News Stories

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) issues a Finding and Order finalizing the administrative rules implementing provisions of HB15 related to retail supplier enrollment and retail supplier financial assurances.

Note that the amended rules are attached as Attachment A to the Finding and Order.

As background, on May 15, 2025, Governor DeWine signed Substitute House Bill Number 15 (Sub. HB 15). The new sections, R.C. 4928.103 and 4929.222, require the Commission to adopt rules regarding the customer account information needed to verify identity before switching CRES or CRNGS suppliers.

Here the Finding and Order ruled that retail electricity and natural gas suppliers may enroll customers using any valid form of government-issued identification, or sufficient alternative.

Specifically, the adopted language includes the following: “(D) CRES providers must verify customer’s identity at the time of enrollment.

“As proof of verification, CRES providers must obtain the customer’s signature acknowledging such verification occurred and must indicate which of the three types of forms of identification acceptable under subsection (D)(1), (D)(2), or (D)(3) of this rule was used for verification. CRES providers must maintain proof of verification of the customer’s identity. The following forms of identification may be used to verify a customer’s identity:

(1) “Customer account information,” as that term is defined in division (A) of section 4928.103 of the Revised Code; (2)

(2) A valid form of government-issued identification issued to the customer; or

(3) A sufficient alternative form of identification that allows the CRES provider to establish the customer’s identity accurately.”

In addition Sub. HB 15 amendments to R.C. 4928.08 and 4929.20 instruct the Commission to establish rules to require competitive retail electric service (CRES) suppliers and competitive retail natural gas service (CRNGS) suppliers, respectively, to maintain sufficient financial assurances to protect customers, electric distribution utilities, and natural gas companies in the event of a default.

Per the Finding and Order, distribution utilities must also update their tariffs to detail financial assurances retail suppliers must make to protect their customers from their possible default.

Among other things, the adopted language includes the following financial assurance requirements:

“(B) In its tariff, each natural gas company shall set reasonable standards for its security and the security of its customers through financial requirements for certified retail natural gas suppliers sufficient to protect customers and the natural gas company from default. For purposes of this paragraph, “retail natural gas supplier” has the same meaning as in section 4929.01 of the Revised Code but excludes a broker or aggregator.”

 Comments and Commission Conclusions on Proposed Rules

1. Customer Account Verification Rules

{¶ 17} Upon review of Staff’s proposed rules and stakeholder comments, the Commission generally finds Staff’s proposed rules in Ohio Adm.Code Chapters 4901:1-10, 4901:1-13, 4901:1-21, and 4901:1-29 acceptable, with only a few adjustments. In practice, the new rules promulgated in accordance with the R.C. 4928.103 and 4929.222 would function to reduce the onus on solicited customers to sign with a CRES or CRNGS provider, which in turn reduces burdens on suppliers in successfully enrolling new customers, while still maintaining adequate customer protections. For example, when a CRES or CRNGS provider solicits a residential customer at the customer’s residence, the supplier representative would need proof of the customer’s identity aligning with the broad parameters set forth in Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-21-06(D) and 4901:1-29-06(D) and then, in order to match that customer with their specific utility account, the representative would match the customer’s identity with the corresponding account number on the eligible customer list provided by the utility to the supplier in the manner now set forth in Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-29(F) and 4901:1-13-14(D). Accordingly, the customer can more easily engage with the supplier representative without needing to provide a specific utility account number, making the interaction between the supplier and solicited customer smoother, while still allowing a seamless switch on the back end between the supplier and specific utility. Also, we have revised Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-21-06(D) and 4901:1-29-06(D) to clarify that, in instances of direct solicitation—including but not necessarily limited to door and kiosk customer interaction—proof of a customer’s identity and maintenance of that verification is to be accomplished by obtaining and preserving the customer’s signature acknowledging that verification occurred and indicating which of the three types of identification verification acceptable under subsections (D)(1), (D)(2), or (D)(3) of these rules was used for verification.

