News Stories

On September 3, 2026 the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO issued an order on rehearing finding that the application for rehearing filed by Palmco Energy OH, LLC and Palmco Power OH, LLC, both doing business as Indra Energy, should be denied.

As reported previously, on July 8, 2026, the Commission issued a Finding and Order denying Palmco’s applications for certification as both a CRES provider and a CRNGS provider in Ohio.

On August 7, 2026, Palmco filed an application for rehearing asserting two assignments of error.

First, Palmco states that the “Commission erred by failing to approve or deny [its] Applications within the statutory ninety-day deadline from the date the Applications were suspended, and therefore not recognizing that [the] Applications were approved by operation of law as of April 17, 2026.” Palmco asserts that an application for certification shall be deemed approved 30 days after filing under R.C. 4928.08(B)(1) and 4929.20(A)(1) unless the automatic approval process is suspended for good cause shown. Palmco states that after the ALJ suspended the automatic approval process for the applications on January 16, 2026, under R.C. 4928.08(B)(1) and 4929.20(A)(1), the Commission then had 90 days to approve or deny the application, but the Commission’s Finding and Order did not arrive until 173 days after the applications were suspended. Palmco therefore asserts that the Commission disregarded the deadline set for it by the General Assembly and, as a result, 90 days after the suspension of the automatic approval, “the time limited suspension was lifted and the [a]pplications were automatically approved by operation of law as of April 17, 2026.” Thus, Palmco maintains that the Commission erred by failing to recognize the automatic approval of the applications and, therefore, must modify its Finding and Order to issue the certificates.

Second, Palmco contends that the “Commission erred by finding that [Applicant] is not managerially fit and capable of performing as either a CRES or CRNGS marketer and broker to large commercial and industrial customers in Ohio in compliance with Commission rules.” Palmco argues that the Commission must respect its own precedent and, since the Commission previously granted CRES and CRNGS certificates to entities with the same ownership and regulatory history as Palmco, should issue the certificates here.

Palmco argues that the Commission did not acknowledge a deviation from precedent, let alone provide an explanation. Palmco further asserts that the present applications should be approved since they are similar to the applications in CGE that “disclosed the same regulatory actions in same jurisdictions that caused the Commission concern here.” (Emphasis in original.) Applicant argues that since the Commission previously approved applications for entities with the same disclosed regulatory actions and leadership as the present applications, then the applications were improperly denied.

Palmco further claims that the Commission’s Finding and Order misses its mark because Palmco’s applications are for large commercial and industrial customers and not residential consumers, whose treatment by Palmco was the source of many of previous regulatory actions. Palmco states that the Commission ignored the Staff Report and the fact that the classes of customers sought to be served are different here than those previously served and which had resulted in the regulatory actions.”

Commission’s Analysis Re: Alleged First Assignment of Error:

“In order to address Palmco’s first assignment of error, we turn to the relevant statutes and rules. R.C. 4928.08(B)(1) concerning suspended CRES applications states, in relevant part, that the Commission “shall act to approve or deny certification or certification renewal to the applicant not later than ninety days after the date of the suspension.” Also concerning suspended CRES applications, Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-24-10(A)(2)(b) states that the Commission shall “act to approve or deny the application within ninety calendar days from the date that the application was suspended.” Similarly, governing suspended CRNGS applications, R.C. 4929.20(A)(1) states, in relevant part, “the commission shall act to approve or deny certification or certification renewal to the applicant not later than ninety days after the date of the suspension.” Additionally, Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-27-10(A)(2)(b) states the Commission will “act to approve or deny the application within ninety days from the date that the application was suspended.”

“The governing language does not provide that the relevant application is automatically approved 90 days after being suspended but encourages the prompt review of such applications by instructing that the Commission “act to approve or deny the application within ninety days [of suspension].”

“The relevant statutes and rules state that the Commission shall or will act to approve or deny the application within 90 days after a relevant application is suspended. Notably, the relevant portions do not provide any consequence for exceeding the 90-day deadline. Compare R.C. 4903.10 (“If the commission does not grant or deny such application for rehearing within thirty days from the date of filing thereof, it is denied by operation of law.”); R.C. 4909.421 (“If the commission does not issue an order within three hundred sixty days after the date of filing the application, the application shall be deemed approved by operation of law.”). As the statutes in this case neither require the Commission to dismiss the application or nor deem the application approved by operation of law, they should be interpreted to be directory, and Moraine Wind does not apply. Accordingly, we deny Palmco’s first assignment of error.”

