News Stories

As reported previously on November 5, 2025, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) issued an order and request for comments regarding staff’s proposed rule amendments in response to Sub. HB 15 adopted amendments to sections of the Ohio Revised Code, R.C. 4928.08 and 4929.20, as well as adopted new sections R.C. 4928.103 and 4929.222. Among other things the amendments to R.C. 4928.08 and 4929.20 instructed the Commission to establish rules requiring competitive retail electric service (CRES) suppliers and competitive retail natural gas service (CRNGS) suppliers to maintain sufficient financial assurances to protect customers, electric distribution utilities, and natural gas companies in the event of a default. The new sections, R.C. 4928.103 and 4929.222, also require the Commission to adopt rules regarding the customer account information needed to verify identity before switching CRES or CRNGS suppliers.

Initial comments were due no later than November 25, 2025, and December 10, 2025. respectively.

Among other things, suppliers seek clarification and specific examples of what qualifies as acceptable customer identification that will be considered sufficient to establish customer identity.  Suppliers also push for transparent, consistent, known, and reasonable threshold for financial assurance requirements rather than allowing each utility to develop ad hoc standards.

The Office of Consumer Counsel propose that PUCO should amend Ohio Adm. Code 4901:1-10-29(G)(1)(c) and 4901:1-13-14(F)(3) to require consumers to be emailed a notice allowing consumers to rescind a recent switch to an electric or natural gas marketer.

An electric utility notes that in its customer information system the SDI number is key for CRES providers to enroll customers in the Company’s customer information system but emphasizes that it is different from the customer’s utility account number. A SDI number does not move with the customer but rather remains at the same premise permanently. The utility argues that the proposed changes regarding the provision of customer account information jeopardizes consumer protection by directly providing these unique numbers to the market. The utility therefore recommends the Commission update the Ohio Adm. Code to allow electric utilities to provide a redacted version of either the customer account number or the SDI.

Because of its unique customer enrollment system, a gas utility requests that language be added to the rule to explicitly permit the gas utility’s sharing of the utility’s randomly generated identifier prior to formally obtaining customer consent to share an account number.

See overview of comments below.

Santanna Energy Services – “What Are the Specific Sufficient Alternative Forms of Identification? –  Santanna requests clarification on the proposed changes to O.A.C Chapters 4901:1-21-06(D)(3) (for CRES) and 4901:1-29-06(D)(3) (for CRNGS). Specifically, Santanna seeks elaboration on the definition of “sufficient alternative form” in 4901:1-21-6(D)(3) and 4901:1-29-06(D)(3) to understand its implications. Santanna supports multiple methods of verifying a customer’s identity, given that customers often struggle to find their utility account numbers. Should SES enroll a customer by the method cited in 4901:1-21-06 (D)(3) and/or 4901:1-29-06(D)(3), it seeks guidance on what the compliant alternative methods are. SES respectfully requests that Staff modify the rule to list acceptable examples of sufficient forms of customer identification.”

“Are Utility Account Numbers No Longer Required for Enrollment?” – “When a customer enrolls by providing a valid form of government identification 4901:1-21-06 (D)(2) or a sufficient alternative form of identification 4901:1-21-06 (D)(3), as opposed to the provision of a utility account number (UAN) 4901:1-21-06 (D)(1) (which is the current standard process), what is that alternate process? Currently (D)(1) serves as the key point of information for a CRES or CRNGS to enroll a customer. Additionally, do all other enrollment and verification provisions remain? Does a customer’s enrollment via (D)(2) or (D)(3) eliminate the need for a CRES or CRNGS to obtain or otherwise record the customer’s UAN (D)(1) all together?”

Financial Security/Assurance Requirements on Suppliers should be Consistent, Fair, and Follow a Known Timeline – “Santanna seeks to know whether the modifications to financial security and/or assurance language in this rule may potentially work to streamline security/assurance/margin reviews and margin call standards of utilities on suppliers. Currently, some utilities have sporadic margin calls and margin reviews, with varying standards, which can place substantial financial stress and uncertainty on a supplier”. . . .

