March 4, 2016, Volume 5, Issue 22

03/04/2016

Update: In another attempt to limit the information available to the PUCO for consideration, FirstEnergy asked the PUCO to strike selected passages mentioned in the briefs filed by OMA Energy Group, OCC, RESA, and a few other parties that are opposed to the PPA request and settlement. It is FirstEnergy’s view that the passages reference inadmissible evidence. One of the passages at issue relates to an argument featured in OMA Energy Group’s brief that questioned whether one of the signatories, the Consumer Protection Association (CPA), is a going concern. CPA filed a dissolution request with the Secretary of State’s Office in November, thus calling into question its ability to join the settlement filed in December. CPA is also under investigation for fraud. Under the terms of the settlement, CPA is allocated hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for each year of the settlement’s eight-year term. OMA Energy Group has argued that CPA’s questionable viability undermines FirstEnergy’s claim that the settlement enjoys broad-based support among diverse interest groups. Additionally, OMA Energy Group has asserted that granting funding to a potentially defunct organization violates important regulatory principles, is not in the public interest, and does not benefit ratepayers. OCC has raised similar concerns about CPA’s status. FirstEnergy is also attempting to shield from the public record in this case, testimony given by one of its senior executives to the General Assembly that asks the legislature not to subsidize one generator over another: “measures that restrict customer shopping or subsidize one electric generator over another are throw- backs to monopoly regulation. Such efforts that pick ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in the energy market would create obstacles to private investment in generation and increase prices for customers.” The administrative law judges in this case already denied FirstEnergy’s attempt to keep the testimony out of the record and admitted the testimony. FirstEnergy already appealed the decision and is now taking a third bite at the proverbial apple.

 

Top