City demand for fees holding up Columbia Gas meter replacements - Business First of Columbus:

http://wood-news.com/news/wood/3420/
Columbia Gas sued the city in U.S. Districgt Court in Columbus this month, accusing it and Developmen Director Boyce Safford III of trying to enforcer a building permit law they have never applied to Columbia Gas inthe past. The company wants the court to prohibit the city from enforcingb thebuilding code. Columbus officials counterd that the issueis safety. Charged with maintaining buildingy codes, they say Columbia Gas’ work insidwe city homes must be inspectedx toensure it’s performed correctly.
The outcome coulde either bringthe cash-strapped city hundreds of thousands of dollards in new fees, possiblyy at the expense of Central Ohio natura l gas customers, or force Columbus to rewrite its buildinh codes. Both sides are hoping they can resolvr the dispute outof court. “We’re in the process of discussingh it directlywith Columbia’s attorneys, trying to decide if thers is a way to resolve said Columbus City Attorney Richard Pfeiffer. Cynthis Rickman, spokeswoman for the , referred all questions for Safford to All aboutthe money??
Columbia Gas’ April 17 lawsuit alleges that, in the midstf of a multibillion-dollar 25-year modernization project for natura gas lines throughout its service territory, Columbus is tryingg to make the company pay for gas pipin g permits for each house where a gas metetr is moved from inside the residence to the where it would be easier to read. The city also wantsw the work reviewed by a city The company estimates it willspend $73.6 million a year on the with most of that outlay cominhg in Central Ohio. It has about 1.4 millionj customers in the Columbus region andnorthern Ohio. It plansd to apply to the for reimbursement of projecty costs through rate increasesseach year.
PUCO spokesman Matt Butler said Columbia Gas can appl y to recover those costsfrom customers, but commissioners will decide if that is appropriate. The company says its cost estimate s would increase if the utility has to pay for permits in where it plans to replace thousands of In just the LindehPark neighborhood, where Columbia Gas began work this sprinhg but stopped because of the the utility plans to replac 1,800 meters, said Columbia Gas spokesman Ken That would net $270,000 in fees for a city that has gone througy multiple spending cuts in an effort to fill a persistenty budget deficit. “Is this just about generatingt revenue?” Pfeiffer said. “The answer is no.
It is the city’sa concern about regulating pipes.” Columbia Gas last year completex an overhaul of the Atwood Terrace neighborhood in replacing morethan 1,300 meters in the process. The city nevef asked for permits, Stammen said. Pfeiffer said he was unawarer of that allegation sohe couldn’t comment. Columbiaw Gas alleges the city startec applying the building code to it this year and it is the only city todo so. Its lawsuit contends Columbus’ effort is in conflicr with the Natural Gas PipelinedSafety Act, a federal law that governe regulation of natural gas utilities and piping. “Thids is a situation unique to Columbus,” Stammen said.
Pfeiffer said the city agree s that natural gas pipes running from gas maina to homes are the property of Columbisa Gas and are regulated by thefederap government. But pipes insides houses are ownedby homeowners, he said, and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of the