“Suppliers need a transparent, consistent, known, and reasonable threshold for financial assurance requirements. Suppliers also need a reliable schedule for margin reviews with at least two scheduled reviews that would fairly account for varying seasonal demands. These two changes would provide enhanced stability for suppliers. And when utilities hold supplier collateral that exceeds the amounts needed to reasonably mitigate risk, those excesses should be promptly returned to suppliers.”

RESA – Enrollment Process Rules  – “Staff-Proposed Rules 4901:1-21-06(D) and 4901:1-29-06(D) should identify examples of the forms of identification that will be considered sufficient to establish customer identity.”

“The rules should not require, during telephonic enrollments, a request for and provision of a customer’s account number or account information.”

“For the enrollment process, RESA urges the Commission to add further details in the rules so that stakeholders understand up front what will be acceptable examples of customer identification, and to remove two existing subsections in the telephonic enrollment rules (and not accept Staff’s corresponding proposed revisions to those subsections) because they will conflict with Ohio Revised Code (“R.C.”) 4928.103(B) and R.C. 4929.222(B) and Staff’s other proposed rules that are consistent with those new statutes.”

Financial Assurance Rules – “The rules should identify what “reasonable standards” for financial assurance must be in the utility’s supplier tariffs (require that they contain a uniform formula, consistent and nondiscriminatory framework, and the ability for a supplier to seek and receive additional information regarding the calculation of financial assurance) and should allow suppliers the ability to seek staff mediation of any dispute related to financial assurance, prevent termination during a pending dispute related to financial assurance, and allow for an expedited process for Commission resolution of a dispute related to financial assurance.”

“For supplier financial assurance-related rules, the Commission rules should specify a minimum set of standards that must be included in the utilities’ supplier tariffs, rather than allowing each utility to develop ad hoc standards. This is important to help avoid disparity, inconsistency and/or discriminatory terms in the supplier tariffs. In addition, RESA recommends that the rules consistently reflect that suppliers can seek assistance from the Staff to mediate a financial assurance dispute and that both sets of rules allow a supplier to prevent its termination from a given market during the pendency of a supplier’s complaint involving a financial assurance dispute and allow for expedited Commission resolution of such a complaint since those disputes can otherwise to use to prevent or delay participation in a given market. Lastly, Staff-proposed revisions appear to unduly restrict disclosure of customer account information in the current day to-day interactions between the utilities and suppliers and require significant system and process changes. That impact may not have been intended by Staff’s proposals, but clarifications and/or revisions should be made to those proposals to appropriately avoid such harmful impacts.”

Utility Disclosure of Customer Account Information – “Clarifications and/or revisions should be made to the requirement that customers provide a special written consent before the utility can disclose the customer account information or granular usage data to a supplier”

Office of Consumer’s Counsel – Customer account information definition needed –  “The PUCO Staff’s proposed rule states that the definition for “customer account information” is the same as that set forth in the Revised Code, the PUCO should amend the proposed rule to include the actual definition. Consumers should not be forced to search the Revised Code to determine what the phrase, “customer account information,” means. The PUCO should embrace transparency in the rules by including the Revised Code’s written definition for this term.” 

“The PUCO Staff’s proposed rule states that the definition for “customer account information” is the same as that set forth in the Revised Code,5 the PUCO should amend the proposed rule to include the actual definition. Consumers should not be forced to search the Revised Code to determine what the phrase, “customer account information,” means. The PUCO should embrace transparency in the rules by including the Revised Code’s written definition for this term.”

Opt-out of personal information being shared with electric and natural gas marketers – “OCC recommends that the rules should be expanded to require electric distribution and natural gas utilities to provide additional notices on how to opt out of personal information being shared. This notice should be included on all monthly electric and gas bills, prominently displayed on the first page. This information should also be available on the home page of the utilities’ website.”