{¶ 18} Duke suggests a reasonable clarification in its comments which better encapsulates the above process and, accordingly, “we will amend Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1- 21-06(A) and 4901:1-29-06(A) to include a provision requiring that enrollment requests submitted to the electric utility or incumbent natural gas company must contain customer account information, unless the utility’s tariff authorizes the use of alternative information for enrollment purposes—notably, this provision does not require the customer to provide the customer account information to the supplier. Duke suggests another reasonable revision to the proposed rules such that the rules make clear that suppliers must use the most recent eligible-customer list when attempting to enroll customers to ensure the list no longer includes customers who recently objected to being included on the list. Although Duke recommends that we revise Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-21-05(B) and 4901:1-29-05(D), we find it more appropriate to revise Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-21-06(A) and 4901:1-29-06(A) such that suppliers must use the most recently available eligible-customer list when marketing to and enrolling customers. While Duke and FirstEnergy request a delay in the enforcement of these revised provisions, we must work to expeditiously implement the General Assembly’s clear intent contemplated by the statute. However, in addition to the process set forth in this rulemaking proceeding, these rules must also be submitted to the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) for review prior to adoption and the Commission setting an effective date. This will naturally render some time to allow the requisite technical and training changes necessary to implement the amended rules. This time will also allow suppliers to implement any necessary technical and training changes necessary to implement these rules.”

{¶ 19} RESA and Santanna generally disagree with an enrollment process where the supplier must still provide a utility with the customer’s account information, arguing the statutory provisions do not require suppliers to use customer account information during enrollments. In response, we note that R.C. 4928.103(B) and 4929.222(B) explicitly state that the “customer…shall not be required to provide customer account information to the supplier” but does not speak to and, thus, does not necessarily bar a supplier from needing to provide customer account information to the utility. R.C. 4928.103(B) and 4929.222(B). The process set forth in the proposed rules does not require a customer to provide customer account information. At this time, we believe that the approach set forth in the proposed rules, as clarified by the amendment noted above to Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1- 21-06(A) and 4901:1-13-06(A), will result in an acceptable process that effectuates the applicable statutory provisions. We also agree with Duke that, at this time, this process will allow for the existing electronic data interchange processes and other enrollment processes to remain unchanged. Furthermore, a future rule review process can incorporate any changes or efficiencies realized by utilities and suppliers once these rules are implemented in practice. Moreover, the amendment to Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-21-06(A) and 4901:1-13- 06(A) allows for a Commission-approved utility tariff to provide for an alternative enrollment process that could perhaps be more amendable to RESA’s and Santanna’s positions.

{¶ 20} At this point, we will address some of the other rule-specific suggestions offered by the stakeholders in their comments related to customer verification. If a specific stakeholder suggestion is not addressed below, it nonetheless was considered by the Commission and rejected. The Commission finds Staff’s proposed definition of “customer account information” found in Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-01(J) and 4901:1-13-01(H) where the definition refers to the statutory provision defining such term reasonable. Despite OCC’s and Santanna’s suggestions otherwise, we see no reason to amend this proposal and note that drafting the definition in the manner Staff proposes avoids having to amend the rule definition if the statutory definition changes in the future. Additionally, for customer information privacy purposes, AEP Ohio recommends that several provisions of the proposed rules be revised such that electric utilities be allowed to list a redacted customer account number or AEP Ohio’s unique identification numbering convention on the eligible customer list. The Commission believes adopting AEP Ohio’s recommendation would unnecessarily overcomplicate matching a customer’s account number with a customer’s identity; therefore, it is more appropriate to keep the definition of “customer account information” as Staff proposed. Also, we reject Columbia’s proposed revision to Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-13-01(H) regarding its non-jurisdictional services customer identifier since it expands upon the definition in the underlying statute, and, at this time, choose not to provide a position on Columbia’ request for clarification. However, we note that, if 25-729-GE-ORD -10 – Columbia believes its internal practice to assign non-jurisdictional services customer identifier numbers would somehow be inadvertently entwined in the statutory definition of “customer account information,” it is not precluded from implementing adjustments to that internal practice.

