amount of a violation imposed on RPA. In its filing RPA alleged that Staff’s testimony amounts to a new determination rather than explanation of PUCO’s prior finding.
Memorandum of contra on the motion to strike is now due by July 27, 2026 and any reply is due by August 3, 2026.
A hearing will be held August 26, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. ET to obtain evidence relevant to the calculation of the forfeiture issued to Green Choice Energy.
As have reported previously, PUCO has opened this investigation into “alleged unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices” by retail gas and electricity supplier RPA Energy d/b/a Green Choice Energy (RPA). This investigation was prompted by a Staff recommendation, which stated that Staff had sent a notice of probable non-compliance to RPA on June21, 2021, but after extensive discussions between Staff and the supplier no resolution was reached.
The specific allegations of Staff are that “In late February 2021, based on review of customer contacts to the Commission’s call center, Staff became concerned about RPA’s marketing and enrollment practices. During the course of Staff’s investigation into a customer contact to the Commission’s call center, after reviewing the sales call audio recording RPA provided to Staff, Staff began to suspect that the recording was altered.” This was later confirmed according to Staff by a call made by an alleged RPA sales representative to a senior PUCO staffer who later listened to what she identified as an apparently redacted version of the telemarketing call recording. Other concerns were raised by a video recording of a door-to-door interaction viewed by Staff after which Staff determined, “…that RPA’s door-to-door sales agent engaged in misleading and deceptive marketing and solicitation practices.” There is also at least one allegation of slamming along with other customer complaints.
