The first in a series of public hearings by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio yielded about 30 comments against proposed rate increases from Duke Energy Ohio.

About 100 people packed the Fairfield Twp. Administrative Building on Tuesday evening — with enough chairs for about 60 people and the rest lining walls, sitting on tables and standing.

Duke Energy Ohio on July 9, 2012 filed applications with the PUCO to increase rates for electric distribution by $86.6 million (24 percent), and natural gas distribution by $46 million (18 percent). The proposed rate hike could potentially add $6.50 to the electric portion of a normal residential monthly Duke Energy bill and $10.25 to the natural gas side.

“Duke claims it needs to increase customers’ rates to pay for system improvements, increased operations and maintenance expenses, and other costs,” according to a fact sheet from the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Duke Energy application, is the request for a new tariff for relocating its facilities — a Facilities Relocation - Mass Transportation Rider (Rider FRT) — which focuses on recovery of the costs of relocations due to mass transportation projects initiated by governmental subdivisions, according to PUCO documents.

Stan Willis of Fairfield Twp. said the rate increases proposed by Duke are too high given the economic struggles impacting most people’s wallets.

“Many people haven’t gotten raises for many years, or have been laid off,” Willis said. “Governmental entities should not get preferential treatment.”

Susan McLaughlin of Liberty Twp. expressed concern of the impact the rate hikes could have on public entities such as local governments and schools, and the trickle-down effect on taxpayers. She said this is a time when Duke needs to strive to cut costs, not increase them.

The Rider FRT is in part referencing a proposed Streetcar project in the City of Cincinnati, and a current legal battle between Duke Energy and the City of Cincinnati to determine which agency should be responsible for the cost of relocating underground utilities to make way for the trolley.

Cincinnati Attorney Brian Shrive said during the public hearing that he opposes the “Streetcar tax” because it would essentially be granting taxing authority to a utilities company.

“The Rider FRT is only to City of Cincinnati ratepayers, but through the use of the uncollectible expense riders it would force payment to the residents of Butler and Warren counties,” Shrive said. “One way or another, the ratepayers of the region will pay.”

Sally Thelen, Duke spokeswoman, said it is not Duke Energy’s intention to pass the Rider FRT onto residents outside the limits of the governmental boundary of any particular mass transportation project. She said the cost should be either borne by the project or within the limits of the governmental subdivision.

“So that people outside the jurisdiction aren’t penalized,” Thelen said. “Our whole argument all along has been that the equipment underground is in working order and we don’t need to move them. It’s been a long, drawn out process with (the City of Cincinnati). We would like the project to succeed but not at the cost of ratepayers in southwest Ohio.”

The current staff recommendation from PUCO does not support the proposed FRT rider.

“It is (PUCO) staff’s position that Rider FRT as designed is not well defined and too open-ended,” states a PUCO report.

Regarding the requested 24 percent increase in electric rates, and 18 percent rate increase for natural gas, the PUCO staff recommends Duke be permitted to raise its electric rate by 10 to 12.5 percent, and actually recommends Duke decrease its natural gas rates by 0.8 to 2.8 percent, according to PUCO reports.

Robert Krieger of Hanover Twp., a shareholder in Duke Energy, said his problem is not with Duke’s proposed rider to recover costs for relocating utilities due to mass transportation projects, but with the City of Cincinnati’s efforts to pass the cost of its proposed Streetcar onto ratepayers in the region.

“(Cincinnati) is ramrodding the project in and costing Duke significant money,” Krieger said.

Joseph Schlechtinger of Ross Twp. said as a ratepayer, he understands Duke’s desire to recoup the cost of maintenance expenses through a rate increase. But like the other residents at the PUCO hearing, he was against the possibility of being charged extra due to a public transportation project in Cincinnati.

“I don’t live in Hamilton County, I don’t want the Streetcar and I’ll never use it,” Schlechtinger said. “I’ll fire (Duke) and get another electric company.”