IBJNews

IURC caps ratepayers' share of Edwardsport plant at $2.6B

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

State utility regulators on Thursday approved a settlement capping at $2.59 billion what Duke Energy ratepayers would shoulder for construction of the company’s Edwardsport coal gasification plant, which has suffered massive cost overruns.

The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission modified the settlement slightly—requiring Duke to also credit customers $28 million for cost control incentives the utility received that the commission “found to be unwarranted.” 

However, the commission noted that while the settlement limits project costs, it allows the utility to recover financing charges accrued during construction.

The plant initially was proposed to cost $1.98 billion. But overruns pushed the tab beyond $3.5 billion, with Duke shareholders forced to eat about $900 million of the added cost.

Citizens Action Coalition, which had opposed the settlement, said Duke ratepayers will have to pay at least $655 million in financing charges over and above the settlement cap. It wants the commission to revisit its prior approval of the plant.

The settlement—reached earlier this year between Duke, its big industrial customers and the Office of Utility Consumer Counselor—was opposed by CAC, Sierra Club, Save the Valley and Valley Watch.

CAC accuses Duke and its contractors of mismanaging the project and of unduly influencing the IURC. 

Former IURC Chairman David Lott Hardy was fired by Gov. Mitch Daniels in 2010 after e-mails showed Hardy was chummy with Duke executives and that he allowed a former administrative law judge to participate in the Edwardsport case while the judge sought a job with the utility.

 “We have a lot to mull over,” said Kerwin Olson, executive director of CAC.  “This is pretty much a rubber stamp,” he said of the commission’s ruling Thursday.

The groups likely will appeal the decision.

“Perhaps most important of all is our firm position that customers should not have to pay for any cost overruns which are attributable to imprudence or mismanagement of the project, which by Duke, GE, Bechtel or their many subcontractors,” said Olson.

The downstate generating plant was to have gone online this fall, although Duke now says that won’t occur until mid-2013 as it works through technical issues.  The complex plant will not burn coal to generate power but rather convert coal to a cleaner-burning gas.

In a statement Thursday, Duke spokeswoman Angeline Protogere said: "The plant will help us meet increasingly strict federal environmental regulations while still using an abundant local resource, Indiana coal. Edwardsport will serve the electric energy needs of our Indiana customers for decades to come."
 

 

 

 


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Gotta love corporate america!
    what a great country we live in!!! for profit companies get customers to pay for all there capitalization costs!! and what benefits consumers in this deal? oh wait, it doesnt. like everything else in this pathetic country we constantly cater corporate america at the expense of consumers.

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. First, the Athenaeum is going to have to get past the hurdle with the Lockerbie residents and the agreement that the parcel would be residential. Second, and in my opinion, this prime piece of property should include parking, PLUS, a black box theater(s), some market rate and affordable artist housing and a plan to renovate and reconfigure the second story theater. I would negotiate to add the DeHaan property surface parking lot into the development mix, place a one story surface parking garage on the DeHaan lot on the street level (for the Dehaan tenants use during the daytime) and add a second story to the garage that would become an addition to the current second story theater and then change the direction of the theater by moving the stage across the alley and on top of the DeHaan lot parking. You can add all the stage elements that are currently missing from the Athenaeum stage to make it more attractive for use by Ballet, Opera and traveling productions. Plus, the theater changes would probably help solve some of the soundproofing issues. Alas,it does not seem to be a part of the strategic plan to conduct a study to determine best use of the property. Seems like the current plan is a quick and easy move that ignores the property best use/potential and any strategic property planning for the effect on future generations.

  2. I recall that MSA's pilings are still in the ground and hard to remove. It’s not likely any proposal will include significant underground construction/parking because of this. Start adding 2 floors of retail, 8 floors of parking and 5-10 floors of possible hotel, and/or 10-20 floors of residential, and you are at 30 floors already with possible expansion of all the uses. But then again I could be wrong.

  3. Accoriding to their website there is no deadline to the Do Not Call list. What is this article referring to??

  4. On what planet are they entitled to this largesse from the stockholders? These people make multi-million dollar salaries: Pay for your own personal travel.

  5. It matters because they're already paid enormously fat salaries: Pay for your own personal travel. Being "taxed on it" isn't a valid excuse--so what? They're still being gifted a raft of luxury perks from somebody else's money on top of an enormous, lavish salary.

ADVERTISEMENT