Update:  On December 13, 2013, OCC, Kroger, OMAEG, and Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy (Joint Consumer Advocates) filed a joint application for rehearing.  Duke also filed an application for rehearing.   The Joint Consumer Advocates challenged the Commission’s decision on the basis that it permitted Duke recovery for plants that are not currently used and useful, expenses that are not a cost to the utility of rendering public utility service during the test year, investigation and remediation costs that are not normal and recurring, and investigation and remediation expenses that are not expenses of Duke’s utility distribution service.  The Joint Consumer Advocates also argued that the Commission’s findings of fact were not supported by record evidence and that the Commission erred in finding that customers, rather than Duke, should bear the costs of remediation.

Duke’s application for rehearing is more limited.  Duke requests that the Commission re-visit the timeframe for recovery of costs incurred for remediation.  Duke argues that there is no evidence in the record to support the finding that ten years is a reasonable timeframe in which to complete remediation.

There is also a motion to stay pending in this proceeding.  Several intervenors filed a motion to stay, requesting that implementation by Duke of rates for recovering manufactured gas clean-up costs be stayed until the resolution of the applications for rehearing and appeals process.  On December 13, 2013, Duke filed a memorandum contra to the motion to stay.  The Commission has not issued a decision on this motion.