Update: Parties filed post-hearing initial briefs regarding FE’s energy efficiency and peak demand reduction (EE/PDR) portfolio plans for 2017 through 2019. In their briefs, both the PUCO Staff and the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel argued that the PUCO should reject the settlement and adopt a cost cap for program costs and additional limitations on shared savings incurred through FE’s energy efficiency portfolio plan. Other parties filed briefs in support of the settlement. OMAEG agreed to not oppose the settlement in exchange for favorable language, limitations on shared savings that can be collected from customers, favorable combined heat and power (CHP) program incentives, and other consumer protections. OMAEG, however, does not oppose a cost cap or additional limitations on the amount of profit FE may earn.  The case is now ripe for a PUCO decision.