Update: OMA jointly filed its reply briefs in both the ESP I and ESP II appeals in response to the PUCO and DP&L’s merit briefs filed in July. DP&L asserted that Ohio law required the PUCO to reinstate the rate stability charge (RSC) when the PUCO authorized DP&L to revert back and continue ESP I. In response, OMA argued that the term of the RSC was not tied to the term of ESP I because the parties expressly agreed that it would terminate on December 31, 2012 and would not continue with the reversion back to ESP I. Further, OMA responded to DP&L’s assertion that the non-bypassable Transmission Cost Recovery Rider (TCRR-N) was not an unlawful transition charge. OMA pointed out that DP&L misrepresented Ohio case law and failed to explain how a recent Court decision striking down a similar rider of AEP was different. The issues before the Court have been fully briefed. Awaiting the Court to set a date for oral arguments.