May 13, 2016, Volume 5, Issue 64

05/13/2016

Update: OMA Energy Group and others contested AEP’s rehearing application which requested approval to recover the costs of the Ohio Valley Electric Cooperative (OVEC) PPA through the PPA Rider. In AEP’s third electric security plan proceeding, the PUCO denied a similar OVEC-only proposal because it did not promote rate stability, did not function as a hedge, and did not benefit the public interest. Citing to this precedent, OMA Energy Group urged the PUCO to deny AEP’s attempt to revive that failed proposal in this proceeding. Because this proposal was not raised during the hearing, OMA Energy Group also argued that the proposal violated the PUCO’s procedure for the consideration of new issues. Additionally, OMA Energy Group urged the PUCO to deny AEP’s request to trim back on several customer-friendly provisions. Specifically, OMA Energy Group urged the PUCO to deny AEP’s request to scale down its credit commitment; argued that the limit on customer rate increases should remain in place regardless of whether the PPA Rider is made bypassable; and maintained that the PUCO should uphold its decision barring AEP from flowing the costs of Capacity Performance penalties through to customers.

In response to AEP’s tariff filings requesting authority to implement the OVEC-only proposal, OMA Energy Group argued that the PUCO should reject the tariffs because they are inconsistent with the PUCO’s order. The PUCO’s order did not authorize AEP to recover the costs associated with OVEC on a standalone basis.

Top