Update: The PUCO issued an entry addressing several matters relating to FirstEnergy’s modified Rider RRS proposal. The PUCO declined to reconsider its decision to set an evidentiary hearing on FirstEnergy’s modified Rider RRS proposal. OMA Energy Group and others argued that it was error for the PUCO to set a hearing permitting FirstEnergy to raise a new proposal on rehearing. But the PUCO found that its decision to entertain the modified Rider RRS proposal on rehearing was consistent with past precedent. OMA Energy Group and others argued that the tariff sheets applicable to Rider RRS should be rejected because they reflected FirstEnergy’s intent to implement the modified Rider RRS proposal; however, the PUCO found that the tariff sheets were consistent with its March 31, 2016 order. The PUCO also rejected the contention that it was error for FirstEnergy to file a blank rate for Rider RRS rather than a rate of $0.00/kWh, explaining that FirstEnergy’s decision to leave the values blank shows that further action from the PUCO is required before rates on Rider RRS can be implemented.
OMA Energy Group and others noticed a second deposition of FirstEnergy’s lead witness who is supporting the modified Rider RRS proposal. The purpose of the second deposition is to probe FirstEnergy’s knowledge about Staff’s recent proposal to grant $393 million in customer funds to FirstEnergy through the creation of a Distribution Modernization Rider. The purpose of Staff’s proposal is to help ensure that FirstEnergy’s parent company maintains an investment grade rating. Staff did not file its proposal until after the first deposition of FirstEnergy’s lead witness concluded. It recently came to light that FirstEnergy failed to timely serve parties with information associated with Staff’s proposal. FirstEnergy initially sent the information solely to Staff even though the PUCO’s rules require that information must be sent to all parties in the case. FirstEnergy objected to the deposition as oppressive. The PUCO granted intervenors’ request for a second deposition in light of new information, but limited the deposition to the information concealed from intervenors.
In light of Staff’s proposal, which was filed a mere six days before the scheduled hearing on FirstEnergy’s modified Rider RRS proposal, OMA Energy Group and others requested an extension of the procedural schedule in order to allow for additional case preparation time. As part of the request, opponents are requesting the ability to file additional testimony in response to Staff’s proposal. The PUCO has yet to rule on this request.
OMA Energy Group witness Thomas Lause of member company Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. did an outstanding job answering questions during his deposition. Mr. Lause was thoughtful and knowledgeable in his responses and presented himself as a respectable finance professional.
