IBJNews

Citizens seeks rate increases to fund $560M in upgrades

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Citizens Energy Group customers face double-digit-percentage rate increases for water and sewer service under a request filed Thursday with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

Monthly rates for the average residential customer would rise 10 percent, from $31 to $34.

Harder hit would be monthly wastewater bills, which would eventually rise 47 percent,  from $30 to $44.

The Indianapolis-based utility said the increases will fund a $114 million upgrade to the water system and a $444 million tunnel system being bored beneath the city  to capture raw sewage that now overflows into streams.

“In order to continue investing in projects that remove raw sewage from our rivers and streams and that improve the quality of our drinking water, rate increases are necessary,” Carey Lykins, CEO of Citizens Energy Group, said in a statement.

Citizens acquired the city’s water and sewer systems more than a year ago in a deal worth $1.9 billion. The gas and steam utility claims that the acquisition has allowed it to achieve $112 million in annual savings.

The tunnel project is aimed at stopping the frequent overflowing of sewage into streams during heavy rains. The combined stormwater/wastewater system had to be remedied under a consent decree between the city and federal regulators.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Rebuild Indy new moniker should be RESCREW TAXPAYERS
    Yeah a back door tax increase that if it was a SCHEDULE A DEDUCTION ON OUR 1040's would have saved federal income taxes so say if you are in the 28% federal bracket and you pay an additional $500 to Citizens you could have saved $140 in federal taxes. These BALLARD GOONS do not care about anyone but their grafter buddies.
  • No surprise
    I think that savings just means efficiencies that weren't available when the utilities were separate. In any event, this rate hike was always part of the deal. That $500 million windfall for RebuildIndy didn't just appear out of nowhere. It's a backdoor tax increase.
  • Annual Savings?
    I guess I'm confused... if they're now seeing $112 millon/year in savings, why are they passing on additional costs for upgrades which they were aware of when the purchase was negotiated? Why wasn't the purchase price decreased, or maybe it was and they're just wanting to pass on expenses to the customers while they continue to see considerable savings. IURC - Please deny the request!!

    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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

    ADVERTISEMENT