On August 31, 2015, AEP filed a memorandum contra the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel’s (OCC) application for rehearing of the attorney examiner’s earlier entry in order to oppose language that permits AEP (but no other party) to have access to and comment upon the draft audit report prepared by an independent auditor. AEP argues in its memorandum contra that the audit report prepared by the independent auditor serves as the Commission’s audit or investigation of the facts involved in AEP’s fuel clause and that, accordingly, the Commission first orders an independent auditor to send a draft audit report to the Commission’s staff (Staff) and AEP so that any inaccurate and confidential information can be removed prior to the filing of a final report in the public domain. AEP further contends that, in light of the necessity of this process, the draft reports are inherently unreliable and irrelevant, as only the final audit report is actually considered by the Commission.

AEP argues in its application that by providing one party (and no other party) to a proceeding access to and opportunity to comment upon a draft audit report prepared by a Commission-ordered independent auditor, the Commission violated principles of fundamental fairness, and created an uneven playing field for participants in a Commission proceeding. Additionally, in allowing one party (and no others) to preview the audit report, and provide substantive comments to the auditor, the PUCO unreasonably impugned the integrity of the independent audit process.