Update: OMA Energy Group and others asked the PUCO to reconsider its decision modifying and approving a settlement which authorizes FirstEnergy’s application for a fourth electric security plan. Relying on the FERC order, OMA Energy Group urged the PUCO to bar FirstEnergy from recovering any costs associated with the Affiliate PPA through Rider RRS. OMA Energy Group stressed that the settlement will harm economic development, injure ratepayers, damage competition, and violate state policy.  OMAEG criticized the PUCO’s rulings on Rider NMB and Rider ELR limiting the programs to signatory parties on the grounds that, without modifications, these two riders are discriminatory and could have anticompetitive effects.  Additionally, OMA Energy Group reiterated its position that FirstEnergy had not shown compliance with the PUCO’s three-part test for evaluating the reasonableness of a settlement.

FirstEnergy also requested that the PUCO reconsider its decision and offered a new proposal in light of the FERC order. FirstEnergy claims to no longer be requesting to recover the costs associated with the Affiliate PPA. However, the new proposal merely eliminates the underlying Affiliate PPA while still seeking to charge customers for the costs associated with operating the affiliated generating units. Instead of establishing a rate based on the actual costs of the generating units, FirstEnergy proposes to use projected costs. FirstEnergy states that it will base the offsetting revenue received from the output of the generating units on actual market prices (not the projections that were included in its filing which projected a $256 million net credit that the PUCO relied upon for approval). Also included with FirstEnergy’s proposal is a new piece of testimony explaining the new proposal. Filing testimony at this juncture violates the PUCO’s rules and Ohio law, thus OMA Energy Group and others are expected to challenge this improper procedural maneuver when they file their response to FirstEnergy’s new proposal next week. FirstEnergy is asking the PUCO to approve the proposal by May 25^th with a June 1^st effective date. Aside from its illusory proposal of restructuring the cost recovery mechanism of Rider RRS, FirstEnergy criticized the PUCO’s decision to prohibit it from charging customers for the costs of capacity performance penalties. FirstEnergy also claims the PUCO erred by prohibiting cost recovery for plant outages in excess of 90 days.