May 18, 2012

Update:  On May 11, 2012, IEU-Ohio filed an application for rehearing regarding the PUCO’s April 11 Entry. In their motion, IEU-Ohio argues that the PUCO’s Entry on Rehearing is unlawful and unreasonable because the PUCO limited the credit for the settlement agreement to the Ohio retail jurisdiction.  Accordingly, IEU-Ohio requests that the PUCO modify the Entry on Rehearing to remove such provisions, or, in the alternative, clarify its Entry on Rehearing for the purpose of providing that one-hundred percent
(100%) of the credit, and not just a portion, is allocable to Ohio retail jurisdiction customers.