Update: On June 15, 2015, OMA filed a motion to intervene in the proceeding. On June 17, 2015, numerous parties, including OMA, Kroger, Ohio Energy Group, Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy (OPAE), the Environmental Law and Policy Center, and the Staff of the Commission filed initial comments on Duke’s application to recover program costs, lost distribution revenue, and shared savings incentives associated with its 2014 energy efficiency and demand response program offerings. In its comments, OMA noted that Duke should not be permitted to recover shared savings incentives for 2014, as it used banked savings to meet the benchmarks, so should not, as the Commission has previously determined, be able to use banked savings to earn a shared savings incentive. OMA also noted its concerns that Duke should not be permitted to collect shared savings on demand response programs when the capacity yielded by those programs is not being bid into PJM auctions, and that Duke’s energy efficiency and demand response program costs far exceed those of other electric distribution utilities. Reply comments are due on July 1, 2015.