Update: OMA Energy Group filed its merit brief in the Supreme Court of Ohio this week challenging the PUCO’s Order establishing the Purchase Power Agreement (PPA) rider in AEP’s ESP III case.  As you will recall, in the ESP III case, AEP proposed to flow through to customers the net effects of the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation PPA (OVEC PPA) through a PPA Rider.  Although the PUCO found that AEP’s proposed PPA Rider would not benefit customers, the PUCO authorized AEP to establish a zero-rate placeholder PPA Rider and instructed AEP to file an application in a future proceeding to populate the rider. 

In its merit brief, OMA Energy Group argued that the PUCO failed to follow Ohio law when it authorized AEP to establish a placeholder PPA Rider.  Specifically, OMA Energy Group argued that the PPA Rider did not satisfy the statutory requirements because it was not a limitation on customer shopping and did not have the effect of stabilizing retail electric generation service.  For these reasons, OMA Energy Group argued that the PUCO exceeded its authority and violated Ohio law when it established a placeholder rider.  OMA Energy Group requested the Court to reverse the PUCO’s decision and find the placeholder PPA Rider to be unlawful.