Attorney Examiner Grants Extension Of Certain Deadlines Under Enforcement Order Against Retail Supplier

December 7, 2023

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-23 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com

A PUC of Ohio attorney examiner has granted a limited extension of certain compliance deadlines in PUCO's October order that, among other things: assessed a forfeiture of $1.44 million against RPA Energy, Inc. d/b/a Green Choice Energy (Company), rescinded the Company's gas and electric supplier licenses, and which previously ordered the supplier to return its Ohio customers to default service

The order had also directed RPA Energy to re-rate various customers. In seeking a stay, RPA Energy had said, "The Order directs the Company to take actions that are not easily undone, and that is the primary reason it is requesting a stay of enforcement."

See background on the order here

RPA Energy has sought rehearing of PUCO's order.

In seeking a stay of the order, RPA Energy had said, "The Company intends to return what few customers remain to utility default service regardless of the outcome of its application for rehearing."

The PUCO attorney examiner granted a limited extension of certain deadlines on the basis that RPA Energy should have the opportunity to seek a stay from the state's supreme court, which procedurally cannot be done until a PUCO order on the rehearing requests pending before PUCO is issued

As such, the attorney examiner extended the deadlines imposed for the completion of customer re-rates and payment of the initial forfeiture to 75 days after the Commission issues a final appealable order in the proceeding. This limited extension was granted by the PUCO attorney examiner as the examiner denied RPA’s broader motion to stay PUCO's order in its entirety. The attorney examiner did not extend the deadline for customers to be returned to default service.

The attorney examiner stated, "the attorney examiner ... finds that RPA should have the opportunity to effectively seek a stay from the Supreme Court of Ohio in the event of an appeal of the Commission’s decision on rehearing. While the attorney examiner agrees that consumers harmed by RPA’s violations of the Commission’s minimum service standards for competitive providers should not be further harmed by undue delay, the Company does have the statutory rights to appeal the final order of the Commission and to seek a stay of execution of the Commission’s Order. R.C. 4903.11, R.C. 4903.16. Moreover, the attorney examiner notes that any stay ordered by the Supreme Court will be contingent upon the posting of a bond pursuant to R.C. 4903.16. As such, the attorney examiner finds it reasonable to extend the deadlines imposed for the completion of customer re-rates and payment of the initial forfeiture to 75 days after the Commission issues a final appealable order in this proceeding. This both preserves the Company’s right to effectively seek a stay before the Supreme Court of Ohio and the public’s entitlement to seeing the Commission’s Order enforced."

While granting this limited extension, the examiner did not find that RPA had justified the issuance of a stay. "[T]he attorney examiner finds that RPA’s motion [for a stay] does not demonstrate satisfaction of the four-part test for a stay. RPA has demonstrated little likelihood of success on the merits. RPA asserts that the Company requires clarification as to which consumers are entitled to a re-rate before it can proceed but makes no argument that it will be relieved of that obligation, nor does the Company assert it will likely avoid paying the ordered forfeiture. Furthermore, the attorney examiner agrees with OCC that the groups identified within the Order as being entitled to a re-rate are not contradictory to one another but simply overlap. Thus, based on the arguments presented in the motion to stay, there is little reason to believe that RPA will succeed in substantively altering its obligations under the Commission Order in this case. Additionally, the competing harms do not suggest a stay is necessary. RPA has not demonstrated irreparable harm to the Company absent a stay nor lack of harm to consumers in the event of one. Finally, the attorney examiner is not convinced by RPA’s contention that a stay is consistent with the public interest simply because the Commission’s order is not yet final and appealable given the number and magnitude of violations of consumer protection provisions found by the Commission. Accordingly, the attorney examiner finds that the motion should be denied," the examiner said

Case 22-441-GE-COI

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Customer Care Specialist I & II- remote/hybrid -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Pricing Analyst - Retail Power
• NEW! -- Electricity Pricing Analyst -- Retail Supplier
• Business Development Manager -- Retail Supplier
• Call Center Manager -- Retail Supplier

HOME

Copyright 2010-23 Energy Choice Matters.  If you wish to share this story, please email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication prohibited.