Update: On September 8, 2015, OMA, Duke, and several other parties, including the Staff of the Commission, the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (OCC), Kroger, Industrial Energy Users-Ohio, Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy, and People Working Cooperatively, filed reply briefs regarding Duke’s application to extend it shared savings incentive mechanism for use in 2016. Among the arguments advanced by OMA in response to Duke was the contention that Duke’s application was improper pursuant to the language of SB 310 and therefore, Duke should not be able to collect a shared savings incentive in 2016. In the event that the Commission determines that Duke can utilize a shared savings incentive mechanism in 2016, OMA argued that it should not be able to collect a shared savings incentives when it merely complies with its energy efficiency benchmark, that Duke should not be permitted to use banked savings to both meet and exceed (for purposes of shared savings) the annual benchmark, and that the Commission should impose a cap on the shared savings incentive mechanism Duke may earn for 2016.