{¶ 21} RESA, Santanna, and OCC argue that the proposed amendments to Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-21-06(D) and 4901:1-29-06(D), which set forth the general types of acceptable forms of customer identification, are insufficient. These parties believe that specific examples of “government-issued identification” and “sufficient alternative form of identification” are necessary for clear guidance on what is acceptable during verification. At this time, we find Staff’s proposed rules reasonable and believe keeping these descriptions in line with the statutory provision and, thus, as broad as possible, gives suppliers and interested customers some latitude in initiating an enrollment. While we reject providing an exhaustive list in this proceeding, we would envision a “sufficient alternative form of identification” would, at the very least, contain a customer’s name and address. In the future, if the Commission believes further guidance is necessary regarding the types of acceptable forms of customer identification, we will take action at that time. The Commission emphasizes that this verification, with the required matching between a customer and the customer’s utility account on the supplier’s end, in addition to the existing customer protections found in Ohio Adm.Code Chapters 4901:1-21 and 4901:1-29, serve to adequately protect customers against any unlawful supplier enrollment practices. Moreover, a customer who believes a supplier violated Commission rules may contact the Commission for guidance and, if desired, may file a formal complaint against the supplier under R.C. 4905.26 at the Commission.

{¶ 22} RESA and Santanna also take issue with the proposed amendments to Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-21-06(E)(2)(x) and 4901:1-29-06(F)(1)(j), which, if applicable during the third-party verification (TPV) portion of enrollment, require a verbal request for and the customer’s provision of customer account information. RESA and Santanna argue that this requirement conflicts with R.C. 4928.103(B) and 4929.222(B). We disagree. These provisions still enable suppliers to verify a customer’s identity in the manner set forth in Ohio Adm. Code 4901:1-21-06(D) and 4901:1-29-06(D) and only affect the TPV portion of the call. Most notably, these provisions explicitly indicate that a TPV must request the customer account information, “if applicable.” Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-21-06(E)(2)(x) and 4901:1-29- 06(F)(1)(j). These provisions acknowledge that customers can still choose to identify themselves using their “customer account information” and, if they do, then the TPV must reflect that mode of enrollment, thus the person conducting the TPV must ask for the information to adequately conduct the TPV. However, if the customer provides a valid form of government-issued identification issued to the customer or a sufficient alternative form of identification that allows the supplier to establish the customer’s identity accurately, the customer will not be required to provide customer account information to the supplier, consistent with the statute and the existing rule. Therefore, the Commission rejects RESA and Santanna’s recommendation.

{¶ 23} RESA and Santanna also request that the proposed amendments to Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-24(D)(1) and 4901:1-13-12(C)(1) be reworked. These stakeholders argue that these revisions will unduly restrict interactions between suppliers and utilities that involve customer account information and improperly require customers to provide special written consent before a utility can give account information or granular usage data to a supplier, all in conflict with Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-29 and 4901:1-10-33. It appears RESA and Santanna mistake the effect of the proposed amendments. Typically, customers would have to affirmatively consent to a utility providing the customer’s account information to a third-party; however, the amendments to Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10- 24(D)(1) and 4901:1-13-12(C)(1) specifically provide an exception to this rule in that utilities must include a customer’s account information on the eligible-customer lists, which are further detailed in Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-29(F) and 4901:1-13-12(E)(3), meaning utilities, absent circumstances where a customer objects, must provide customer account information to suppliers. With these amendments, a customer does not need to provide “special written consent” for a utility to share customer account information, as RESA and Santanna suggest. Regarding RESA’s request for clarification regarding a utility providing granular usage data to a supplier without written consent from a customer, the proposed rules do not contemplate making such an exception and revising them in that way is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

{¶ 24} OCC also recommends several amendments to the rules, such as increasing the frequency of notifications to customers about their summary of customer rights and responsibilities from annually to twice a year; including additional information in such notices; including enrollment opt-out notices on all monthly electric and gas bills in addition to the notices already provided quarterly, as well as including this information on the homepage of each utility’s website; and requiring electric utilities to hire an independent auditor to audit the privacy policies and practices at each electric utility in Ohio. We reject these recommendations and agree with other stakeholders that all of these recommendations are redundant, unduly burdensome, and outside the scope of this rulemaking considering most of the recommendations do not conform with the underlying statutory language that was the impetus of this rulemaking.

