Was PUCO's Approval of Electric Plan Proper?
In the Matter of the Application of Columbus Southern Power Company for Authority to Establish a Standard Service Offer ... in the Form of an Electric Security Plan. In The Matter of the Application of Columbus Southern Power Company and Ohio Power Company for Approval of Certain Accounting Authority. Case No. 2013-0521
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
- Was AEP-Ohio's modified electric service plan (ESP) approved by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) more favorable than a market-rate offer?
- Was the PUCO's adoption of a retail stability rider, capacity shopping tax, generation recovery rider, and pool termination rider for AEP lawful and reasonable?
- Did the PUCO-approved frozen standard-service-offer rates discriminate against non-shopping customers?
- Did the PUCO's order improperly allow for the recovery of generation transition revenue or its equivalent?
- Was the PUCO's approval of the transfer of AEP-Ohio's generating assets to an affiliate proper, and did the transfer create any improper subsidies by allowing revenue to pass through AEP to the affiliate?
- Did the PUCO properly consider AEP's corporate separation plan?
- Was the PUCO's imposition of an annual 12 percent excessive earnings test on AEP during the ESP's term unreasonable and unlawful?
- Should AEP have had the right to withdraw from the modified ESP approved by the PUCO?
- Did the PUCO err by extending the state compensation mechanism to standard-service offer auctions and non-shopping customers?
May 19, 2015