As we first reported here, Duke Energy has proposed a "Facilities Relocation Tariff" to recoup the costs associated with the Cincinnati Streetcar - known affectionately as a Streetcar Tax.
The PUCO staff report was recently released (read that here). The staff opposes the Streetcar Tax in part because it is not well defined and too open ended. Ironically, this same thing can be said for the Streetcar project itself.
However, the staff report is not binding on the commission. Concerned citizens must turn up the heat on this proposal. Already hundreds of Cincinnatians have submitted comments.
The next step is public hearings. PUCO has not yet released the hearing dates. We will post the dates as soon as they are released and encourage you to attend at least one.
In the meantime, PUCO is still accepting public comments. It is our experience that when it comes to public comments, the more the better. That is why we encourage all to weigh in and let your voice be heard.
You can use PUCO's online comment form to let them know you don't want to pay for a Streetcar on your Electric Bill. Include reference Case 12-1682-EL-AIR in your comment.
Review the whole PUCO case file here.
COAST will continue to follow this case and keep you updated.
Have you read the report? From our reading the PUCO staff agrees with our point, the Streetcar costs should be paid by the City not by ratepayers.:
ReplyDelete“The Company's proposal does not distinguish between projects that should be funded solely by the governmental subdivision and projects funded solely by the utility in accordance with home rule charter of the Ohio Constitution.”
We are quite happy to have the capable minds of the First District Court of Appeals decide this.
Perhaps you missed this part: "projects funded solely by the utility in accordance with home rule charter of the Ohio Constitution.” That is Cincinnati's position. You've helped the city out. Is there anything that you bunglers don't screw up?
ReplyDeleteActually, I think Cincinnati's position is that all projects are to be funded solely by the utility. So by making the distinction, PUCO is echoing our position.
ReplyDeleteYou make a big deal about our efforts - funny we haven't seen any of yours. Not a single letter or email to PUCO espousing your point of view. If you believe so much in your position, why haven't you sent a comment in?
Seems to me COAST did a very effective job in getting $52 million of state funds pulled. Add another $3 million from MSD. The city is still reeling from those losses.
ReplyDelete