Updated: In its 2014 electric security plan (ESP) case, Duke sought authorization of a Price Stability Rider (PSR) that would permit it to recover the net above-market wholesale costs it incurred because of its election to retain an interest in coal-fired generation facilities operated by the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC). Duke claimed that the rider would “stabilize” retail rates and was a lawful and reasonable provision of an ESP. Duke sought to implement the PSR for a period that was to last as long as it is taking power from OVEC. The PUCO approved the PSR for the term of the ESP, but set it at $0. The rehearing requests in the ESP case are still pending before the PUCO. Nevertheless, in an attempt to circumvent the rehearing process, Duke is now requesting to implement the PSR outside of the ESP case based upon a new legal theory. Like the PSR in the ESP case, Duke proposes to include in this PSR the net costs associated with its contractual entitlement in generating assets owned by OVEC. Rider PSR would be nonbypassable and would continue through June 30, 2040.

This week OMAEG, Industrial Energy Users-Ohio, Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy, The Kroger Co., and the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel filed a joint motion to dismiss Duke’s application to recover costs for its interest in its OVEC assets from retail customers through June 30, 2040. In the motion, OMAEG and the other parties argued that Duke’s request is procedurally improper and unlawful. The parties stated that the PUCO’s general authority over utility companies does not permit Duke to recover these costs. Therefore, the parties requested the PUCO to dismiss Duke’s Application or stay it until such time as it has decided the applications for rehearing in the ESP case and appellate review is completed.