Update: OMA Energy Group and other opponents to the PPA settlement filed applications requesting that the PUCO reconsider its decision which authorized AEP to, among other things, recover the costs of the Affiliate PPA and OVEC PPA through the PPA Rider. OMA Energy Group argued that in light of FERC’s recent order rescinding the waiver on affiliate sales restrictions, AEP should be barred from recovering any costs through the PPA Rider. OMA Energy Group criticized the PUCO’s rationale which held, contrary to the record evidence, that the PPA Rider would promote rate stability, benefit supply diversity, and generate credits for customers. Additionally, OMA Energy Group reiterated its position that AEP had not shown compliance with the PUCO’s three-part test for evaluating the reasonableness of a settlement.

AEP also requested that the PUCO reconsider its decision and offered a new proposal in light of the FERC order. AEP withdrew its request to recover the costs associated with the Affiliate PPA, but still maintains that it should be permitted to recover the costs of the OVEC PPA. The OVEC PPA represents 15% of the generating capacity originally proposed in AEP’s application, thus AEP is requesting to scale down its credit commitments to correspond to this reduction in capacity (i.e., a $10 million credit commitment would now be $1.5 million). One upside of AEP’s proposal is that it would now accept a PUCO decision authorizing recovery of the OVEC PPA through the PPA Rider on a bypassable basis. In AEP’s third electric security plan the PUCO found that the OVEC PPA would neither promote rate stability nor benefit the public interest, thus OMA Energy Group and other opponents will be urging the PUCO to follow that precedent in this proceeding. AEP also argues that the PUCO erred in directing it to prioritize solar projects ahead of wind projects and in prohibiting it from charging customers for the costs of capacity performance penalties.