IBJNews

Veolia appeals regulators' rate-hike decision

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Veolia Water Indianapolis, which manages the city’s water utility, has appealed an order issued by state utility regulators that limited a major rate increase sought by the city.

In a filing with the Indiana Court of Appeals, French-owned Veolia said it has been “adversely affected” by the June 30 emergency rate order of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission granting a 12.3-percent rate increase--far less than the 17.5-percent hike requested by the city’s Department of Water Works.

The city sought the emergency rate hike after a variable-rate bond financing soured, boosting the water utility’s debt obligations by about $26 million annually.

In its appeal, Veolia cites a portion of the IURC’s emergency-rate order requiring the city to hold at 2008 levels management fees paid to Veolia. The city had planned on a 5-percent increase in fees to Veolia.

According to commission records, Veolia is paid fees representing about 80 percent of the water department’s annual operation and maintenance expenses, which total $63.2 million.

Veolia also noted in its appeal that the commission ordered the city not to pay $1.7 million in additional payments owed Veolia under the management agreement, pending further review.

The IURC had previously pressed city officials as to why they had not attempted to renegotiate management fees paid to Veolia, given the water department’s financial problems.

City officials testified during the rate case that Veolia would likely argue it was not responsible for the city’s decisions to refinance its bond debt, which blew up when financial markets collapsed late last year.

In 2005, in what looked like a smart way to free up $45 million in extra cash for capital projects, the department, through the Indianapolis Bond Bank, refinanced fixed-rate bonds into variable-rate bonds with such abandon that, today, variable debt amounts to nearly 60 percent of its $845 million in outstanding bonds.

Bond swaps intended to mitigate the risk of interest-rate variations failed to backstop the risk as financial firms involved in the deal saw their credit ratings plunge.

Neither Veolia nor its attorneys could be reached for comment this morning regarding the appeal, which was filed July 30.

The city said it also intends to file for a general rate increase next year to cover costs of system upgrades and service extensions.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT