Update:  This week, several parties, including the OMAEG, filed memoranda contra applications for rehearing.  Specifically, the OMAEG filed a memorandum contra AEP-Ohio’s and OCC/APJN’s applications for rehearing.  The OMAEG argued that the PUCO should deny AEP-Ohio’s request to: (1) charge standard service offer (“SSO”) customers a discriminatory price for capacity; (2) recover an unspecified amount to complete unspecified processes to comply with the PUCO’s energy auction requirements; (3) be held harmless in the event of an Ohio Supreme Court reversal of the PUCO’s capacity cost deferral and recovery decisions or any future determination regarding the energy auction rate impacts; and, (4) recalculate the market rate offer (“MRO”) price test to reflect that the ESP is less detrimental than the Commission previously found.  Additionally, the OMAEG argued that the PUCO should deny OCC/APJN’s request to limit the recovery of the interruptible credit (“IRP-D”) to the GS-4 rate class and allocate the retail stability rider (“RSR”) according to the percentage of customers shopping in each class.

The next step is for the PUCO to issue an entry on rehearing.  Thereafter, parties may appeal all or parts of the PUCO’s final decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.