Update: On December 5, 2014, numerous parties, including The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, Ohio Energy Group, Industrial Energy Users-Ohio, OCC, Kroger, Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Law and Policy Center, and the Ohio Environmental Council submitted comments on Duke’s proposed extension of its shared savings mechanism in 2016. OMA’s comments argue that the Commission should not permit Duke to unlawfully amend provisions of its bargained-for portfolio plan, that Duke’s application should be rejected, and that Duke should be required to continue its portfolio plan through 2016 without a cost recovery mechanism. Reply comments are due on January 9, 2015.