IBJNews

Consumer groups call for Duke to cancel Edwardsport project

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Consumer groups are blasting a proposed settlement between industrial customers and Duke Energy that would cap for now the escalating costs of the utility’s Edwardsport coal gasification generating plant.

They’ve also called into question the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s oversight of the Edwardsport proceedings, noting the agency’s chief legal counsel has accepted a job with Duke. Scott Storms worked on the Edwardsport case as recently as July 23, said Citizens Action Coalition.

electricity factsCAC contends that the proposed settlement gives Duke the opportunity later to roll in cost increases associated with potential government regulation or other events. It also argues that the plant’s cost overruns justify its cancellation.

“They’re completely ignoring carbon risk here,” Kerwin Olson, program director of CAC, said, referring to potential federal regulation to limit carbon dioxide emissions.

The 618-megawatt plant now under construction will be among the largest of a new generation of coal plants that convert coal to gas, clean the gas of pollutants, then burn it.

The IURC is weighing Duke’s latest estimate of plant construction costs, estimated to be $2.9 billion. That’s $530 million more than an upward revision last year and way above the $1.9 billion original estimate.

CAC said it was not included in settlement discussions among Duke, industrial ratepayers and the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor.

The settlement, if approved by the commission, would cap Edwardsport costs at $3 billion, more than the latest estimate.

Among other provisions is a revised depreciation rate that would save customers $35 million a year.

But CAC says the proposed changes to depreciation and capital are “short-lived” because they could go away in Duke’s next rate case in 2012, “which is when Duke would have filed a rate case, anyway.”

Duke said the settlement, if approved, would lower the rate impact of Edwardsport to a 16-percent average increase, down from 19 percent in the first full year after the plant is to go online in 2012.

Duke plans a pretax charge to earnings in the third quarter of up to $45 million to reflect the settlement.

CAC argues it would be less costly for ratepayers to cancel the project, which is about 70 percent complete.

It points to testimony given earlier this year by a Duke vice president that showed, under one scenario, that cancellation would be the lowest-cost option. But the Duke official said the cost difference between various options wasn’t substantially different.

Gov. Mitch Daniels has supported gasification as a way to continue to use the state’s abundant coal resources.

The CAC on Sept. 21 cited the recently announced departure of Storms to Duke as an example of a cozy relationship between the IURC and the utility.

“At a minimum, it is difficult to maintain the appearance of impartiality when the person overseeing the regulatory process is either shopping for work or being courted by the utility he regulates,” said CAC’s executive director, Grant Smith.

The group alleged Storms may be in violation of the state ethics code regarding post-state employment. CAC cited an example the commission states on its website: “You work for the Utility Regulatory Commission making regulatory decisions concerning a public utility company. You may not work for this utility company for a year,” it states.

But on Sept. 20, the State Ethics Commission issued an advisory opinion saying Storms “neither negotiated nor administered a contract” with Duke. The commission also said Storms never made a regulatory or licensing decision on behalf of the IURC involving Duke. Thus, the commission opined that Storms is not subject to the one-year “cooling-off period” of employment with Duke.

“That’s ridiculous,” responded CAC’s Smith.

While not a commissioner, Storms often ruled on matters such as whether to admit evidence in various utility cases involving Duke, Smith noted. “I just think it tarnishes the whole process.”

IURC spokeswoman Danielle McGrath said the finding on Storms was consistent with previous ethics commission findings.

“The IURC is in accord that only commissioners, the sole decision-makers, are covered by stricter requirements than its employees,” McGrath said.

But the ethics commission did note that Storms would be prohibited from representing or assisting Duke in five specific cases, including one involving the ongoing Edwardsport reviews.•

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. 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