IBJNews

Indiana announces proposed Duke Energy settlement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Duke Energy Corp. has agreed to cap the cost of its troubled coal-gasification plant in southwestern Indiana at $2.6 billion, or about $700 million less than the expected cost of construction, as part of a proposed settlement announced Monday.

Duke Energy and the Indiana agency representing utility ratepayers, the Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, announced they had reached an agreement with the Duke Energy Industrial Group, which consists of six of the utility's large industrial customers, and Nucor Steel. The agreement still must be approved by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

Under the plan, customers' rates will increase by 14.5 percent, Duke Energy said. Without the deal, rates would have increased by 22 percent.

Kerwin Olson, executive director of the Citizen Action Coalition, said the settlement came as a shock to him. He said the power plant should never have been approved.

"The settlement on the surface appears to give Duke Energy far too much. The terms appear to be completely unacceptable to CAC," he said.

The Office of Utility Consumer Counselor had previously criticized Duke, saying it had concealed vital information from regulators about the plant, which has been beset by nearly $1 billion in cost overruns the company has sought to pass along to its customers. Duke has argued that it has managed the project prudently and should be allowed to pass on the cost overruns.

Critics have said emails obtained by The Indianapolis Star in August show an inappropriately close relationship between Indiana regulators and Duke Energy. The emails showed the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission chairman recommended that Duke Energy hire his personal choice to lead its operations in the state.

The relationship spurred a criminal investigation. Former regulatory commission chairman David Lott Hardy was indicted in December on charges he allowed the panel's top lawyer to keep overseeing cases involving Duke Energy even though he knew the attorney was trying to land a job at Duke.

Hardy has filed a motion in Marion Superior Court to dismiss an amended indictment against him, claiming he did nothing criminal.

Duke Energy Indiana President Doug Esamann says the agreement meets two objectives, reducing what Indiana customers will pay in rates and resolving uncertainty for Duke Energy shareholders.

"We're now in the home stretch of completing a facility that will modernize our electric system and provide Indiana with cleaner power to meet increasingly strict federal environmental regulations," he said.

The massive coal-gasification plant near the southwestern Indiana town of Edwardsport will convert coal into a synthetic gas processed to remove pollutants such as mercury and sulfur. The gas is then burned in a traditional turbine power plant to produce electricity.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Bad Deal For Us
    Indiana Utility Regulators Reach Deal With Duke Energy That Is Not Good Enough

    http://www.advanceindiana.com/
  • BANANA REPUBLIC
    Why should ratepayers pay for a publicly traded companys' gross mismanagement, misconduct, misrepresentation and malfeasance!

    If the IURC approves any overruns they have then turned Indiana into a Banana Republic. These clowns went over by $1,000,000,000!!!

    Legalized Extortion!!!!!

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