IBJNews

Senate panel waters down coal-gas measure

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The fight over a proposed $2.6 billion coal-gasification plant was left to the Indiana courts on Thursday after a Senate committee decided not to get involved in how an account set up by the plant's developers would be used.

Supporters and opponents of the plant have waged parallel fights this year in Legislature and the courts. But lawmakers stepped out by abandoning a plan that would have sped up how soon ratepayers received refunds from a $150 million account established by the plant's developers to offset rate hikes.

The developers, Indiana Gasification LLC and its parent company, Leucadia, have said such a move would have killed the project.

The Senate Utilities Committee decided Thursday to strip the plan from legislation that involved the workings of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. Committee members said they wanted to allow the pending court fight to play out before getting more involved.

However, the committee added in new protections for ratepayers if the courts send the issue back to the IURC. Those protections would "give the ratepayer a voice more so than before," said Sen. Jim Merritt, R-Indianapolis, chairman of the committee.

The panel approved the pared-downed legislation and sent it to the full Senate.

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled last year that a contract the state signed guaranteeing to buy synthetic natural gas from the plant over the next 30 years was invalid. If that ruling stands, the legislation would dictate that the IURC review the contract with an eye toward projected natural gas costs and the future availability of shale gas.

The proposed Rockport plant has pitted southwestern Indiana lawmakers and the New York-based developer, Leucadia, against environmentalists, consumer advocates and large ratepayers this session, who have argued the deal unfairly places ratepayers on the hook for potential hikes.

"This is really a complicated issue and I certainly would not like to see the project die, but there are still very valid concerns," said Sen. Jean Breaux, D-Indianapolis.

Sen. Jim Tomes, R-Wadesville, said the plant would bring good-paying jobs to the constituents he represents.

"There's six-and-a-half million people in this state who aren't here today because they're working for a living or trying to find jobs trying to support their families. We all want jobs," he said.

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. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT