IPL retirees lose appeal over retirement benefits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled against 16 retirees of Indianapolis Power & Light Co. in a case seeking more than $100 million from the utility to back-fund their retirement plan.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the 16 retirees had asked the court to overturn a May 13 decision by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission regarding IPALCO Enterprises' Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association.

IPL stopped funding the trust in 2001 following the acquisition of the local utility by Virginia-based AES Corp., but the retirees said IPL is still recovering costs associated with the plan through its electric rates.

The IURC last year said it could not say a 1995 rate case settlement required a set amount of annual funding for post-retirement benefits.

The Court of Appeals, in a decision published Friday, said it would give deference to the commission as to the accounting treatment of retiree costs and the ratemaking implications of that: “We cannot find unreasonable the Commission’s interpretation of its own order.”

In a footnote, however, the court said “we do not condone the actions of IPL and its parent company (AES) in this proceeding. IPL described VEBA funding as one of the components of its rate case proposal regarding retiree benefit costs.”

Yet it appears IPL continues to recover millions of dollars a year from ratepayers for a retirement plan it no longer funds, the retirees contended.

“It appears IPL obtained a substantial rate increase based in large part on its promises to continue funding the VEBA trust for its retirees’ benefit” of between $12 million and $19 million a year, the court said.

In addition, the court said, “the record is replete with references to IPL’s promises to its employees that it would not eliminate the benefits in the future.” The court also referenced statements made by then-management at IPL that benefits could be removed by IPL only “if it were to go back on a solemn promise to its employees.”

Jack Wickes, an attorney at Lewis & Kappes who represented retirees and the union, said his clients have not yet decided their next move. They have the option of seeking reconsideration before the Court of Appeals or to seek transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court.

The administrator of the VEBA trust spun-off by IPL has in recent years reduced benefits as assets failed to keep pace with expenses.


  • IPL's Treatment of Retirees
    It looks like IPL (Duke Energy) took a page out of Bank One's (now JP Morgan Chase) handbook. One difference is that Bank One not only cheated retirees but also current employees.

Post a comment to this story

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

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.