Update: Several interested stakeholders filed applications for rehearing requesting the PUCO to modify its June 21, 2017 entry where it created a Safe Harbor for resellers to avoid the rebuttable presumption and the PUCO’s jurisdiction. AEP argued that the PUCO should abandon the Safe Harbor provision because it permits a reseller to pass through to its customers the amount paid for utility service even if that price exceeds the comparable retail price. The Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel and Ohio Poverty Law Center also argued and explained, among other things, that the Safe Harbor unreasonably strips public utility benefits and regulatory protections from consumers and still allows resellers to charge costs to customer that they may not incur. In contrast, American Power and Light, LLC, (a utility reseller) requested that the PUCO allow resellers to meet the Safe Harbor if the reseller’s annual charges for utility service do not exceed five percent of what the customer would have paid the local public utility. No parties challenged the applicability of the PUCO’s order and its modifications to the Shroyer test to only residential submetered consumers.