Update: In June, the PUCO denied the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel’s (OCC) motion to stay the continued collection of the Rate Stability Charge (RSC) during the pendency of the appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The PUCO explained that because the order had been appealed to the Court, the PUCO lacked authority to grant a motion to stay. This week, OCC filed a motion with the Court requesting it to stay the collection of the RSC, estimated to cost customers $73 million per year. In its motion, OCC argued a stay is warranted because if the Court finds that the RSC is unlawful, customers cannot recover charges that have already been collected regardless of a ruling by the Court. 

Also this week, the PUCO and DP&L filed merit briefs arguing that the Court should uphold the PUCO’s decision to reinstate the RSC and continue the two Transmission Cost Recovery Riders (TCRR) and certain aspects of the competitive bidding process that were exclusive to ESP II. Specifically, DP&L argued that notwithstanding the fact that the settlement in the ESP I case called for the RSC to terminate on December 31, 2012, Ohio law required the PUCO to reinstate the RSC when the PUCO authorized DP&L to revert back to ESP I. The PUCO in its brief argued that the two TCRR riders were authorized in the PUCO-approved ESP I settlement. DP&L, however, argued that the non-bypassable TCRR rider was not approved in the ESP I case but rather an entirely different case and under separate statutory authority than the statute governing electric security plans. OMA Energy Group’s reply brief is due on August 14, 2017.