The Supreme Court of Ohio on Tuesday upheld the authority of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) to bar an electricity and natural gas supplier from operating in the state, affirming regulators’ power to revoke the license of a marketer that violates Ohio law.
In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the PUCO’s rescission of the operating certificates of RPA Energy, which did business in Ohio as Green Choice Energy. The justices concluded the company engaged in numerous deceptive and unlawful sales practices and lacked the managerial capability to continue operating.
At the same time, the Court ruled that the PUCO must more clearly explain how it calculated a proposed $1.44 million forfeiture against the company and ordered the agency to revisit the penalty.
Writing for the Court, Justice Daniel R. Hawkins said the record did not sufficiently show how regulators arrived at the total number of violations used to determine the fine.
“In sum, based on the spreadsheet, it is impossible for us to determine how the commission calculated the total number of violations,” Hawkins wrote.
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Jennifer Brunner and Megan E. Shanahan joined the opinion. First District Court of Appeals Judge Candace C. Crouse, sitting for Justice Joseph T. Deters, also joined.
Court Affirms Consumer Counsel’s Role
In addition to upholding the ban, the Court confirmed the authority of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (OCC) to intervene in PUCO proceedings involving alleged marketer misconduct.
RPA had argued that OCC lacked statutory authority or sufficient interest to participate in the case. The Court rejected those claims, affirming that the agency — which represents Ohio residential utility consumers in matters involving electric, natural gas, telephone and water services — has the right to take part in such proceedings.
In a statement, Ohio Consumers’ Counsel Maureen Willis said the ruling reinforces protections for consumers.
“There have been too many instances where marketer misconduct has cost Ohio consumers,” Willis said. “Today’s decision affirms OCC’s critical role in protecting residential consumers and confirms that the PUCO has the authority to revoke a marketer’s right to operate in Ohio when it engages in deception or other misconduct.”
Complaints Led to Investigation
Ohio residents and businesses may choose competitive suppliers for electricity and natural gas rather than defaulting to their local utility. The PUCO authorized RPA to operate as a competitive supplier in 2016.
Between January and July 2021, PUCO staff received 25 complaints alleging deceptive sales practices. Consumers reported being enrolled without authorization, being misled about savings, or being contacted by agents who appeared to represent a government entity or utility company.
The commission found that RPA agents made false claims about guaranteed savings and used “spoofed” phone numbers to make calls appear as if they were coming from utilities such as Duke Energy or even local institutions. In other instances, customers received written contracts bearing their signatures after phone conversations despite asserting they had not authorized the switch.
Following an investigation and hearings, the PUCO in October 2023 revoked RPA’s operating certificates, assessed a $1.44 million forfeiture for more than 150 violations, and ordered the company to “rerate” certain customers’ bills to reflect what they would have paid absent the misconduct.
The Supreme Court upheld the commission’s findings that RPA committed “numerous unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices” and ruled that regulators did not abuse their discretion in barring the company from operating in Ohio.
Penalty Must Be Recalculated
While affirming the ban, the Court determined that the commission did not adequately document how it calculated the $1.44 million forfeiture. The PUCO is authorized to fine up to $10,000 per violation, but the justices found the record — including a spreadsheet listing cases and alleged violations — did not clearly show how the total number of violations was derived.
The Court directed the commission to identify and thoroughly explain the evidence supporting any forfeiture it imposes on remand. The justices also instructed the PUCO to clarify which customers must have their bills rerated, noting conflicting time periods in the agency’s order.
Consumer advocates said the decision underscores both the commission’s enforcement authority and the importance of vigilance in the competitive energy marketplace. Energy marketer contracts can pose significant risks and may cost consumers hundreds of dollars more if they choose an unfavorable plan.
Officials encouraged Ohioans to carefully review offers from competitive suppliers and to consider a utility’s standard service offer or a government aggregation program when available.
The case now returns to the PUCO for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion.
