Update:  Since last week’s report, three more appeals have been filed.  AEP-Ohio filed a cross appeal on May 24, 3013 alleging that the PUCO’s unreasonably imposed a significantly excessive earnings test (SEET) threshold of 12%, and that the PUCO unreasonably overstated the net quantifiable benefits of the MRO alternative.  The Ohio Energy Group filed the fourth notice of appeal on May 28, 2013 alleging the PUCO unlawfully deferred wholesale capacity costs that CRES providers owe to Ohio Power to be recovered from retail customers.  The sixth appeal was also filed on May 28, 2013 by FirstEnergy Solutions (FES).  FES alleges that the PUCO acted unlawfully and unreasonably by approving: the ESP that is not more favorable than the MRO; approving a Retail Stability Rider; approving a Generation Resource Rider; and cross-subsidies between AEP-Ohio and its competitive generation affiliate through the SSO revenue transfer.  OMA Counsel will continue to monitor the appeals for any potential collateral impact on manufacturers.