Update: Complainants (RESA, EPSA, Dynegy, and others), Respondents (AEP, FirstEnergy, and their affiliates), and OCC have sought permission from FERC to file additional comments regarding the pending complaints which seek to rescind the waivers on affiliate power sales restrictions granted to Respondents. FERC rules do not allow additional comments to be filed at this stage of the proceeding, which is why permission has been requested.

Complainants quote approvingly from the comments submitted by OMA Energy Group, PJM, the Independent Market Monitor, Sierra Club, and others as support for the argument that the grounds asserted in the complaints enjoy support from a broad class of interests. Additionally, Complainants observe that the existence of retail choice in Ohio is not an adequate protection against the harms posed by the proposed affiliate PPAs. In contrast, Respondents still cling to the incorrect notion that the PUCO can adequately protect customers from any harm arising from the proposed affiliate PPAs. For its part, OCC correctly observes that the PUCO has not, and will not, undertake an Edgar/Allegheny analysis to evaluate the potential opportunities for affiliate abuse lurking within the proposed affiliate PPAs. OMA Energy Group continues to monitor the proceeding and awaits next steps from FERC.

PCS Nitrogen Ohio (Potash) filed permission to seek late intervention in the proceeding. Potash asserts that the proposed affiliate PPAs would make customers responsible for subsidizing the Respondents’ uneconomic generating assets. Importantly, Potash voices support for the comments filed by OMA Energy Group and endorses OMA Energy Group’s request for FERC to rescind the waivers on affiliate power sales restrictions.