Update: OMAEG jointly filed notices of appeal of the PUCO’s Orders and subsequent entries on rehearing regarding various issues raised in DP&L’s ESP I and ESP II cases. The Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (OCC), the Ohio Energy Group (OEG), and the Industrial Energy Users-Ohio (IEU) also filed separate notices of appeal.

In the ESP II case, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the PUCO’s authorization of the Service Stability Rider (SSR) contained in DP&L’s ESP II on grounds that it was an unlawful collection of transition revenue for costs incurred by the utility before retail competition began that will not be recoverable through market-based rates. The Court found that these costs were no longer recoverable under Ohio law. Thereafter, the PUCO authorized DP&L to withdraw its ESP II after collecting SSR charges for nearly three years. The PUCO also concurrently authorized DP&L to revert back to its ESP I, but allowed it to retain certain aspects of the competitive bidding process approved under ESP II. Further, the PUCO allowed DP&L to reinstate the Rate Stability Charge (RSC), which was originally approved in DP&L’s ESP I, but later expired.

OMAEG and others filed applications for rehearing requesting that the PUCO reverse its decisions authorizing DP&L to revert back to its ESP I and to reinstate the RSC because it was an unlawful transition charge similar to the SSR that the Supreme Court of Ohio found to be unlawful. In December, the PUCO denied these requests.

In its notices of appeal filed jointly, OMAEG argued that the PUCO’s decisions should be reversed on the followings grounds:

DP&L ESP I

1. The PUCO Erred by Authorizing DP&L to Combine Provisions of its Unlawful and Withdrawn ESP II with its Prior ESP I, in Violation of R.C. 4928.143(C)(2)(b).
2. The PUCO Erred in Authorizing DP&L to Reinstate the Expired Rate Stability Charge for Costs Associated with its POLR Obligations in Violation of R.C. 4928.38 and Supreme Court of Ohio Precedent.

DP&L ESP II

1. The PUCO Erred by Concluding that this Court’s Decision in In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co., Slip Op. 2016-Ohio-3490, Reversed the PUCO’s Order Approving DP&L’s ESP II in its Entirety.

2. The PUCO Erred by Finding that this Court’s Reversal of the PUCO’s Order Approving the Service Stability Rider Operates as a Commission Modification of an ESP Application under R.C. 4928.143(C)(2)(a) when the PUCO Corrected its Error on Remand.

3. The PUCO Erred by Authorizing DP&L to Withdrawal its ESP II, Pursuant to R.C. 4928.143(C)(2)(a) After it had Filed Compliance Tariffs and Collected Charges from Customers Pursuant to Such Tariffs.