Update:  On January 3, 2014, the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (OCC) filed an application for rehearing in this matter.  OCC contends that the purpose of its application for rehearing is to protect customers from paying for OVEC costs that are not related to the provision of electric service to such customers in Ohio.  Specifically, the OCC states in its application for rehearing that the Commission erred in deferring the resolution of the “retail rate issues” to the recently-filed AEP SSO III case (i.e., Case Nos. 13-2385-EL-SSO and 13-2386-EL-AAM, set forth above).  The OCC argues that the Commission erred in allowing AEP Ohio to retain its OVEC contractual entitlements because it may result in AEP Ohio being subsidized by customers for OVEC expenses that exceed revenues for OVEC power sold in the PJM market.