IBJNews

Indiana watchdogs seek probe of Duke Energy plant

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Consumer advocates are calling for Indiana regulators to appoint an independent investigator to look into whether Duke Energy Corp. used undue influence to win state approval for a nearly $3 billion coal-gasification plant the company is building in southwestern Indiana.

Consumer advocates say Indiana's regulatory process involving the plant has been so tainted with inappropriate and secret conversations between Duke employees and state officials that the public has lost confidence.

The Office of Utility Consumer Counselor compared it to jury tampering and said the matter remains suspect, even though several Duke and state officials have been fired or resigned, The Indianapolis Star reported Tuesday.

IBJ reported in September that consumer groups were unhappy about the plant and were calling for its cancellation.

"If you tamper with one juror, you don't have to tamper with all 12" to obstruct justice, Randall C. Helmer, the deputy consumer counselor, said Monday during a hearing before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

The IURC, which is working to determine how to proceed with the case, did not make an immediate decision on the matter.

Duke took issue with the "jury tampering" comments, saying that every past decision related to the Edwardsport plant has been unanimous by the IURC.

"If a commissioner wants to dissent, they can," said Duke spokeswoman Angeline Protogere. "Also, most of the current commissioners were not even part of the IURC when the plant was originally approved."

Helmer said he would favor a special prosecutor or other independent agent to examine whether Duke overstepped legal boundaries when several executives contacted state regulators to discuss the $2.9 billion plant that Duke is building in Edwardsport, as well as company hiring decisions and vacation plans.

Timothy Stewart, an attorney with Lewis & Kappes, which represents large industrial customers of Duke Energy — including manufacturers and shopping centers — said that appointing an independent investigator is "the only way the public will ever have confidence in the outcome of this matter."

Indiana is coming under increasing pressure from consumer groups and industrial customers to make more information available and allow the public a greater say in the matter.

The IURC has been stung in recent months by findings that one of its own high-level officials, general counsel Scott Storms, had presided over hearings about the Edwardsport plant while talking to Duke about a job. Storms quit the IURC in September to take a job with the utility.

A week later, Gov. Mitch Daniels fired the IURC chairman, David Lott Hardy, saying he knew of Storms' conflict of interest but did nothing to stop it.

Storms has since been fired from Duke and accused of ethics violations by the Indiana inspector general on charges of having an improper financial interest arising from employment or prospective employment at Duke.

The IURC has delivered other documents to The Indianapolis Star that were requested under open-records laws, including hundreds of compromising e-mails between state regulators and Duke executives.

The Star also requested a wide array of documents in December from the governor's office under the open-records laws. The governor's office has yet to deliver those records, even though officials there originally said the records would be provided "as they are gathered."

Jane Jankowski, the governor's press secretary, said Monday that records were still being compiled and declined to provide a timetable of when they might be available.

"I don't know when," she said. "There's a lot of stuff going on around here. I don't know exactly when this will be provided to you. It will be provided when they're done going through all the documents."

Jerry Polk, an attorney for four consumer and environmental groups, said he favored the IURC appointing an "independent agent" to look into questions of undue influence.

"There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo or a payoff to taint the whole process," he said later. "Sometimes it's just a matter of inappropriate contact."

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. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT