E-3: Commissioner James Danly Concurrence in part and a Dissent in part Regarding Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel v. American Electric Power Service Corporation, American Transmission Systems, Inc., and Duke Energy Ohio, LLC

Commissioner James Danly Statement
April 20, 2023
Docket No. EL22-34-001

For the same reasons that I expressed in my original statement,[1] I further dissent from this order denying rehearing of the Commission’s decision to eliminate transmission organization membership incentives from the rates of American Electric Power Service Corporation affiliates Ohio Power Company (Ohio Power) and AEP Ohio Transmission Company Inc. (AEP Ohio Transmission).[2]  As I previously explained, the Federal Power Act does not limit incentives to only those utilities that “voluntarily” join a transmission organization.[3]  The Commission improperly added this non-statutory requirement in Order No. 679.[4]  We had no authority to do so then or now.  Nothing on rehearing changes my opinion.

I concur with the majority’s determination on rehearing that the American Transmission Systems, Inc., and Duke Energy Ohio, LLC, should continue to collect the transmission organization incentive in rates because these incentives were included in comprehensive settlements.[5]  I would add the further rationale that section 219(c) of the Federal Power Act requires it, and the subsequent addition of the “voluntariness” requirement was a Commission invention not authorized by the statute, as discussed in my original statement.[6]

For these reasons, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.