Update:  On April 6, 2015, OMA Energy Group and numerous other intervenors, including Industrial Energy Users-Ohio (IEU-Ohio), the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (OCC), the Retail Energy Supply Association (RESA), IGS Energy, Direct Energy, Constellation New Energy/Exelon, and the Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) filed memoranda contra AEP’s application for rehearing of the Commission’s Opinion and Order (issued in February 2015) in the AEP ESP case.

OMA Energy Group raised several points to contravene AEP’s assertions, including the following:  (a) it was reasonable for the Commission to defer consideration of including

OVEC costs in the PPA Rider; (b) the Commission’s decision not to include general plant in the distribution investment rider (DIR) was reasonable; (c) the Commission properly determined that it should not adopt AEP’s recommended, exorbitant caps for cost recovery under the DIR; (d) that the Commission should clarify that although it directed AEP to bid the capacity resources associated with the IRP-D into PJM’s base residual auctions held during the ESP term, and such base residual auctions have already occurred, AEP may still bid the IRP-D capacity resources into PJM’s incremental capacity auctions held during the ESP term; (e) the Commission’s denial of the proposed NERC compliance and cybersecurity rider was lawful and reasonable; and (f) that AEP’s request for the Commission to issue an expedited rehearing decision on the DIR issues it raised in its application for rehearing is unreasonable and should not be granted.

AEP, FirstEnergy Solutions, and Ohio Energy Group likewise filed memoranda contra several intervenors’ applications for rehearing.  The parties now await a Commission entry on rehearing.