News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
RESA Files an Application for Rehearing Regarding PUCO’s New Enrollment Rules Mandating a Customer Signature Prior to Enrollment
On April 3rd, RESA filed an Application for Rehearing from the March 4, 2026, Finding and Order issued by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) regarding newly adopted retail marketing rules. As reported previously, the new competitive electric and gas retail supplier rules -among other things- mandates new enrollment and verification requirements regarding the customer’s identity that require retail suppliers to obtain a customer’s “signature” prior to all enrollments.
From RESA’s Introductory Section:
“The Commission revised its rules in this proceeding on the basis of R.C. 4928.103(B) and R.C. 4929.222(B),2 but the rules as adopted (“Adopted Rules”) are unreasonable and unlawful for multiple reasons, and the Commission’s March 4, 2026, Finding and Order is flawed.
First and foremost, the rulemaking authority in R.C. 4928.103(B) and R.C. 4929.222(B) was limited and does not authorize the customer-signed verification acknowledgements in Adopted Rules 4901:1- 21-06(D) and 4901:1-29-06(D). [Emphasis Added.]
In addition, those Adopted Rules do not match their scope as addressed in the Commission’s decision and would effectively prevent telephonic enrollments to the extent the customer-signed verification acknowledgements are required to be obtained through additional steps outside of the telephone solicitation. [Emphasis Added.]
The customer-signed verification acknowledgements also will be contrary to electric and natural gas statutory policies, which were not considered in the decision. Indeed, the Commission did not rely on facts or provide a rationale for why it is requiring the additional step of obtaining the customer-signed verification acknowledgements in Adopted Rules 4901:1-21-06(D) and 4901:1-29-06(D). Given those omissions, the Commission’s decision relative to the customer-signed verification acknowledgements also does not comply with R.C. 4903.09. The Commission should remove the customer-signed verification acknowledgements from Adopted Rules 4901:1-21-06(D) and 4901:1-29-06(D).” [Emphasis Added.]
More specifically n its application for rehearing RESA contends that the Commission’s March 4, 2026, Finding and Order is unjust, unreasonable, and unlawful with respect to the following:
“Assignment of Error #1: The Commission’s Finding and Order is unreasonable and unlawful because the customer-signed verification acknowledgements in Adopted Rules 4901:1-21-06(D) and 4901:1-29- 06(D) are unreasonable and contrary to law.
“RESA asserts that the proposed rules should be changed to make clear the standards of what will be considered acceptable forms of identification to establish a customer’s identity. RESA contends that vague or undefined standards will result in confusion and inconsistent interpretation between stakeholders and customers. In furtherance of its comment, RESA offers suggested language for inclusion in Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-21-06(D) and 4901:1-29-06(D). Second, RESA comments that the rules should not require that suppliers request a customer’s account number or account information during telephonic enrollments. RESA states that such a requirement would be contrary to R.C. 4928.103(B) and 4929.222(B). Due to this alleged inconsistency with state law, RESA recommends that Ohio Adm.Code sections 4901:1-21-06(E)(2)(a)(x) and 4901:1- 29-06(F)(1)(j) be removed from the proposed rules. Fourth, RESA objects to the proposal that customers be required to provide special written consent before a utility can provide account information or granular usage data to a supplier. RESA states that this provision is at odds with necessary and common daily practices of the industry and will harm the competitive market. RESA additionally states that the provision will likely require numerous technological and process changes if adopted. RESA recommends proposed Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-24(D)(1) and 4901:1-13-12(C)(1) be reworked to assure utilities and suppliers can disclose customer account information in their interactions with each other; however, RESA does not submit recommended language to be considered.”
“Assignment of Error #2: The Commission’s Finding and Order is unreasonable and unlawful because the Commission failed to rely on facts or provide a rationale that sufficiently explains, as required by R.C. 4903.09, why proof of a customer-signed verification acknowledgement must be obtained through an extra customer-signed acknowledgement in addition to the actual form of identification obtained during the enrollment process.”
“Assignment of Error #3: The Commission’s Finding and Order is unreasonable and unlawful because Adopted Rules 4901:1-21-06(D)(3) and 4901:1-29-06(D)(3) are vague and fail to provide sufficient guidance to suppliers and other stakeholders as to what would be “a sufficient alternative form of identification.”
“Assignment of Error #4: The Commission’s Finding and Order is unreasonable and unlawful because the new requirement in Adopted Rules 4901:1-21-06(A) and 4901:1-29-06(A) mandating that suppliers use the most recently available eligible-customer list when marketing to and enrolling customers will impose significant and unreasonable costs on suppliers, which was not considered.”