Commission’s Analysis Re: Alleged Second Assignment of Error:

“As to the second assignment of error, the Commission finds that the applications were considered on their own merits, and, to the extent that our decision in a separate certification application is precedential, the Finding and Order adequately explained the difference in outcome. Throughout its application on rehearing, Palmco compares its applications to those submitted in CGE. Palmco’s application for rehearing states that here, Applicant “disclosed the same regulatory actions in the same jurisdictions that caused the Commission concern here.” (Emphasis in original.) Palmco also stresses that the Staff Report acknowledged the existence of regulatory actions in other jurisdictions, in part due to the applications in CGE, but ultimately found measures were in place to help prevent future issues of noncompliance and recommended that Palmco’s applications be approved for the provision of marketer and brokerage services to large commercial and industrial customers.  ”The Commission’s Finding and Order acknowledges Staff’s findings but reaches a different conclusion. Finding and Order at ¶ 10, 13-15. Among other reasons, we explained that the previous enforcement actions against Applicant’s leadership and its predecessors in Ohio, the enforcement actions disclosed by Applicant, and the additional enforcement discussed in the Staff Report caused us to have concerns about whether Palmco is managerially fit and capable of performing as a CRES or CRNGS provider in compliance with all applicable regulations adopted pursuant to R.C. Chapters 4928 and 4929. Id. at ¶ 12- 13.”

“We also disagree with Palmco’s argument that its applications disclosed the same regulatory actions as those disclosed in CGE. A review of the disclosures made in Exhibit B-3 of the instant applications and the corresponding exhibit numbers in the applications made in CGE reveals notable discrepancies. The instant applications show only three disclosures of liabilities and investigations, while at least seven were listed in CGE’s application. Additional regulatory liabilities and investigations from Connecticut (PALMco Power CT, LLC), Massachusetts (PALMco Power MA, LLC d/b/a Indra Energy), New Jersey (PALMco Power NJ, LLC and PALMco Energy NJ, LLC), and Pennsylvania (PALMco Energy PA, LLC)—all of which involve Palmco affiliates and/or managerial personnel—are listed in the CGE filings but were omitted in the instant filings. These differences are not less troubling because fewer disclosures were made in the instant applications than in the CGE applications. Indeed, these differences of omission are more troubling; the concern is the lack of consistent and transparent disclosures. Again, in addition to the liabilities and investigations disclosed here and in CGE, the Commission notes that additional regulatory actions listed in Palmco’s previous certificate applications are not disclosed in the current applications.2 In short, to the extent that our Finding and Order in CGE is precedential, the Commission appropriately explained why we ultimately disagreed with Staff’s recommendation and reached a different outcome here.

“The Commission also disagrees with Palmco’s contention that the Finding and Order is not designed to protect consumers based on the class of customers Applicant seeks to serve and the class of customers affected by actions which required previous regulatory action. The present applications seek CRES and CRNGS certificates for Palmco to serve industrial and large commercial customers as both a marketer and broker. Applicant argues that its applications should be approved since the previous regulatory actions against it concerned marketing to residential customers involving door-to-door sales and telemarketing activities, which would arguably not be an issue with the class of customers it seeks to serve. The Commission disagrees with Palmco’s assertion that industrial and large commercial customers do not warrant the same concern and protection as residential class customers. While industrial and large commercial customers can be more sophisticated shoppers than residential customers, all classes of customers deserve protection from unscrupulous business practices. This is especially true concerning marketing services, where the marketer is responsible for providing the electricity or natural gas needed to serve the customers. In its application for rehearing, Palmco compares these applications to those approved in CGE, but, again, the Commission notes another important difference between the cases. Specifically, the approved applications in CGE were to serve as a CRES or CRNGS broker only, and the Commission did not have to consider potential concerns related to marketing. In the instant applications, in addition to broker services, Palmco is seeking certification to act as a CRES and CRNGS marketer to large commercial and industrial customers. Accordingly, the Commission is unpersuaded by Palmco’s second assignment of error.”