Update: On July 9, 2015, OMA Energy Group filed a memorandum contra AEP’s second application for rehearing in this case. OMA Energy Group’s memorandum contra asserted the following arguments:

• The Commission’s decision to defer ruling on the assignments of error related to the PPA does not, as AEP suggests, insulate from review the establishment of the zero-dollar placeholder PPA rider or other legal and policy decisions related to the PPA;
• AEP’s additional request for rehearing on the DIR caps improperly attempts to expand the costs recoverable through the DIR, and should be denied; and
• The Commission should ensure that the economic benefits obtained from bidding IRP demand resources into PJM auctions are passed back to AEP customers to reduce the costs of IRP credits funded by customers.

Several other parties, including the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (OCC), Industrial Energy Users-Ohio, Direct Energy, the Retail Energy Supply Association, and the Environmental Law and Policy Center also filed memoranda contra or memoranda in response to AEP’s second application for rehearing.

AEP also filed a memorandum contra the applications for rehearing of OMA Energy Group and OCC. In its memorandum, AEP supported the arguments advanced by OMA Energy Group and OCC that the Commission erred when it deferred ruling on the assignments of error in various parties’ applications for rehearing on PPA related issues. In contrast, however, AEP asserted that the Commission should reject OMA Energy Group’s arguments that the Commission unlawfully increased the DIR revenue caps without record support in the entry on rehearing; that it should not restrict the availability of the IRP tariff to only those customers presently taking service pursuant to the IRP; and that the Commission should direct AEP, CRES providers, and Staff to work together to establish a process to ensure that customers are not being double billed non-market based charges pursuant to the BTCR.