Watchdog: State agency heads colluded on gas deal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission chief David Hardy and the state's then-finance director, Jennifer Alvey, in 2009 and 2010 secretly and improperly discussed the merits of a $6.9 billion contract the Indiana Finance Authority ultimately struck with operators of a proposed gasification plant, plant opponents allege.

Citizens Action Coalition, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups on Monday presented copies of the e-mail to the commission, which is reviewing whether to approve the project agreement. The environmental groups are on record as opposing the plant.

Such direct, behind-the-scenes communication in such regulatory matters is generally prohibited under state law.

The e-mails show the agency heads discussing the plant as far back as 2009.

“The materials raise due-process concerns and provide evidence of communications that would, to a reasonable person, raise serious questions regarding whether the commission’s impartiality has been compromised in this matter by the advisory role to (the Indiana Finance Authority) in the negotiations,” according to the filing CAC attorney Jerome Polk made Monday with the IURC.

However, IURC administrative law judge Angela Webber denied a request to delay the hearing for 30 days, despite the e-mails.  She ruled that the e-mails were sent more than 30 days prior to the December 2010 filing of the gasification plant case, and they were “procedural and general in nature” rather than substantive.

“That’s nonsense from my perspective,” CAC Program Director Kerwin Olson after the hearing. “The commission is a biased body at this moment in time.”

CAC has until May 13 to offer rebuttal in the case, Olson said.

The IFA plans to purchase synthetic natural gas from the plant over 30 years, which proponents—including would-be plant operator Leucadia National Corp. of New York—have said will save Indiana gas customers more than $100 million by locking in low rates.

But the e-mails obtained by CAC raise serious questions about improprieties, as well as whether the contact had the blessings of Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’ staff. Daniels has been a supporter of the $2.7 billion gasification plant as part of his “homegrown energy” policy.

Under one of the e-mails obtained by CAC, Alvey appeared to confirm that Daniels adviser David Pippen provided then-IURC chair Hardy with “the run down” on negotiations the state was having with Leucadia.

“I’m preparing for maternity leave but wanted to give you a quick update. Pippen said he gave you the run down that we are holding unless we get some more movement on the guaranteed savings,” read a copy of an e-mail Alvey sent Hardy on Oct. 30, 2009, referring to the negotiations between IFA and Leucadia.

In an Aug. 14, 2009, message, Alvey tells Hardy she would “like to pick your brain confidentially” but adds: “I can’t provide you with much documentation without opening them up to public access.”

In another e-mail, Alvey tells Hardy about efforts to get favorable legislation for the deal involving IFA’s agreement with Leucadia.

Hardy responds: “If you need to meet with my troops, they can in my absence.”

CAC told the commission that “at a minimum, the e-mails provided to date give the appearance of impropriety.”

The group cited state law governing ex parte communications,  which says “administrative adjudications may not be made upon evidence secretly obtained by an administrative agency at a time and place other than that appointed for a hearing.”

Polk said such adjudications may not be made upon information received.

Olson told the commission Monday that he met with Alvey in late September 2010, and she indicated then that she had not talked to commission officials about the IFA’s proposed synthetic natural gas contracts with Leucadia’s Indiana Gasification.

But she said she “was anxious to go across the street and start the process,” Olson said.

“This was not a competitive and public process,” he said.

Alvey left her position early this year for a job in the private sector.

Gov. Mitch Daniels fired Hardy last year in a separate ethics matter after learning that the IURC’s chief attorney, Scott Storms, was presiding over Duke Energy cases even as he was talking to the utility about a job, which he later accepted. He and the head of Duke’s Indiana operations were later fired by Duke when the scandal came to light.

Incriminating e-mails showed that Hardy was aware of Storms' job-seeking and that he made light of a state ethics commission review of whether Storms had a conflict of interest.


  • More Shenanigans
    The IURC does not even hire qualified candidates for directors of their divisions.One director over pipeline safety had a degree in journalism.The agency should totally be investigated for their hiring practices.
  • Yep
    @John Conlon: Trust me, CAC is WELL aware of the problems with the ALJ and the lack of independence with any kind of enforcement agencies in the state. When everyone is tied to higher ups with political agendas, you don't get any real objective look into the facts by those who are supposedly representing the PEOPLE of the state.

