Update: OMA Energy Group and others countered AEP’s request to establish an aggressive procedural schedule to resolve several capacity-related cases. OMA Energy Group urged the PUCO to reject AEP’s preferred methodology for resolving the cases because it conflicted with the remand directives contained in two recently-issued Ohio Supreme Court decisions. Further, OMA Energy Group explained that acceptance of AEP’s methodology would violate the prohibition against retroactive ratemaking by increasing current rates to make up for $470 million in costs that AEP supposedly incurred to provide capacity to load served by CRES providers. Finally, OMA Energy Group argued that AEP’s proposed schedule violated due process by denying adequate case preparation time and limiting rights of discovery.