IBJNews

Developers say bill would kill Indiana coal-gas plant

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The developers of a proposed $2.8 billion coal-gasification plant in southern Indiana say a measure advancing in the Legislature would kill the project.

The House Utility Committee approved a bill Wednesday that would send the project back to regulators for another round of reviews unless the Indiana Supreme Court sides with the project's developers.

The Evansville Courier & Press reported that the case was appealed to the high court after the Indiana Court of Appeals last year reversed the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission's approval of a crucial 30-year contract.

Mike Murphy, a spokesman for Indiana Gasification LLC — the company launched to run the project financed by Leucadia National Corp. — said that if the bill passes the General Assembly, it would doom the project planned for the Ohio River city of Rockport.

"If this bill passes as-is, the deal is dead. It is dead, and the largest economic development project of the next decade is gone," Murphy said.

The controversy stems from a deal between the plant's developers and the Indiana Finance Authority, which under former Gov. Mitch Daniels signed a 30-year contract to purchase the plant's synthetic natural gas at a fixed rate and then resell it on the open market.

Indiana utility customers would receive discounts or increases on their bills, depending on whether those gas sales make a profit or a loss. The 30-year deal would tie 17 percent of Indiana residents' gas bills to the Rockport plant's rate.

Opponents say the plant would saddle Indiana ratepayers with any losses the plant incurs. One opponent, Vectren Corp., is lobbying lawmakers to enhance the deal's protections for natural gas customers and asking the courts to block the 30-year deal from moving forward.

The bill approved Wednesday is similar to a version already passed by the Senate, but it falls short of what Vectren had sought initially. Under the measure, the Indiana Supreme Court would have the first chance at reviewing the contract. If the court fails to approve any part the contract, the measure calls for state regulators to review the project.

State Rep. Suzanne Crouch, R-Evansville, said no one is particularly pleased with the bill in its current form, but she said that likely means it's a fair compromise.

"The 2 million natural gas ratepayers in Indiana do not have well-heeled lobbyists working the halls of the Indiana General Assembly on their behalf. It is up to legislators to look out for their interests and protect them," said Crouch, who is sponsoring the bill in the House.

Jodi Perras, an Indiana representative with the Sierra Club's "Beyond Coal" campaign, said the changes lawmakers have made to the legislation were positive.

"Really, the idea of ratepayer savings is a policy issue, not a technical issue," Perras said. "That's an issue that the General Assembly ought to speak out about to say that ratepayers have to be protected."

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. Socialized medicine works great for white people in Scandanavia. It works well in Costa Rica for a population that is partly white and partly mestizo. I don't really see Obamacare as something aimed against whites. I think that is a Republican canard designed to elicit support from white people for republican candidates who don't care about them any more than democrats care about the non-whites they pander to with their phony maneuvers. But what is different between Costa Rica nd the Scandanavian nations on one hand and the US on the other? SIZE. Maybe the US is just too damn big. Maybe it just needs to be divided into smaller self governing pieces like when the old Holy Roman Empire was dismantled. Maybe we are always trying the same set of solutions for different kinds of people as if we were all the same. Oh-- I know-- that is liberal dogma, that we are all the same. Which is the most idiotic American notion going right back to the propaganda of 1776. All men are different and their differences are myriad and that which is different is not equal. The state which pretends men are all the same is going to force men to be the same. That is what America does here, that is what we do in our stupid overseas wars, that is how we destroy true diversity and true difference, and we are all as different groups of folks, feeling the pains of how capitalism is grinding us down into equally insignificant proletarian microconsumers with no other identity whether we like it or not. And the Marxists had this much right about the War of Independence: it was fundamentally a war of capitalist against feudal systems. America has been about big money since day one and whatever gets in the way is crushed. Health care is just another market and Obamacare, to the extent that it Rationalizes and makes more uniform a market which should actually be really different in nature and delivery from place to place-- well that will serve the interests of the biggest capitalist stakeholders in health care which is not Walmart for Gosh Sakes it is the INSURANCE INDUSTRY. CUI BONO Obamacare? The insurance industry. So republicans drop the delusion pro capitalist scales from your eyes this has almost nothing to do with race or "socialism" it has to do mostly with what the INSURANCE INDUSTRY wants to have happen in order to make their lives and profits easier.

  2. Read the article - the reason they can't justify staying is they have too many medicare/medicaid patients and the re-imbursements for transporting these patient is so low.

  3. I would not vote for Bayh if he did run. I also wouldn't vote for Pence. My guess is that Bayh does not have the stomach to oppose persons on the far left or far right. Also, outside of capitalizing on his time as U. S. Senator (and his wife's time as a board member to several companies) I don't know if he is willing to fight for anything. If people who claim to be in the middle walk away from fights with the right and left wing, what are we left with? Extremes. It's probably best for Bayh if he does not have the stomach for the fight but the result is no middle ground.

  4. JK - I meant that the results don't ring true. I also questioned the 10-year-old study because so much in the "health care system" has changed since the study was made. Moreover, it was hard to get to any overall conclusion or observation with the article. But....don't be defensive given my comments; I still think you do the best job of any journalist in the area shedding light and insight on important health care issues.

  5. Probably a good idea he doesn't run. I for one do not want someone who lives in VIRGINIA to be the governor. He gave it some thought, but he likes Virginia too much. What a name I cannot say on this site! The way these people think and operate amuses me.

ADVERTISEMENT