IBJNews

Indiana House panel amends utility rate bill

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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. If I were a developer I would be looking at the Fountain Square and Fletcher Place neighborhoods instead of Broad Ripple. I would avoid the dysfunctional BRVA with all of their headaches. It's like deciding between a Blackberry or an iPhone 5s smartphone. BR is greatly in need of updates. It has become stale and outdated. Whereas Fountain Square, Fletcher Place and Mass Ave have become the "new" Broad Ripples. Every time I see people on the strip in BR on the weekend I want to ask them, "How is it you are not familiar with Fountain Square or Mass Ave? You have choices and you choose BR?" Long vacant storefronts like the old Scholar's Inn Bake House and ZA, both on prominent corners, hurt the village's image. Many business on the strip could use updated facades. Cigarette butt covered sidewalks and graffiti covered walls don't help either. The whole strip just looks like it needs to be power washed. I know there is more to the BRV than the 700-1100 blocks of Broad Ripple Ave, but that is what people see when they think of BR. It will always be a nice place live, but is quickly becoming a not-so-nice place to visit.

  2. I sure hope so and would gladly join a law suit against them. They flat out rob people and their little punk scam artist telephone losers actually enjoy it. I would love to run into one of them some day!!

  3. Biggest scam ever!! Took 307 out of my bank ac count. Never received a single call! They prey on new small business and flat out rob them! Do not sign up with these thieves. I filed a complaint with the ftc. I suggest doing the same ic they robbed you too.

  4. Woohoo! We're #200!!! Absolutely disgusting. Bring on the congestion. Indianapolis NEEDS it.

  5. So Westfield invested about $30M in developing Grand Park and attendance to date is good enough that local hotel can't meet the demand. Carmel invested $180M in the Palladium - which generates zero hotel demand for its casino acts. Which Mayor made the better decision?

ADVERTISEMENT