IBJNews

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

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

  2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

  3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

  4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

  5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.

ADVERTISEMENT