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. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

    2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

    3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

    4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

    5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.

    ADVERTISEMENT