    That is part of the larger problem here. You hit the nail on the head.
  • No, IBJ is the problem
    Did anyone read the Star article relating to this? It reflected (mainly) the facts. This article is a joke. To John and Jim: do you really think the IURC would jeopardize itself again by dismissing a legitimate continuance motion after what just happened with Hardy and Storms? The fact is this motion by the CAC was merely a ploy to delay this deal's finalization and construction of this plant. The IURC reviewed the emails for a couple of hours yesterday morning and deemed them okay. Even the CAC's attorney stated that the emails give only the "appearance" of impropriety. Did you know that the CAC had months to request these emails before yesterday's hearing, while actually doing so only on April 25? Then it cried about not having enough time to investigate them further. The bottom line is this: SCANDAL is what readers are after, even if there is none. That's why this author (loose term in this case) wrote the article the way he did. And hey Jim you spelled alleged wrong.
  • Seeming bias
    I have to agree with bda1205, the way this was worded up front makes it seem like these are facts, and not just accusations of opponents of the plant. Like the IBJ was trying to make this to be more sensational than it actually is.
  • ALJ system in Indiana is the problem
    It is little wonder that the ALJ dismissed the complaint. The current ALJ system in Indiana wherein the ALJ reports to the agency heads is unethical. In other states, the ALJs are independent of the state agencies. Consumer groups need to wise up to the fact that the ALJ system in Indiana is part of the problem.
  • GOP Coverup again
    It sure sounds like a White coverup as in the case of voter fraud and the Secretrary of State's office. The GOP response to that was it was only ALLEDGED, and stalled until they could offically cover up the wrong doing by cramming a new law that allows the GOP to circumvent State Law as to who truly should be Secretary of State.

    Go figure, it is all about Government by special interests, for special interests and whats in it for special interests.
  • Picky, picky
    As long as "plant opponents allege" is in the lead sentence, I don't see the issue. It's more a question of writing style than any impropriety on the part of the writer
  • Article bias?
    The way the first sentence reads, one would get the impression this is fact, until you get to the last couple of words. I felt like I needed to instruct the jury to disregard this statement due to facts not in evidence. Why could the IBJ have not phrased it:
    "Plant opponents allege former Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission chief David Hardy and the state's then-finance director, Jennifer Alvey, in 2009 and 2010 secretly and improperly discussed the merits of a $6.9 billion contract the Indiana Finance Authority ultimately struck with operators of a proposed gasification plant."
    Then the readers know they are hearing an allegation instead of fact. Probably picky on my part but I believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Post a comment to this story

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

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 never thought I'd see the day when a Republican Mayor would lead the charge in attempting to raise every tax we have to pay. Now it's income taxes and property taxes that Ballard wants to increase. And to pay for a pre-K program? Many studies have shown that pre-K offer no long-term educational benefits whatsoever. And Ballard is pitching it as a way of fighting crime? Who is he kidding? It's about government provided day care. It's a shame that we elected a Republican who has turned out to be a huge big spending, big taxing, big borrowing liberal Democrat.

  2. Why do we blame the unions? They did not create the 11 different school districts that are the root of the problem.

  3. I was just watching an AOW race from cleveland in 1997...in addition to the 65K for the race, there were more people in boats watching that race from the lake than were IndyCar fans watching the 2014 IndyCar season finale in the Fontana grandstands. Just sayin...That's some resurgence modern IndyCar has going. Almost profitable, nobody in the grandstands and TV ratings dropping 61% at some tracks in the series. Business model..."CRAZY" as said by a NASCAR track general manager. Yup, this thing is purring like a cat! Sponsors...send them your cash, pronto!!! LOL, not a chance.

  4. I'm sure Indiana is paradise for the wealthy and affluent, but what about the rest of us? Over the last 40 years, conservatives and the business elite have run this country (and state)into the ground. The pendulum will swing back as more moderate voters get tired of Reaganomics and regressive social policies. Add to that the wave of minority voters coming up in the next 10 to 15 years and things will get better. unfortunately we have to suffer through 10 more years of gerrymandered districts and dispropionate representation.

  5. Funny thing....rich people telling poor people how bad the other rich people are wanting to cut benefits/school etc and that they should vote for those rich people that just did it. Just saying..............