Update: As explained previously, on November 22, 2013, AEP Ohio and the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (OCC) filed applications for rehearing. On December 2, 2013, OCC filed a memorandum contra AEP Ohio’s application for rehearing and request for clarification, arguing that the Commission should provide AEP Ohio customers with the greater refund intended under Ohio law where AEP Ohio had significantly excessive earnings in 2010. OCC also argued that the amount of prudently incurred storm costs that AEP Ohio seeks to collect from its customers should be reduced by $20 million because doing so would provide the intended benefit of the $20 million for customers.

IEU-Ohio also filed a memorandum contra AEP Ohio’s application for rehearing on December 2, 2013, arguing that AEP Ohio has failed to comply with the Commission’s order to invest $20 million in the Turning Point or other similar project. IEU-Ohio also argued that AEP Ohio’s application for rehearing is an unlawful collateral attack on prior commission orders which are final and not subject to further appeal. IEU-Ohio also requested that if the commission grants AEP Ohio’s application for rehearing, it should order AEP Ohio to return $20 million with interest to its customers through a uniform customer credit.

On December 2, 2013, AEP Ohio filed a memorandum contra OCC’s application for rehearing. AEP contended in its memorandum that OCC is wrong in claiming that AEP Ohio is in violation of the 2009 SEET decision, that the Commission gave appropriate consideration of the capital requirements of its future committed investments when it established the SEET threshold return on equity, and the Commission did not err in rejecting OCC’s recommended threshold SEET return on equity of 17.05%.