IBJNews

AARP backs retirees in court fight over IPL benefits plan

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The AARP is cheering a fight by 16 retirees of Indianapolis Power & Light who want the utility to resume funding a post-retirement health and life plan that’s struggled to pay benefits.

Washington, D.C.-based AARP, a seniors advocacy group, on May 10 filed an amicus brief with the Indiana Supreme Court, which has been asked to hear the case by the IPL retirees and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Amicus briefs are documents of support filed in a court by parties not directly related to the case under consideration.

The legal battle between IPL and retirees has entered its third year.

“It’s been a long time in the pipeline and we’re plugging away,” said Todd Richardson, an attorney at Indianapolis-based Lewis & Kappes, which is representing retirees and the union.

IPL, using an estimated $19 million a year from ratepayers, funded the IPALCO Enterprises Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association, or VEBA, fund until about 2001, when the utility was acquired by Virginia-based AES Corp.

The plan was spun off by IPL, and the VEBA later had to reduce or eliminate some benefits for retirees and their families. The former utility workers blamed additional burdens on the plan caused by a wave of early retirements as AES downsized the Indianapolis operations.

Retirees allege IPL continues to collect money from ratepayers to fund a plan it no longer administers. They also point to statements during a 1995 rate settlement that set current IPL rates in which then-executives said VEBA benefits could be removed only if the company went back on a “solemn” promise.

“There have been a lot of broken corporate promises, but this is one which the court can and should take steps to remedy,” the AARP said in its brief to the Indiana Supreme Court.

The court has not yet decided whether to hear the case.

In 2007, the retirees and union asked the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to force IPL to backfund the retirement plan to the tune of $100 million.

They argued that, not only is IPL still collecting about $19 million a year from ratepayers for a plan it no longer funds, but that the money ultimately flows back to AES in the form of dividends.

They further argued that IPL was able to obtain a rate increase in the mid-1990s in part because it promised regulators it would continue to fund the VEBA plan.

IPL countered that the rate settlement authorized it to account for post-retirement VEBA benefits on the accrual accounting basis, but did not formalize an agreed-upon level of expenses to be contributed to the plan.

The commission last year agreed with IPL in a ruling against the retirees.

In response, they took the case to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

In January, the court ruled against them, saying it would give deference to the commission because “we cannot find unreasonable the commission’s interpretation of its own order.”

But the Court of Appeals left the retirees with some ammunition. It did not condone actions of IPL or parent company AES, saying “it appears IPL obtained a substantial rate increase based in large part on its promise to continue funding the VEBA trust for its retirees’ benefits.”

The appeals court also noted statements from then-executives of the utility who said removing the benefits could be done only if IPL “were to go back on a solemn promise to employees.”

The AARP says the Supreme Court needs to stop IPL from evading its obligations.

“IPL’s refusal to continue funding the VEBA trust, and the commission’s interpretation of what IPL ‘proposed’ for the use of the rate-increase revenue, perverts what was promised to be a method to secure retiree health coverage security into nothing more than an accounting trick which benefits only IPL’s shareholders,” AARP said in its brief.

Moreover, the group told the court the public “did not agree to add $20 million annually to the rate burden simply to make IPL more attractive as a corporate acquisition.”

IPL had not yet filed a response in the Supreme Court petition.

The utility declined to comment, citing pending litigation.

 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • IPL renigs on promise
    The agreement to fund the VEBA trust was made in good faith by both partys but as far as IPL is concerned, promises are made to be broken. Another example of pure corporate greed.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. In reality, Lilly is maintaining profit by cutting costs such as Indiana/US citizen IT workers by a significant amount with their Tata Indian consulting connection, increasing Indian H1B's at Lillys Indiana locations significantly and offshoring to India high paying Indiana jobs to cut costs and increase profit at the expense of U.S. workers.

  2. I think perhaps there is legal precedence here in that the laws were intended for family farms, not pig processing plants on a huge scale. There has to be a way to squash this judges judgment and overrule her dumb judgement. Perhaps she should be required to live in one of those neighbors houses for a month next to the farm to see how she likes it. She is there to protect the people, not the corporations.

  3. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/03-111.htm Corporate farms are not farms, they are indeed factories on a huge scale. The amount of waste and unhealthy smells are environmentally unsafe. If they want to do this, they should be forced to buy a boundary around their farm at a premium price to the homeowners and landowners that have to eat, sleep, and live in a cesspool of pig smells. Imagine living in a house that smells like a restroom all the time. Does the state really believe they should take the side of these corporate farms and not protect Indiana citizens. Perhaps justifiable they should force all the management of the farms to live on the farm itself and not live probably far away from there. Would be interesting to investigate the housing locations of those working at and managing the corporate farms.

  4. downtown in the same area as O'malia's. 350 E New York. Not sure that another one could survive. I agree a Target is needed d'town. Downtown Philly even had a 3 story Kmart for its downtown residents.

  5. Indy-area residents... most of you have no idea how AMAZING Aurelio's is. South of Chicago was a cool pizza place... but it pales in comparison to the heavenly thin crust Aurelio's pizza. Their deep dish is pretty good too. My waistline is expanding just thinking about this!

ADVERTISEMENT