Resident raises concerns about fuel cell project and state regulatory process
Loading...
Summary
During public comment, resident Kathy Becker said she understands there is litigation concerning a fuel cell and questioned whether processes under House Bill 15 were fast‑tracked before rulemaking and public comment were complete; council did not offer an on‑the‑record response at the meeting.
Kathy Becker (5693 Aristocrat Drive) used the public‑comment slot at the Nov. 10 meeting to ask whether outside counsel had been retained regarding a local fuel‑cell matter and to report she had learned of litigation involving the Ohio Manufacturers Association and the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel related to PUCO proceedings. Becker said parties had complained that a utility’s ownership of a fuel cell could violate rules preventing utilities from owning generation after energy deregulation. She said PUCO initially ruled against the challengers but that the matter had been appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Becker also said House Bill 15 had required expedited rulemaking by PUCO and the Ohio Power Siting Board and that, in her view, draft rules and public comment deadlines had not been handled in the usual sequence. She asked why the project was being fast‑tracked before those rules and broader public comment processes were complete and provided a fact sheet about carbon capture and storage for the clerk.
There was no substantive staff or council response to the legal and regulatory points during the meeting record; Becker asked that the council keep the case and rulemaking timelines in mind.
