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 PPA rider expansion case. The Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel also filed a separate notice of appeal. In its March 31, 2016 Opinion and Order, the PUCO approved a stipulation authorizing AEP Ohio to flow the net effects of the Ohio Valley Electric Cooperative Power Purchase Agreement (OVEC PPA) through the PPA rider. In its notice of appeal, OMAEG argued that the PUCO’s Order should be reversed on the following grounds:

• The PUCO erred in finding that the stipulation, as a package, benefits ratepayers and is in the public interest and failed to rely on record evidence to support its findings in contravention of R.C. 4903.09.
• The PUCO unlawfully and unreasonably approved the PPA rider as it does not benefit ratepayers and is not in the public interest.
• The PUCO unlawfully and unreasonably approved the PPA rider as it is not necessary to maintain reliability, does not support supply diversity, is not a financial hedge, and does not provide rate stability.
• The PUCO erred in finding that the stipulation does not violate any important regulatory principle or practice.
• The PUCO unlawfully and unreasonably approved the PPA rider in contravention of Ohio law.
• The PUCO unlawfully and unreasonably approved the collection of unlawfully transition revenues or its equivalent.
• The PUCO erred in approving AEP Ohio’s request to modify the stipulation to recover the costs associated with its OVEC entitlement through the PPA rider in violation of Ohio law.
• The PUCO’s decision regarding the OVEC-only PPA rider violates R.C. 4903.09 as it was not based on record evidence in the case.
• The PUCO’s approval of AEP Ohio’s request to modify the stipulation to recover costs associated with the OVEC PPA violates R.C. 4903.10, as the proposal includes additional information that could have been offered at the initial hearing.