Update:  Applications for rehearing, which essentially ask the PUCO to reconsider its decision, are due today.  The OMAEG will file an application for rehearing that makes the following arguments:

A.    The Commission’s holding that the ESP, as modified, including the pricing and all other terms and conditions, deferrals and future recovery of the deferrals, and quantitative and qualitative benefits, is more favorable in the aggregate than the expected results of a market rate offer (“MRO”) is unreasonable and unlawful.
1.    The Commission erred by understating the cost of the ESP.
2.    The Commission erred in finding that an expeditious transition to market outweighs the costs of the ESP.
3.    The Commission erred in approving the ESP in spite of AEP-Ohio failing to meet its burden of proof and a lack of record evidence upon which it based its determination.

B.    The Commission’s decision to permit AEP-Ohio to defer the difference between $189 per megawatt-day (“MW-D”) and the PJM reliability pricing model (“RPM”) auction price for capacity was unreasonable and unlawful.
1.    The Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by authorizing recovery and deferrals for future recovery of wholesale costs from retail customers.
2.    Capacity costs should not be recovered from customers on an energy-basis.
3.    The Commission erred in not reducing the base generation rate to reflect the lower capacity cost.

C.     The Commission’s decision to authorize the Retail Stability Rider (“RSR”) was unjust and unreasonable.
1.    The RSR is unreasonable and unnecessary, especially if AEP-Ohio is authorized to recover its fully embedded cost of capacity.
2.    The Commission’s increase of the total amount to be recovered through the RSR was unreasonable.

D.    The Commission’s total bill cap at 12% requires clarification.

We will review the applications for rehearing filed by other parties and provide a summary of those applications in next week’s update.  The PUCO has 30 days from today to issue an Entry on Rehearing on the arguments made in today’s applications for rehearing.  However, as you know, the PUCO tends to issue non-substantive entries on rehearing granting themselves indefinitely more time to issue a substantive rehearing.