May 11, 2012

Update:  This week, several parties filed responses opposing AEP-Ohio’s request to preserve what it calls the “status quo” capacity pricing. The Ohio Energy Group (“OEG”) filed a memo supporting AEP-Ohio’s request. AEP-Ohio responded that the opposition was incorrect that AEP-Ohio’s request was for a rate increase and that the PUCO already rejected the legal arguments when it initially granted AEP-Ohio interim relief. The PUCO has not yet ruled on the request to extend the interim period beyond June 1, 2012.

Additionally, on May 4, 2012, FirstEnergy filed a request to further modify the procedural schedule stating that the current schedule only provides intervenors with a weekend to review AEP-Ohio’s rebuttal testimony or conduct discovery prior to resumption of the hearing. In a more aggressive alternative, FirstEnergy argues that AEP-Ohio should not be permitted to file rebuttal testimony because AEP-Ohio failed to file timely rebuttal testimony as directed by the attorney examiners previous procedural schedule. As expected, AEP-Ohio filed a memorandum opposing FirstEnergy’s request. The Attorney Examiners denied FirstEnergy’s motion to modify the procedural schedule with a ruling from the bench.

AEP-Ohio must file rebuttal testimony today and we have an opportunity to cross examine the AEP-Ohio rebuttal witnesses on Monday, May 14, 2012. That should conclude the hearing. We will then file written briefs and the PUCO will issue a decision.