Update: On June 29, 2015, OMA Energy Group filed an application for rehearing of the Commission’s entry on rehearing. OMA Energy Group raised the following issues in its application: (1) the Commission unreasonably determined that it may defer ruling on the parties’ assignments of error related to the PPA while simultaneously ruling on the other assignments of error raised by the parties; (2) the Commission erred in increasing the caps associated with the distribution investment rider by over $37.8 million from those it previously approved, as AEP did not meet its burden to establish the necessity of recovery at those levels; (3) the Commission erred in determining that the IRP-D program should be continued only for customers that are currently participating in the program and should not be offered to additional, similarly-situated competing businesses; and (4) it was unreasonable for the Commission to dismiss requests for rehearing concerning double billing for transmission-related expenses inasmuch as customers are seeing increases in transmission charges.

On the same day, AEP Ohio also filed an application for rehearing, in which it contended, among other things, that the Commission’s decision to defer ruling on the PPA unlawfully and unreasonably impairs the Company’s right to withdraw its application under Ohio law; that the Commission should re-adjust the annual DIR revenue caps to meet its stated intention of providing a 3-4% growth rate and avoid unintended negative consequences on reliability-impacting capital infrastructure projects; and that the Commission should grant rehearing and confirm, or in the alternative provide clarification, that AEP Ohio is not required to be a curtailment service provider (CSP) for the IRP customer and, in any event that AEP Ohio will not be responsible for nonperformance charges assessed by PJM for demand resources provided by the IRP customer that are successfully bid into the PJM capacity market.