IBJNews

Electric-grid facility in Carmel suffers $11M in damages

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Carmel not-for-profit that monitors the electric grid in 11 states and Canada has revealed to federal regulators that a mechanical failure caused more than $11 million in damages to the high-tech facility.

In a Feb. 7 public filing, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc., or MISO, told the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that the data center became contaminated in September.

MISO said a mechanical failure of an air-handling unit in the facility damaged information technology equipment, in addition to the physical structure of the data center.

The filing provides no further details about the equipment malfunction that caused the contamination, and MISO executives didn’t return phone calls from IBJ seeking comment.

MISO notified FERC of the contamination earlier this month because it’s seeking to recoup a portion of the $11.1 million in damages from customers. Those customers include about 140 independent and municipal power providers that receive electricity from the grid managed by MISO.

MISO specifically is asking FERC for an extension to recover costs from customers until determining how much of the damages will be covered by insurance.

The transmission operator said it is negotiating with its insurance carrier, and the exact amount MISO expects to pass to customers won't be determined until those talks are completed.

Operating since 2001, MISO manages nearly 50,000 miles of electric transmission lines. It disclosed revenue of $319.7 million in 2010 and expenses of $301.6 million.

In December, the not-for-profit unveiled a long-term plan that it said will contribute billions of dollars to the economy and thousands of jobs. MISO is recommending a $6.5 billion investment for 215 new transmission infrastructure projects to improve reliability of its electric grid over the next several years.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Not Buying It
    Sorry, you did not provide all of the information regarding this claim. An operation this size must have a Risk Management Assessment Committee, or the insurance carrier must have created a Risk Assessment Report, or someone dropped the ball. What I am reading is, a plan is underway whereby the failures of a company's management team will be paid for by the general public, after 140 municipal power companies pass on the costs for repair to their consumers. Trust me, the insurance company is going to back away from this mess. Someone dropped the ball, big time.

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