IBJNews

  • Home

Regulators plan more hearings on Duke plant costs

Associated Press
February 21, 2011
Keywords
Duke Energy, Electric, Energy & Environment, Regulation, Utilities, Utility rates
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Indiana utility regulators will hold two additional field hearings to take public comment on Duke Energy's request to pass along to ratepayers the $2.9 billion cost of a coal-gasification plant being built near Edwardsport in southwestern Indiana.

The state utility regulatory commission will hold field hearings Feb. 28 at Columbus North High School and March 1 at the Kokomo Event Center. Both hearings will begin at 5:30 p.m.

The Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor and Citizens Action Coalition are urging Duke customers to attend the hearings. Both groups have expressed concern about the project's rising costs.

Duke says it is the first time that coal-gasification technology has been used on such a scale and it has needed more steel, piping, electric cable and other materials than originally expected.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • A Waste
    JoeFebruary 22, 2011 9:26 AM
    I've not read a good thing about this plant. It is essentially the same starting type of fuel, they can't garuntee savings and it costs $3 billion to build! With the best case scenario of savings it would take over 150 years to recoupe just the money spent on building the plant. But everyone in the deal says it is unlikely it will save users that much ever and definitely not every month. This is purely a scheme to get mitch's political pocket book fatter and to provide a hefty cost of doing political business fee to the coal industry, an industryb that comprises less than .5% of both GDP and employment! Good job elected leaders, way to start out running......
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Royalties for Indiana Ratepayers?
    Dave TudorFebruary 21, 2011 3:47 PM
    If coal gassification is such a new technology that Duke Energy cannot accurately project the costs for the Edwardsport project, and Duke ratepayers (including me twice) are being asked to pay for the development of this research, shouldn't ratepayers become the owners of the plans, and charge others for the plans and research we are buying?
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

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.

ADVANCED SEARCH
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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT