News Stories

RESA Reply Comments  – “Ohio law does not require, support or intend that the Commission’s rules require suppliers to use customer account information in order to process a customer enrollment.” 

“Commission precedent supports customers enrolling based on alternative information, which also justifies not establishing rules that require suppliers to use customer account information in order to process a customer enrollment.” 

“The utilities advocate for different and unlawful set-ups for use of customer account information during the enrollment process, which also justifies not requiring suppliers to use customer account information in order to process a customer enrollment.

OCC’s call for more and repeated information and notices about opting out of information sharing with suppliers is not necessary, would be unreasonable, would interfere with suppliers’ contractual relationships with their customers and is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

OCC’s proposal to have the rescission notice sent by email in addition to U.S. mail is unnecessary, is based on a flawed theory and is beyond the scope of this proceeding.”

Santanna Energy Comments – “Santanna supports the Office of The Ohio Consumers’ Counsel’s comments proposing that the definition of “customer account information” be provided in the Definitions section of the regulations in Ohio Adm. Code 4901:1-10-01 and 4901:1-13-01, rather than a cross reference to O.R.C. 4928.103. Clarity and ease of access to the definition supports the understanding and adherence of all rules referencing “customer account information.”

“Santanna aligns with Retail Energy Supply Association’s (RESA) request for clarification on “sufficient forms” of identification and supports RESA’s further suggestion that the rule be written to define and include examples of acceptable “government identification” and “sufficient alternative” forms of identification. Santanna agrees with the lists of examples proposed by RESA and seconds the request for their inclusion in the rule.”

“Staff Proposed Rules 4901:1-21-06(E)(2)(a)(x) and 4901:1-29-06(F)(1)(j) – “Santanna perceives the legislative intent to be expansive, so that suppliers may use multiple, readily available points of information to identify, enroll, and verify a customer. So, the rule should be phrased to clearly allow flexibility for the supplier to use any or all of those points of information to complete the identification, enrollment, and verification processes.”

“The Financial Security/Assurance Requirements on Suppliers should be Consistent, Fair, and Follow a Known Timeline – “Santanna supports the request for uniformity between the electric and gas rules as well as between utility tariffs. Santanna seconds the parameters RESA suggested in their comments for the identification of “reasonable standards” and proposes that tariffs also name a biannual schedule for assessment of financial collateral obligations be included in the framework. Santanna strongly agrees with RESA’s proposal for an expedited process for Commission resolution of a supplier complaint involving a dispute related to financial assurance for all the reasons named in RESA comments on the subject.”

Reply Comments of OCC – The PUCO should clarify what is considered “government issued identification” and “sufficient alternative forms” of identification. In doing so, the PUCO should reject RESA’s proposed amendment to Ohio Adm. Code 4901:1-21-06(D) and 4901:1-29-06(D).

OPC agrees with Staff’s proposed change to Ohio Adm. Code 4901:1-10-24(D) to apply to “account information” rather than “account number” and to allow this information to be included on the eligible customer list unless a consumer objects.  OCC agrees with this change because the term “account information” conforms with the term used in House Bill 15.”

“For privacy purposes, consumers should be required to provide consent before their account information is provided by utilities to marketers for solicitation. Many consumers who establish service with electric and natural gas utilities might not even be aware that their account information will be provided to marketers. The consent would be determined at the time the consumer establishes service with the electric or natural gas utility.”

“PUCO should accept Duke’s request for extra time to implement the new requirements due to technical changes. However, the PUCO should require any changes be made within six months of the approved rules.”

“PUCO should accept Duke’s recommendation that suppliers use the most current available eligible-customer lists when soliciting consumers.”

Comments of Ohio Edison  “Like Duke, the Companies will also have to make (and test) technical changes to their systems in order to implement the new rules, including to add the customer account information to the eligible customer lists. The Companies echo Duke’s request for sufficient time, and/or a method by which to request additional time, if needed due to technical issues, to implement the necessary changes.”

“Also, like Duke, the Companies understand the proposed rules to require CRES providers to submit customer account information to the Companies to enroll a customer. The customer account information will be available to CRES providers on the eligible-customer list, unless the customer objects (i.e., opts out). While a CRES provider may use a customer’s valid government-issued identification or sufficient alternative form of identification to conduct their verification of a customer’s identity, those forms of identification are not adequate for the Companies to process a customer’s CRES enrollment or change. To the extent any stakeholder may be suggesting that a government-issued or alternative form of identification should be accepted by the Companies to process a customer’s change in CRES provider, the Companies respectfully request that the Commission decline to adopt this suggestion.”

“The Commission should not adopt OCC’s proposed change to Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-29(G)(1). The Commission should not adopt OCC’s proposed change to Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-29(G)(1).”  “The Commission should decline to adopt OCC’s data privacy suggestions that go well beyond the scope of H.B. 15 and this proceeding.”

Reply Comments of Ohio Power – “The OCC’s comments go far beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Among other things, OCC proposes (1) a completely new customer bill of rights that would impose sweeping new (and hopelessly vague) privacy and data security obligations on utilities; (2) a change to all monthly electric and gas bills to include a notice on how to opt out of personal information being shared; and (3) a new rule “requir[ing] each electric utility to hire an independent auditor to audit the privacy policies and practices at each electric utility in Ohio.” (OCC Comments, filed Nov. 25, 2025, at 3-7, 10.) None of these proposals have anything to do with CRES or CRNGS financial assurances or customer account information needed to verify identity before switching CRES or CRNGS suppliers. Instead, OCC is seeking to hijack this proceeding and transform it into a general rulemaking on utility privacy practices. As explained further below, the Commission should disregard OCC’s out-of-bounds proposals and keep this proceeding focused on the proposed rules under consideration.”

Read all comments here

As reported previously, the recently passed Substitute House Bill 15 requires (among other things) the PUCO to establish rules (1) requiring electric and natural gas suppliers to maintain sufficient financial assurances to protect customers and utilities in the event of a default (Ohio Revised Code 4928.08 and 4929.20) and (2) regarding what customer account information is required to verify identify before switching from a utility to a retail supplier (Ohio Revised Code 4928.103 and 4929.222). The PUCO initiated this rulemaking proceeding to develop and implement the rules as required by the new statutes, which will become effective on August 14, 2025.

25-0729-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)