IBJNews

UPDATE: Lawmakers with ties to $2.8B plant dilute measures

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two Indiana lawmakers have spent the legislative session watering down opposition to a $2.8 billion coal-gasification plant that would likely benefit their employers.

The news comes as lawmakers decide whether to place new limits on a deal that mandates the state buy synthetic natural gas from the developers of the Rockport coal-gas plant for the next 30 years, a proposition opponents say could leave Indiana ratepayers on the hook for $1.1 billion in rate hikes.

State Rep. Mat Ubelhor, R-Bloomfield, stripped a measure last week that Rockport developers say would have killed the project. And two months ago, Senate Utilities Chairman Jim Merritt, R-Indianapolis, watered down a measure sought by Rockport opponents designed to increase how often Indiana ratepayers were reimbursed for any rate hikes.

The Evansville Courier & Press reports that Peabody Energy, where Ubelhor works as a mine manager, could easily benefit from a $17 million rail spur built by the Indiana Rail Road Co. to haul coal. Merritt is a vice president of corporate affairs for Indiana Rail.

There's no guarantee the 3.8 million tons of coal Rockport developers expect to purchase would come from any Indiana mines, like the Peabody's, but lawmakers approved $140 million in tax credits designed to ensure the coal is purchased in-state. Nor is there any guarantee that Peabody would rely on Indiana Rail to haul the coal.

But opponents of the Rockport plant have howled about the lawmakers' connections.

"When you have a bill dealing with a highly controversial, very expensive Indiana coal plant, and it is weakened on two different occasions ... I can say that there is a questionable appearance in the eyes of the public about how the whole process went down," Kerwin Olson, executive director of Citizens Action Coalition, told the Courier & Press.

Ubelhor denied and Merritt both denied any conflict of interest Monday.

"I'm a coal miner and proud of what I do," he told the Courier & Press. He also said he understands the criticism, will not answer more questions until after lawmakers decide the plant's fate.

Merritt said he has worked hard to find a measure that supports the public.

"The bottom line is," Merritt told The Indianapolis Star, "we put forward the public's interest."

There are no hard and fast rules in the General Assembly for when lawmakers must recuse themselves from a conflict of interest, nor is it against the law for them to support legislation that could benefit their employers.

Lawmakers have increasingly questioned the state's contract with the developers, which would mandate the state buy synthetic natural gas produced at the plant over the next 30 years. Opponents, including representatives regional utility and potential competitor Vectren Corp., have said that deal could cause ratepayers to eat as much as $1.1 billion in additional costs in increased utility rates.

Rockport supporters point to $150 million placed in escrow to buffer against rate hikes, but it would not kick in until the end of the 30-year contract. Sen. Doug Eckerty, R-Yorktown, introduced a measure that would have mandated the Rockport developers reimburse ratepayers for any losses every three years.

That proposal was diluted in Merritt's commitee, shortly after Merritt met with Nat Noland, the head of the Indiana Coal Council, and a supporter of the Rockport project, according to The Star. The paper reports Noland said he did not discuss any potential benefits for Merritt's employer.

Merritt told the Star his work on the measure followed meetings with representatives on both sides of the issue, not just Noland. He also said he saw no conflict with his day job, working for Indiana Rail.

Merritt also told the Courier and Press the new rail spur is far from a guarantee that his company would carry the coal from Peabody to the Rockport plant. Any coal carried from Peabody's Bear Run mine would have to be offloaded onto lines controlled by separate rail companies to reach Rockport, which could prove costly.

"That's compounding the problem - the distance. There's available coal near Rockport, and we couldn't just take it from A to B. It would be on two other railroads," he told the Courier & Press.

Top lawmakers, and Gov. Mike Pence, appear unified behind an approach that would leave the legal question to the Indiana Supreme Court, and then send it back to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission for a review if the court maintains the Rockport contract is no longer valid.

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said he is confident that approach will win final approval.

"The governor, Senate leadership and our team — we're on the same page on this," Bosma told the Courier & Press. "We'll find a vehicle."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Thank you IBJ
    Thank you IBJ for publishing this article. Please keep on reporting on this gross conflict of interest that will cost Indiana taxpayers hundreds of dollars a year EACH. Its funny to see Republicans always talk a good game about cutting taxes, but then turn around and line their buddy's pockets with a backdoor tax increase on citizens.
  • Heartwarming
    It warms my heart to read of these two selfless individuals, courageously pursuing the public interest in spite of the terrible cost to themselves and their employees. We are wonderfully fortunate to have an entire legislature absolutely packed with such ethical and caring persons, but these two really stand out from the crowd. I sleep better at night knowing that they are looking out for the interests of an ordinary taxpayer like me. Well done!
  • Uh-huh
    "The governor, Senate leadership and our team — we're on the same page on this," Bosma told the Courier & Press. "We'll find a vehicle."...to pay off our campaign contributors.
  • SO Much for Citizen Legislators!
    If these clowns do not see the conflict of interest in their votes, their example make a great argument for full time legislators (while banning campaign contributions from companies and industries as well as all entertainment and gift expenditures), might cost more in salaries, but would save taxpayers money by causing legislators to vote on what is best for their constituents!
  • No conflict of interest?
    Yes, it's a conflict of interest. So, are they nefarious politicians, or just dim-witted ones?

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