Update: OMA Energy Group and others challenged the new Rider RRS proposal contained in FirstEnergy’s rehearing application because it improperly requests PUCO consideration of a new issue during the rehearing phase. Though couched as a mere modification, the new Rider RRS proposal is entirely distinct from its original proposal and lacks any support in the record or in the PUCO’s order approving the settlement. Unlike the original Rider RRS proposal, the new proposal does not involve a PPA with its affiliate, FirstEnergy Solutions. OMA Energy Group also argued that FirstEnergy was barred from supporting the new Rider RRS proposal with additional testimony because the record is now closed and FirstEnergy had ample opportunities to litigate this issue during the evidentiary hearing.

Aside from the Rider RRS issue, OMA Energy Group opposed FirstEnergy’s argument claiming that the PUCO interfered with its right to withdraw its electric security plan; countered FirstEnergy’s claim requesting that the PUCO clarify its directive with regards to the development of wind and solar resources; challenged FirstEnergy’s request to recover Capacity Performance penalties from customers; and urged the PUCO to uphold its directive reserving the right to prohibit cost recovery for plant outages greater than 90 days.

Before parties had an opportunity to respond to the issues in FirstEnergy’s rehearing application, the PUCO issued a brief order explaining that, because of the number and complexity of the issues raised by the parties in their applications for rehearing, it was granting rehearing to allow additional time to consider the parties’ competing arguments. The PUCO explained that the grant of additional time will allow parties to begin discovery in anticipation of potential further hearings on FirstEnergy’s new Rider RRS proposal. The PUCO has not, however, issued an order establishing a procedural schedule for the parties to litigate this new issue.