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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT