25-0090-EL-BLN

The timeline of key events and scheduled submissions for the PowerConnex New Albany, LLC proceeding (Ohio Power Siting Board Case No. 25-0090-EL-BLN) is as follows:

- Q4 2024 to Q1 2025: Preparation and submittal of the application for certificate and required studies.
- Q2 2025: Issuance of the certificate.
- Q2 to Q3 2025: Preparation of final design, site clearing, and prep work.
- July 2025: Start of construction activities, including site access construction, stormwater management, and earthwork/grading.
- August 2025: Underground utility installation/relocation and foundation work begins.
- September 2025 to January 2026: Above-ground structure installation.
- October 2025 to June 2026: Equipment installation.
- December 2025 to June 2026: Exhaust system installation and equipment commissioning.
- March to July 2026: Site restoration.
- January to August 2026: Placement of the facility in service.

Notice and Reporting Milestones:
- At least 7 days prior to the start of construction and facility operation, mail notices are sent to affected property owners, residents within one mile, public officials, emergency responders, and others, including a copy of the complaint resolution plan.
- During the first 5 years of operation, semi-annual complaint summary reports are submitted by January 15 and July 15 each year, detailing complaints received and actions taken. These are also filed on the public docket 1, 1, 2.

The docket concerns the application and regulatory process for the PowerConnex New Albany Energy Center, a 120-megawatt, behind-the-meter, natural gas-fired electric generation facility to be constructed at 9850 Innovation Campus Way, New Albany, Licking County, Ohio. The facility is designed to provide reliable prime power for a data center located on the same industrial site. Construction is expected to begin as early as Q3 2025 with commercial operations anticipated in Q1 2026 1.

Key points:

- The facility will operate independently ("islanded"), not connected to the wider electric grid, so any operational issues would only affect the co-located data center 2.
- The site was chosen for being a brownfield with an existing suitable building, minimizing ecological, cultural, and visual impacts. Generation equipment is sited behind the existing building, with additional visual shielding for nearby residents 2, 2.
- The project includes selective catalytic reduction for emission controls, multiple large storage tanks for urea and oils, and various auxiliary systems. Exhaust stacks are planned to be 65–85 feet high 2, 2.
- Environmental assessments found no jurisdictional waters (per Clean Water Act), and nearby wetlands and ponds are categorized as low quality (Category 1) and are hydrologically isolated from significant waterways 3, 3, 3.
- Soil and water studies indicate no highly erodible soils, no significant slope issues, and no anticipated impacts on local water supplies or floodplains. Construction will use mitigation measures for soil stability as needed 2, 4.
- The applicant has provided a complaint resolution plan, with required pre-construction notifications to local stakeholders and semi-annual complaint summaries for five years post-operation 2.
- Certain financial information in the application was filed under seal to protect trade secrets, consistent with Ohio law and regulatory precedent 5, 1.
- The project underwent public comments, stakeholder meetings, and regulatory review, including coordination with local and state agencies for construction impacts, routing, and environmental compliance 2, 6.

In summary, this docket documents the comprehensive siting, design, environmental review, stakeholder engagement, and regulatory compliance for the proposed PowerConnex New Albany Energy Center.

Key stakeholders in the PowerConnex New Albany project docket (Case No. 25-90-EL-BLN) include:

- City of New Albany: Chip Fellows (Councilman), Joseph Stefanov (City Manager), Sara Ziegler/Zeigler (Economic Development Manager)
- Licking County Port Authority: Rick Platt (President and CEO)
- Licking County Soil and Water: Kristy Hawthorne (Administrator)
- Ohio Department of Development: Scott Ryan (Chief of Community Engagement)
- Monroe Township: Brian Bemiller (Fire Chief)
- New Albany Chamber: Cherie Nelson (Executive Director)
- Labor Unions: Frank Uhl, Jason Baker, Paul Dixon (Operating Engineers Local 18); two individuals from the Carpenters Union
- Ohio Farm Bureau Federation: Dale Arnold
- Enbridge: Paul Briggs (Director of Government Affairs and Economic Development)

Regarding positions:

- There is evidence of positive feedback at both public information meetings (PIMs), with attendees including city officials, labor representatives, and other vested parties. No written opposition or negative comments are documented in the provided excerpts.
- Labor unions such as the Operating Engineers Local 18 and the Carpenters Union attended and participated, with at least one public comment from Frank Uhl of Local 18 being filed, but no explicit opposition is noted.
- The Ohio Farm Bureau Federation (represented by Dale Arnold) attended the second PIM, but no stance for or against is specified.
- No elected officials attended the second PIM, and no formal opposition from public officials or agencies is documented.
- No written opposition from local residents or other stakeholders is recorded.

In summary:
- Most stakeholders, including city officials, economic development representatives, and labor unions, participated in public meetings and expressed at least neutral or positive engagement. There is no documentation of stakeholders formally opposing the project in the excerpts provided 1, 1.

Financial risks and concerns discussed in the docket include:

- The applicant, PowerConnex New Albany, LLC, has requested a protective order to keep certain financial information (estimated capital, intangible costs, and operation and maintenance costs) confidential, stating that public disclosure would harm its competitive position and contract negotiations. This suggests a concern over sensitive financial data affecting the company's market competitiveness and vendor relationships 1, 1.
- No similar operational facilities exist for direct operation and maintenance cost comparison, and a comparable site in Dublin, Ireland, is only expected to come online in late 2025. This creates uncertainty regarding benchmarking and future cost projections 2.
- The economic analysis and tax revenue impact for a portion of the project (PCX I) is still being finalized, indicating uncertainty in the estimated economic benefits and potential delays in reporting these figures to the authorities 2.

Timeline risks and concerns discussed include:

- The final complaint resolution plan, preconstruction notices, and confirmation of compliance with preconstruction and construction-related conditions must be filed at least 7 days before construction and operations begin. Delays in preparing or filing these documents could delay the project start 2.
- Some planning elements—such as the final liability insurance details and the economic analysis—are still in process, posing a risk of delay if these are not completed on schedule 2, 2.
- The project is designed for a minimum 15-year operational life, after which a comprehensive evaluation will be needed for decommissioning or continued operation, but the details of financial provisions for decommissioning will only be articulated in the lease/operating agreement, which could introduce future timing or financial uncertainties 2.

The docket identifies several areas of growth, mainly focused on:

1. Industrial and Commercial Development:
- The project area is primarily zoned for general employment (GE) and infill planned unit development (IPUD), designed to support a range of commercial and industrial activities intended to generate employment. The New Albany 2020 Strategic Plan also indicates that currently agricultural-zoned residential properties in the vicinity are intended for future retail development 1.
- Key Considerations:
- The site is already largely developed with industrial uses, including warehouses, paved roadways, parking lots, and stormwater basins, and is maintained/mowed, offering little wildlife habitat. The visual and ecological impact of additional facility construction is considered minimal due to the existing developed landscape 1.
- The proposed facility is consistent with local planning resources and zoning plans, supporting the region’s economic and employment growth objectives 1.

2. Economic Growth and Job Creation:
- The planned energy center complex is expected to make a significant economic contribution through job creation, both direct and indirect, as well as ongoing employment for operation and maintenance once the facility becomes operational. This will lead to increased consumer spending and economic growth in the area 1.
- Key Considerations:
- The need for a skilled workforce for both construction and long-term operation is highlighted.
- There are no comparable facilities currently operating for direct cost or O&M benchmarking, but future comparisons are planned as similar sites come online 1.

3. Land Use and Environmental Considerations:
- The majority of the project area is industrial or developed land, and new development aligns with existing land uses.
- Key Considerations:
- Minimal impact on wildlife due to the currently maintained/mowed nature of the site and lack of significant habitat.
- All previously identified wetlands within 1,000 feet have been permitted for impact and are no longer present. No wildlife areas, nature preserves, or conservation areas are within 1,000 feet of the project 1.
- Compliance with zoning, environmental permitting, and ecological mitigation is required for continued development 1.

In summary, the docket identifies growth in industrial/commercial development, economic expansion, and planned land use transformation, with key considerations focusing on alignment with zoning/strategic plans, workforce needs, minimal environmental impact, and compliance with regulatory requirements.