2. Financial Assurance Rules

{¶ 26} Regarding Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-29(C) and Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-13- 14(B), Staff proposes rule amendments that, in pertinent part, would require each electric utility and gas or natural gas company, respectively, in their supplier tariffs to set reasonable standards for its security and the security of its customers through financial requirements for CRES and CRNGS providers sufficient to protect customers and the utility from default. Additionally, Staff proposed amendments to Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-24-14(A) and (D) as well as 4901:1-27-14(A) and (E), requiring a “retail electric generation service provider” and “retail natural gas supplier,” respectively, to maintain financial assurance sufficient to protect customers and the utility from default.

{¶ 27} In its comments, RESA asserts that the proposed rules do not set forth the standards suppliers must follow to maintain financial assurance sufficient to protect customers and utilities from default. RESA argues that the Commission should provide in its rules the specific framework and elements that utilities should include in their tariffs to establish a uniform standard of financial assurances. RESA adds that the rules should allow for an expedited Commission dispute resolution process related to financial assurances. In support of its comments, RESA offers suggested language to be included in Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-29(C), 4901:1-13-14(B), 4901:1-24-14(B) and (C), and 4901:1-27-14(B), (C), and (D).

{¶ 28} Santanna questions the purpose of the language change between the terms “financial security” and “financial assurances” as found in Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-24-14 and 4901:1-27-14. Santanna notes that there is no corresponding change of language in Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-29(C) and 4901:1-13-14(B). Santanna asserts that the financial assurance/security requirements on suppliers should be consistent, fair, and follow an established timeline. Santanna seeks clear direction concerning transparency and financial expectations around the financial assurance requirements. Santanna also emphasizes that small- and medium-sized suppliers experience financial burdens when navigating inconsistent financial assurance requirements.

{¶ 29} In their reply comments, Duke and Columbia state that electric distribution utilities and natural gas companies should not share identical provisions for financial assurances. They explain that different utilities have unique characteristics that support a more individualized approach to determining financial assurances. Columbia and Duke also disagree with RESA’s request that the Commission create an expedited dispute resolution process. Further, for transparency purposes, Duke does not oppose financial assurance requirements to include collateral amount calculation formulas in utilities’ supplier tariffs or to include a framework for timing of reviews and adjustments of collateral amounts in tariffs; however, such requirements should not be enshrined in the rules or required to be uniform across all utilities.

{¶ 30} Upon review of Staff’s proposed rules related to financial assurances and stakeholder comments, we find it reasonable to adopt the rules as proposed by Staff. Despite RESA’s and Santanna’s arguments otherwise, we agree with Duke and Columbia that promulgating uniform financial assurance provisions across utilities would be a flawed approach considering the unique financial circumstances of each utility. We agree with RESA and Santanna that transparency in this realm is important. For example, the Commission sees the benefit of transparent collateral amount calculation formulas as well as delineated frameworks for the timing of reviews and adjustments of collateral amounts. However, we believe it is more appropriate for such parameters to be established in each utility’s supplier tariff, as the proposed rules require. When utilities file their proposed tariffs, stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide their input prior to the tariffs being approved by the Commission. Moreover, R.C. 4928.08(B)(2) and 4929.20(A)(2) specifically allow electric distribution utilities and natural gas companies “to set reasonable standards for its security and the security of its customers through financial requirements set in its tariffs.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 4928.08(B)(2) and 4929.20(A)(2). We also find RESA’s and Santanna’s proposed expedited resolution process related to financial assurance disputes impractical and view the existing formal complaint process before the Commission as the appropriate avenue for such disputes. Further, in response to Santanna’s questions about the difference between the terms “security” and “assurances,” we note that there is no practical difference between the two terms in the rules in relation to the amendments to R.C. 4928.08 and 4929.20. The language in Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-29(C) and 4901:1-13-14(B) that still uses the term “security” merely parrots the statutory provisions in R.C. 4928.08(B)(2) and 4929.20(A)(2); therefore, we see no need to revise those terms.

{¶ 31} Accordingly, at this time, the Commission finds that the attached proposed rules be adopted and filed with JCARR, the Secretary of State, and the Legislative Service Commission (LSC).

Changes to Ohio Administrative Code will be submitted to the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review before becoming effective. Read more about the PUCO rulemaking process.