The Supreme Court of Ohio today upheld a ban on a supplier of electricity and natural gas from doing business in the state, following several consumer complaints. However, a proposed $1.44 million penalty against the company must be recalculated.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO)'s rescission of RPA Energy's operating certificates. RPA Energy did business in Ohio under the name Green Choice Energy. The commission received numerous complaints about RPA and its vendors engaging in illegal door-to-door solicitations and telemarketing practices to entice consumers to switch to RPA as their power provider.

The PUCO also sought to punish RPA by ordering a $1.44 million forfeiture for more than 150 violations of state law and regulations, and by directing the company to refund some customers who were forced to pay more for utility services than they would have if they had not switched providers.

Writing for the Court, Justice Daniel R. Hawkins explained that the PUCO relied on the testimony of a staff member and a spreadsheet prepared by the staff to determine the total number of violations RPA committed. After reviewing the evidence, the Court ruled that the PUCO failed to provide a sufficient explanation of how it arrived at $1.44 million.

“In sum, based on the spreadsheet, it is impossible for us to determine how the commission calculated the total number of violations,” Justice Hawkins wrote.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Jennifer Brunner, and Megan E. Shanahan joined Justice Hawkins’ opinion. First District Court of Appeals Judge Candace C. Crouse, sitting for Justice Joseph T. Deters, also joined the opinion.

Company’s Sales Tactics Draw Complaints
Ohioans can purchase electricity and natural gas from providers other than the monopoly utility that serves their residences and businesses. The PUCO authorized RPA to be a competitive electricity and natural gas provider in 2016. Between January and July 2021, the PUCO staff received 25 complaints or calls about RPA. Some alleged that RPA enrolled them in service without authorization, or that sales agents deceived them by misrepresenting that they were employed by a government entity or a utility. RPA also solicited a commission employee by phone, unaware that the person worked for the PUCO. The staff member believed the solicitation was misleading.

The PUCO staff opened an investigation and requested data from RPA. The company provided some information, but refused to provide the data kept by an RPA vendor that conducted sales.

In October 2021, the staff sent a written notice to RPA, stating the company was likely not complying with state regulations. The notice included 1,400 pages of documents supporting its allegations. After the staff and RPA could not reach a resolution, the PUCO held hearings on the matter in 2022. In October 2023, the commission ruled that RPA violated numerous laws and rules. It rescinded the company’s operating certificates, assessed a $1.44 million forfeiture, and ordered the company to “rerate” some consumers who had switched, which would lower their utility bills.

RPA appealed the PUCO’s decision to the Supreme Court, arguing, among other things, that the commission’s findings were not supported by the evidence.

Supreme Court Analyzed Commission’s Findings
The Court examined a number of RPA sales tactics, including misrepresenting the price advantages of switching and “spoofing” phone numbers to mislead customers about who was calling them.

Justice Hawkins noted the Ohio Administrative Code forbids “unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable” advertising and marketing tactics, including a “claim that a specific price advantage, savings, or guarantee exists if it does not.”

The commission found RPA violated the administrative rules, including one instance when an RPA agent told the consumer she would receive a $50 gift card, but later told her she would instead receive $50 in unspecified rewards, and that enrolling with RPA would have saved her 30% to 40% on her electric bill.

“These representations regarding prices, savings, and guarantees were untrue,” the opinion stated.

The commission also found RPA agents used “spoofed” phone numbers so that it appeared they were calling from the utility Duke Energy, and in one call used a number that appeared to be from the consumer’s local high school. RPA argued that state regulations do not prohibit spoofing, but the commission maintained that the act violates the rule against soliciting business on behalf of an entity other than RPA.

The Court agreed with the PUCO’s finding that the altered phone numbers were used to appear that customers were being called by the utility provider or being asked to switch for the benefit of the local high school.

Other violations found by the commission included customers receiving signed contracts from RPA verifying the switch after speaking to the customer by phone. The customers had complained that they had not authorized the company to sign their names to a written contract or agreed to switch suppliers.

The Court stated RPA committed “numerous unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices and that it lacked managerial capability.”

“These statutory and rule violations harmed consumers, and the commission did not abuse its discretion in determining RPA should no longer operate in Ohio,” the Court ruled.

Supreme Court Questioned Penalties
The PUCO is authorized to assess a forfeiture of up to $10,000 for each violation of the rules. The Court found the commission “was vague in its order about how it determined the forfeiture amount” for RPA.

The Court explained that while the commission staff alleged more than 150 violations, the staff multiplied 150 violations by $10,000 to reach a $1.5 million penalty. The PUCO reduced the staff’s proposal by $60,000 after overruling six alleged violations, bringing the amount to $1.44 million. The opinion stated that the only evidence of how the penalty was calculated was a spreadsheet produced by staff listing 75 cases in which one or more violations occurred, along with a staff member testifying about the violations.

The Court noted the spreadsheet included what appeared to be violation categories, but did not include a reference to a law or rule for each violation. From reviewing the spreadsheet, the Court could not determine how the staff identified each specific violation by RPA.

The Court found the PUCO did not provide sufficient details to show how it reached its decision and concluded the forfeiture order violated state law. The Court directed the commission to identify and thoroughly explain the evidence supporting the forfeiture order.

In addition, the Court found that the PUCO could order RPA to rerate customers who may have been subjected to unfair sales practices. However, the PUCO stated three conflicting time periods should be covered by its rerating order. The Court instructed the commission to clarify which customers it is ordering RPA to rerate.

2024-0236. In re RPA Energy, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-563.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.