Update: On March 30, 2015, the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy, OMA Energy Group, and others filed a joint interlocutory appeal of the Commission’s recent procedural entry modifying the procedural schedule governing the ESP case. Specifically, the parties raised two important issues in their interlocutory appeal: (1) the Commission should postpone any dates pertaining to the submission of testimony on the factors enunciated in the AEP ESP Opinion and Order until the Commission issues a final entry on rehearing addressing those factors; and (2) intervenors will suffer undue prejudice if the procedural schedule does not permit time to respond to FirstEnergy’s supplemental testimony. On April 1, 2015, the Retail Energy Supply Association, PJM Power Providers Group, the Electric Power Supply Association, IGS Energy, and Direct Energy Services LLC/Direct Energy Business LLC/Direct Energy Business Marketing LLC filed a memorandum in response to the joint interlocutory appeal, supporting the revised schedule proposed in the interlocutory appeal, and arguing that in the event that the interlocutory appeal is not certified or not granted, the procedural schedule should be amended so as to stagger the filing of supplemental testimony by FirstEnergy and the intervenors.

 Additionally, on March 31, 2015, a prehearing conference on various pending procedural issues took place. In addition to making rulings on the aforementioned procedural matters, the attorney examiner instructed any parties who find themselves in a discovery dispute that they have previously tried to resolve informally to file motions to compel said discovery. Counsel is exploring this option in order to resolve outstanding discovery dispute presently facing OMA Energy Group.