Update: On March 27, 2015, OMA Energy Group and numerous other intervenors filed application for rehearing of the Opinion and Order previously issued by the Commission in the AEP ESP case. OMA Energy Group raised four assignments of error related to the Opinion and Order in its application for rehearing: (1) that the Commission erred in establishing the placeholder PPA rider, as its decision to do so was not supported by law; (2) that the Commission erred in determining that costs associated with AEP’s interruptible power-discretionary rider (IRP-D) should be recovered through the energy efficiency/peak demand reduction (EE/PDR) rider rather than the economic development rider (EDR); (3) the Commission erred in permitting AEP to recover $543.2 million through the distribution investment rider (DIR) over the course of the ESP, as recovery of distribution investments of that order of magnitude is not supported by record evidence, and recovery of such costs is more appropriately addressed in the context of a base distribution rate case; and (4) that the Commission erred in determining that AEP’s proposed ESP, as modified, is more favorable in the aggregate than a market rate offer (MRO).

AEP Ohio likewise filed an application for rehearing, arguing, among other things, the following: (1) it was unreasonable for the Commission to defer to another proceeding its consideration of including OVEC in the PPA Rider when the record in this case already supports rate stability benefits of the OVEC asset; (2) the Commission’s modifications to the DIR component of the ESP are unreasonable and should be changed or clarified on rehearing, in an expedited fashion; (3) The Opinion and Order’s treatment of Rider IRP-D is unreasonable and unlawful in several respects and should be clarified or corrected, including the fact that costs associated with the interruptible program should be recovered through the EDR rather than the EE/PDR rider; (4) the Commission’s modification and authorization of the Purchase of Receivables Program and Associated Bad Debt Rider was unreasonable and unlawful; (5) The Commission’s denial of AEP Ohio’s proposed NERC Compliance and Cybersecurity Rider was unreasonable and unlawful; and (6) on rehearing, the Commission should correct the Opinion and Order’s determination regarding the MRO Test by finding that the modified ESP provides $53,060,000 of quantifiable benefits that would not be possible under an MRO.

Memoranda contra any applications for rehearing must be filed with the Commission on April 6, 2015. The OMA Energy Group will be filing a memorandum contra. Details regarding the pleading will be contained in the weekly report next week.