Box 5: Problems in Public Participation in Siting Power Plants in Ohio

      Historically, Ohio has been among the top five states in the annual use of electricity, with 90% of existing electric generation coming from old coal-fired power plants that lack modern pollution control technology and almost 10% of the electricity coming from nuclear power plants. In 1999, the Ohio General Assembly passed legislation to deregulate the state’s electric market. Among other things, this legislation eliminated the requirement that those applying for a permit from the state to build new power plants prove the need for the new plants. This led to 37 applications, a flood by Ohio standards, to the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) as utilities from around the country saw an easy opportunity to build new generation; not only did they not have to prove the need for capacity, but Ohio made it generally known that all applicants would be welcome.
      Initially, there was little public debate, as the first applications sailed quietly through an expedited process. But as citizens realized what was going on, they began to organize opposition to applications, raising a wide range of concerns including increased air pollution, costly financial giveaways (i.e., tax abatements), water shortages, and damage to wetlands and farmlands.
      As part of the utility facility siting process, the OPSB has very specific guidelines on access to information, timelines, and public participation. There is, for example, in the state statute and administrative code mandatory notice of application submission, public hearing, public comment period, and appeal process. While the public was able to participate, citizen objections have never prevailed in any of the applications for new power plants: every single application has been approved, even when there was a major opposition in the communities.
      In theory, citizens and other interested parties can challenge the decisions by appealing the Ohio Power Siting Board’s decisions directly to the Ohio Supreme Court. To do so, they must have sufficient funds to hire an attorney. In practice, however, citizens and public interest groups have been able to appeal only one of the 37 applications to the Ohio Supreme Court. This case, filed on behalf of the Nature Conservancy (TNC), was settled in December 2001. The concrete details of the settlement have not been disclosed to the public, however, and the Ohio Power Siting Board’s decision was not changed as a result of the settlement and the approval for the siting and construction of the power plant has proceeded.
      The Internet has expanded citizen access to information in this process, as the OPSB posts nearly all the relevant information on its website. The information is filed in within 2 to 3 days and in a user-friendly manner at http://www.puc.state.oh.us/pubrel/opsb/index.html. Before Internet posting, citizens often had to travel to Columbus, Ohio to review materials, dramatically limiting the number of people who could follow daily activities in the application.