“In addition, consumers should have control over what items of information are released but they may not be aware of how to do so. This rule should give consumers the knowledge to exercise that control. The PUCO therefore should add language requiring a utility to provide an electronic form on the utility’s website to allow a consumer to optout from the utility providing personal information. This option is already included in natural gas rules, so this would standardize the rules across utility types.”

Utility required eligible customer lists – “The PUCO Staff proposed including additional information that electric utilities will include on eligible-customer lists made available to electric marketers. Staff also recommended that this information be identified in the company’s tariff. While OCC supports this recommendation, it does not go far enough. This information should also be available on the electric distribution utility’s website for the purposes of transparency. Consumers should not have to search through a utility’s tariff to determine what information is being provided to electric marketers. This information should be readily available on a utility’s website.”

Email notice to rescind recent switch – “The PUCO should amend Ohio Adm. Code 4901:1-10-29(G)(1)(c) and 4901:1-13-14(F)(3) to require consumers to be emailed the notice allowing consumers to rescind a recent switch to an electric or natural gas marketer.

Require utility privacy assessment – The PUCO should amend Ohio Adm. Code 4901:1-10-24 to require Ohio’s electric utilities to each conduct a privacy assessment to ensure the PUCO’s rules and the utilities’ policies are adequately protecting consumer information.

Columbia Gas of Ohio   – “As part of the proposal for the Rules, Staff proposes to alter the prohibition against providing “a customer’s account number” without consent to prohibiting the sharing of “a customer’s account information.” The definition of this proposed term ties back to R.C. 4929.222(A),1 which defines “customer account information” as “a unique natural gas company number or other customer identification number used by the company to identify a customer and the customer’s account record.”

“Columbia has agreements with energy-related non-basic services companies that provide warranty products on customer-owned infrastructure and that are billed on customers’ utility billing statements. In order to verify the identity of customers seeking to enroll in these third-party services, Columbia utilizes a scrambled unique identifier that is randomly generated, does not correspond to any customer information, and cannot be reverse engineered by a third party to identify a customer. This is done prior to the formal enrollment process, which includes obtaining consent from the customer. After the consent is obtained (in a manner consistent with Adm.Code 4901:1- 13-12(C)(3)), the customer’s account number is provided to the third-party warranty provider to finalize enrollment.”

“Columbia respectfully requests that language be added to the rule to explicitly permit this sharing of this randomly generated identifier prior to formally obtaining customer consent to share an account number. Such a change could be accomplished by adding the following language to Adm.Code 4929.222(C)(1): “for purposes of this division, ‘customer account information’ shall not include a unique identifier that is randomly generated, does not correspond to any customer information maintained by a gas or natural gas company, cannot be reverse engineered to determine customer account information, and is used for the sole purpose of identifying a customer in order to provide unregulated products and services.” 

“Alternatively, Columbia has the ability to reprogram its information technology in order to ensure that the unique identifier does not contain any numerical characters. It could be merely a combination of letters and special characters (for example, “hfeo@$jacd”). Columbia respectfully requests that the Commission provide clarification that in order to qualify as a “unique natural gas company number or other customer identification number”2 as used in this context, a number must be included to be defined as customer account information. This will permit Columbia to continue to follow this procedure and comply with the Rules if adopted as proposed.”

Ohio Power Company – “The Company assigns an account number to each customer that reflects the usage and billing data at a specific address. The Company also assigns a Service Delivery Identifier (SDI) to each premise. The customer account number will change if the customer closes and re-opens an account at the same address or if they move to a new address and start service. However, the SDI number does not move, it remains at the same premise permanently. The SDI number is key for CRES providers to enroll customers in the Company’s customer information system, and as mentioned previously, is different from the customer’s AEP Ohio account number. Currently, when a customer chooses a certain CRES provider, the Company requires the CRES provider to obtain the SDI number directly from the customer, which provides at least adequate assurance that the CRES provider has communicated directly with the customer prior to enrollment.”

