IBJNews

Indiana House panel amends utility rate bill

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Indiana manufacturers and consumer groups opposed to a bill that would make it easier for power companies to raise their rates won concessions Wednesday from House lawmakers trying to strike a balance between the needs of businesses and the utilities.

The House Utilities & Energy Committee passed the bill sponsored by Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Buck Creek, after its chairman, Rep. Eric Koch, proposed several amendments to address business and ratepayer concerns, The Indianapolis Star reported.

The amendments include a cap on the amount of rate increase utilities can seek for upgrades such as new power lines and natural gas lines, and a reduction of temporary rate hikes that utilities would be allowed to implement if state regulators don't decide on a proposed rate increase within the new deadlines.

Consumer groups and big companies such as Eli Lilly and Co. and Honda have contended the bill as originally proposed would drive up energy bills and could push manufacturers out of the state.

"It presents a significant obstacle to us being able to do business in Indiana," said Chris Olsen, vice president of government affairs at Tate & Lyle, a manufacturer of high-fructose corn syrup. "We operate in other states with much lower costs."

Indiana's utilities say the legislation would simply accelerate rate increases, not make those increases larger. The bill would allow utilities to seek rate increases for upgrades such as replacing power lines or natural gas pipelines more frequently through a more limited review process known as "tracking."

Ed Simcox, president of the Indiana Energy Association, the trade group for the state's investor-owned utilities, said new federal environmental regulations and Indiana's dependence on coal are to blame for rising costs.

"There is nothing in this bill that increases costs to the consumer," he said.

But the state's big manufacturing companies, which employ thousands of Indiana residents, have feared the bill would add to already rising electric rates.

The companies have seen Indiana electricity rates shoot up nearly 62 percent over the last 10 years. Residential rates have increased 47 percent.

"Our annual (energy) bill is in the tens of millions of dollars," said Olsen, the Tate & Lyle official. "Energy as a whole is our second largest cost of doing business. If we had the same rates in Indiana that we have in Illinois, we'd be saving millions a year."

AARP Indiana President Clyde Hall testified against the bill during the House panel's hearing Wednesday.

"Any time there's any legislation that's going to raise rates, it's going to get our concern," he said. "Allowing the utility companies an easier and faster way to raise rates ... is not in the best interest of those on fixed incomes."

Jennifer Terry, who represents a group of 23 Indiana manufacturers that had opposed the bill, said the group had changed its position to neutral after the amendments.

"The amendments do go a ways toward addressing our concerns," she said.

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. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT