A majority of the Butler County residents who spoke at the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio hearing Monday night in Middletown said they did not approve of a proposed Duke Energy rate hike either because of principles, the economy or opposition to the Cincinnati streetcar project.

Duke Energy Ohio in July 2012 asked PUCO to increase rates for electric distribution by $86.6 million, or 24 percent, and natural gas distribution by $46 million, or 18 percent. The proposed distribution rate hike could add $6.50 to a typical residential monthly electric bill and $10.25 to a typical gas bill.

PUCO said it would recommend the utility company have between a 10 percent to 12.6 percent rate increase for electric service and have between a 0.9 percent and 2.8 percent rate decrease for natural gas.

Monday’s hearing was the final of two PUCO public hearings in Butler County, and had a much lower turnout than the meeting last week in Fairfield Twp. Outside doors to the Middletown City Building were locked prior to the event, but officials from the state agency said they tried to watch out for people who wanted to voice their opinions. The first hearing in Fairfield Twp. last week saw about 100 people attend with about 30 offering opposing comments. The hearing in Middletown had about 24 people in attendance.

Part of the request includes a new tariff for relocating Duke utilities to make way for a streetcar in Cincinnati, and for Butler County residents that is arguably the most controversial aspect of the energy company’s application for a rate hike.

“No one in Butler County would benefit from it,” said Dave Kern, who said he was not speaking as chairman of the Butler County GOP or a Liberty Twp. trustee. “If they want to build that streetcar, they should pay for it.”

He said it’s irrelevant if what is known as the Facilities Relocation and Transportation rider is only a small portion of the rate hike because, “It’s the principle. We don’t want it.”

Duke Energy and the city of Cincinnati have been debating on who will be responsible for paying an estimate $15 million to move Duke Energy lines to make way for the city’s streetcar project. Duke filed a lawsuit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court earlier this month asking the court to decide who pays the bill.

Pierre J. DeBrosse, of Middletown, said he doesn’t want to see his gas and electric bill rise because of the “hotbed of taxes” citizens are potentially faced with with federal and state financial issues. That doesn’t include the instability of gas prices. But he said the commission should deny the request until the open lawsuit is resolved.

“I would request as a citizen of Ohio and as a consumer with Duke Energy that the commission deny the current request before the commission due to the fact the current litigation between the city of Cincinnati and Duke Energy has not been ruled on,” he said.

Courtney Combs, former state representative and county commissioner, supports the proposed rate hike, mainly because it relates to job creation and growth.

“Big companies, small companies, they can’t locate within your jurisdiction if they don’t have utilities,” he said. “That’s what it’s all about.”

Combs said Duke was one of the first, if not the first, cash contributors in the Economic Development Corporation of Butler County — which helped keep economic development on track in the county.

“I know that in utilities you have to make investments, and you make investments in the infrastructure and then you come back and ask that you get paid back for those investments,” he said. “That’s the way it works. And Duke has been at the forefront in investing in Butler County.”

But Combs was in the minority.

“I don’t want this rider approved because it sets a precedence that anytime there is any infrastructure change, the powers above can just give them permission to always raise the rate, even without a review,” said Fairfield Twp. resident Kenda Gammell. “That is very scary.”

And while Adriana Inman of Fairfield Twp. said Duke Energy is “a great company,” her “biggest concern” is the economy.

“It’s the seniors, my parents included, who are living on fixed income,” she said. “I do not believe that’s a good policy and I think it sets a bad precedent and will open the door to come in here and do that to us, it doesn’t matter who they are. We do not and cannot do that, and cannot continue to afford that.”