Update: OMAEG filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of Ohio challenging the PUCO’s Opinion and Order and subsequent entries on rehearing regarding various issues raised in AEP Ohio’s ESP III case. The Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel also filed a separate notice of appeal. In its February 25, 2015 Opinion and Order, the PUCO permitted AEP Ohio to establish a placeholder Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) rider, at an initial rate of zero, for the term of the ESP. In its notice of appeal, OMAEG argued that the PUCO’s Order should be reversed on the following grounds:

• The PUCO erred in establishing the PPA rider as the PPA rider fails to meet the statutory requirements of R.C. 4928.143(B).
• The PUCO erred in unreasonably determining that the PPA rider functions as a limitation on customer shopping for retail electric generation service under R.C. 4928.143(B)(2)(d).
• The PUCO erred in finding that AEP Ohio met its burden to demonstrate that the rider will have the effect of stabilizing or providing certainty regarding retail electric generation service, as required by R.C. 4928.143(B)(2)(d).
• The PUCO erred in establishing minimum standards to be considered when evaluating a company’s request for cost recovery through a PPA rider.