Update:  On June 20, 2014, Ohio Energy Group (OEG) filed a reply in support of its motion to establish a protective agreement.  OEG argues in its reply that if the Commission does not step in to help establish a protective order, the intervenors’ due process rights will be threatened.  On June 23, 2014, Duke filed a response to OCC’s memorandum contra to OEG’s motion to establish a protective order.  Duke essentially argues that it is entitled to protect its confidential information in any way that it sees fit.

On June 24, 2014, Duke filed a memorandum contra to the joint motion for continuance filed by OMA, IGS Energy, OEG, OCC, and Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy (OPAE), arguing that the schedule set was reasonable and should not be adjusted.  On June 26, 2014, OMA, IGS Energy, OEG, OCC and OPAE filed a joint reply in support of their motion for continuance, arguing that additional time is necessary to evaluate the new and complex issues presented in Duke’s application.

On June 26, 2014, Ohio Environmental Council and Sierra Club each filed motions to intervene.