Sign in Subscribe
Social services

AEP East Companies Challenge FERC Ruling on Transmission Rates

Strategic Insights

— 2 min read

The American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP) and its subsidiaries have filed a motion with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to correct mischaracterizations made in the Kentucky Public Service Commission's recent response to their pleadings. The AEP East Companies argue that the Kentucky Public Service Commission has failed to address evidence and arguments presented in their original answer, and that the commission's response is well beyond the 15-day deadline for answers to motions. The AEP East Companies are seeking to have their limited answer accepted by the commission, which would clarify certain issues and provide information to assist the commission in its decision-making process.

Key Takeaways:

  • The AEP East Companies are challenging the Kentucky Public Service Commission's recent response to their pleadings, arguing that it contains mischaracterizations and fails to address evidence and arguments presented in their original answer.
  • The commission's response was filed 27 days after the AEP East Companies' motion, well beyond the 15-day deadline for answers to motions.
  • The AEP East Companies are seeking to have their limited answer accepted by the commission, which would provide information to assist the commission in its decision-making process.
  • The commission has accepted limited answers in past cases for good cause, such as where it clarifies the issues or provides information that will assist the commission in its decision-making process.
  • The AEP East Companies are correcting several inaccurate claims made in the commission's response, including claims that they argue that the flow-based analysis is dispositive and no other analysis is legitimate, and that the Coal of MISO Transmission Customers case stands for the proposition that all projects have to be included for any analysis to be accurate.

Statistics:

  • The commission's response was filed 27 days after the AEP East Companies' motion, exceeding the 15-day deadline for answers to motions.
  • The commission has acknowledged the AEP East Companies' arguments in past cases, including the necessity of evaluating benefits at the zonal level and the impracticality of imposing a "customer-by-customer approach" to cost allocation.
  • The AEP East Companies' motion was signed by three lawyers from Steptoe LLP and Jenner & Block LLP, representing the AEP East Companies in this proceeding.

Sources:

  • Motion for Leave to Answer and Limited Answer of the AEP East Companies, Docket No. EL25-67-000 (filed June 6, 2025)
  • Response of the Kentucky Public Service Commission and The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to Respondents' Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer, Docket No. EL25-67 (filed July 3, 2025)
  • Paragould Light & Water Comm'n v. FERC, No. 23-1133, 2025 WL 1911460, at *4 (D.C. Cir. July 11, 2025)
  • United Illuminating Co., 167 FERC P 61,126, at P 18 (2019)
  • Mid-Am. Pipeline Co., 165 FERC P 61,046, at P 18 (2018)
  • Enbridge Energy, Ltd. P'ship, 141 FERC P 61,246, at P 5 (2012)
  • Tuscarora Gas Trans. Co., 120 FERC P 61,022, at P 4 (2007)

Read more