Update:  On June 13, 2014, the Ohio Energy Group (“OEG”) filed a motion to establish a protective order, arguing that the protective order proposed by Duke is unreasonable because it (1) does not allow intervenors to challenge the confidentiality designations Duke makes, (2) requires intervenors to obtain written permission from Duke prior to discussing confidential information with other intervenors who have signed the confidentiality agreement, and (3) requires intervenors to pay $1 million in damages in the event of a breach of the confidentiality agreement, even if there are minimal or no damages to Duke.

Duke filed a memorandum contra to OEG’s motion, arguing that requiring written permission to discuss confidential information does not place an undue burden on intervenors, and that the $1 million damage provision will not be an issue if intervenors simply comply with the confidentiality agreement.

The OCC also filed a memorandum contra to OEG’s motion, stating that because OCC is a state entity, it has different requirements for confidentiality agreements than other parties do.  Further, OCC does not believe it is prudent for the Commission to determine whether there is a one-size-fits-all agreement.  OCC did, however, agree with OEG in its memorandum contra that some provisions of the agreement, as proposed by Duke, are unreasonable.

On June 18, 2014, OMA, IGS Energy, OEG, Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy, and OCC filed a motion for continuance, requesting that the hearing date be rescheduled, such that it will commence on November 10, 2014.  The motion further requested that all intermediate deadlines be continued accordingly.

On June 20, 2014, Ohio Power Company also filed a motion to intervene in the proceeding.