Update: On December 22, 2014, the OMA Energy Group, the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Law and Policy Center, the Natural Resources Defense Council (jointly, Environmental Advocates), and FirstEnergy all filed applications for rehearing of the Commission’s November 20, 2014 finding and order. Specifically, OMA Energy Group argued that the Commission’ s order was unlawful and unreasonable in that it failed to limit FirstEnergy’s portfolio plan budget to reflect the costs of the amended plan offerings. Similar arguments were raised in the applications for rehearing filed by OCC and the Environmental Advocates. FirstEnergy’s application for rehearing, in contrast, contends that the Commission’s order (1) unreasonably and unlawfully prohibits FirstEnergy from counting prospective savings from opt-out customers toward the statutory benchmarks, and fails to clarify that historical savings that FirstEnergy’s customers already have funded would continue to count toward benchmark compliance even after such customers have opted out; and (2) unreasonably and unlawfully suggests that the “stand still” provision in Section 7(B) of S.B. 310 prevents the Commission from administering FirstEnergy’s amended plan consistent with Commission rules and the express provisions of the amended plan. Memoranda contra the various applications for rehearing were filed by OCC, Environmental Advocates, and FirstEnergy on January 2, 2014.