Update: On May 14, 2015, OMA, Duke, and a number of other parties filed memoranda contra certain arguments advanced in the applications for rehearing filed regarding the Commission’s April 2, 2015 Order. Among those arguments advanced by OMA were that the Commission did not err in denying recovery under Duke’s price stabilization rider (PSR), that the Commission’s decision ordering Duke to divest or assign its OVEC entitlement was not erroneous, and that Duke should be required to bid the capacity attributable to is interruptible load program into PJM auctions occurring during the course of the ESP.