Update: OMA Energy Group, Kroger, IEU, Ohio Energy Group, the Office of Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, and many others filed in opposition to DP&L’s request to withdraw its ESP 2 and replace it with rates and tariffs allegedly authorized under its ESP 1 (in part). DP&L stated that its request is in response to the Supreme Court of Ohio’s reversal of the PUCO’s authorization of DP&L’s Service Stability Rider (SSR). The Court ruled that the SSR permitted DP&L to collect the equivalent of transition revenue in contravention of Ohio law.

While a utility is permitted under certain circumstances to withdraw an ESP application if it dislikes the PUCO’s modifications, OMA Energy Group argued that DP&L should be barred from withdrawing its ESP 2 because DP&L accepted the PUCO’s modifications and has been implementing the ESP 2 with these modifications for almost three years. Given DP&L’s acceptance, OMA Energy Group asserted that DP&L forfeited any withdrawal rights it may have once had.

A further flaw in DP&L’s proposal is that it is an attempt to blend the most favorable provisions from its ESP 1 and its ESP 2. When a utility withdraws an ESP application, it must revert back to the prior ESP until the PUCO approves a new offer. This means that to be compliant, DP&L must revert back to its ESP 1 in its entirety. But OMA Energy Group’s brief showed that DP&L’s proposal impermissibly cherry-picked certain provisions from its ESP 1 and its ESP 2 in order to benefit DP&L.

OMA and other opponents will be filing comments today on DP&L’s proposed tariffs which DP&L wrongly claims are consistent with its ESP 1. The comments will reiterate many of the concerns outlined above.