“The proposed changes to Ohio Administrative Code (Ohio Adm. Code) 4901:1-10-01(J), 4901:1-10-24(E)(4) and 4901:1-21-06(D) regarding the provision of customer account information jeopardizes this consumer protection and directly provides these unique numbers to the market. The Company recommends the Commission update the Ohio Adm. Code to allow electric utilities to provide a redacted version of either the customer account number or the SDI. For example, showing the last 3 to 4 digits of the account number or SDI, so then CRES can verify those digits with the customer prior to enrollment. The Company believes this would provide the information required by the Revised Code but also provide this important customer protection.”

Duke Energy Ohio – Utility Technical System Changes Required – “The Proposed Rule Updates Will Require Technical Changes And The Commission Should Allow Adequate Time To Design, Test, And Implement Such Changes.”

The following aspects of the proposed rule updates will require technical changes: 

• Adding customer account information to the eligible-customer lists; and 
• Modifying the quarterly regulatory insert in O.A.C. 4901:1-10-24(E)(4) and 4901:1-13-12(E)(3).

“[I]n the case of Duke Energy Ohio, as a combination utility, this will mean adding all of the Choice Service IDs of each non-opting-out customer to the eligible customer lists, as the customer’s account number alone would not be sufficiently unique to identify whether the customer’s electric or natural gas account is being enrolled.”

“Duke Energy Ohio requests that electric and natural gas utilities be given adequate time to implement this change from a technical standpoint, either via a lengthier effective date or a simplified procedural avenue—such as a motion for good cause—for requesting additional time.”

Adding customer account information to the eligible-customer list – “It Should Be Clarified That Suppliers Will Be Required To Submit Customer Account Information To Electric And Natural Gas Utilities To Enroll Customers.”

“[T]he intent of adding customer account information to the eligible-customer list, as the proposed rules do, is to enable competitive retail electric service (CRES) providers and competitive retail natural gas service (CRNGS) providers (collectively, suppliers) to submit such customer account information when they seek to enroll a customer. The benefit of this is that existing EDI processes and other enrollment processes will not need to change, as suppliers will continue submitting customer account information and will not be attempting to enroll customers by submitting customer names, customer addresses, or similar other types of customer information. Accordingly, when the proposed rules state—mirroring the statutory language—that “[e]ach electric utility shall use customer account information to process a customer’s change in CRES provider,”2 Duke Energy Ohio understands this to mean that suppliers will have to submit customer account information to the utility to enroll a customer and the utility will not be required to modify its processes to accept other inputs for enrollment purposes. At the same time, the Company recognizes that other utilities may accept other types of information under certain circumstances. The proposed rules should therefore clarify this point with the following two modifications: 

• O.A.C. 4901:1-21-06(A): Add “Enrollment requests submitted to the electric utility must contain customer account information, unless the utility’s tariff authorizes the use of alternative information for enrollment purposes.” 
• O.A.C. 4901:1-29-06(A): Add “Enrollment requests submitted to the incumbent natural gas company must contain customer account information, unless the incumbent natural gas company’s tariff authorizes the use of alternative information for enrollment purposes.” 

Require That Suppliers Use The Most Recent Available Eligible-Customer Lists – “The Commission Should Require That Suppliers Use The Most Recent Available Eligible-Customer Lists To Ensure That Customers’ Objections Under O.A.C. 4901:1-10-24(E)(4) or 4901:1-13-12(E)(3) Are Timely Given Effect. Duke Energy Ohio acknowledges that HB 15 is intended to ensure greater transparency in interactions between suppliers and customers and establishes additional customer protections. Mindful of this purpose and given that Staff has proposed to include customer account information on the eligible-customer lists, it is imperative that suppliers be required use the most recent available versions of such lists—which are required to be updated quarterly—when soliciting customers.”

25-729-GE-ORD
(In the Matter of the Consideration of Rules Pertaining to Competitive Retail Service Suppliers In Ohio, as Required by Substitute House Bill Number 15)