ILNews

Will Indiana's economy cool due to rising energy costs?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

If you own the poplar iPhone application “Gas Buddy,” then you are no doubt familiar with its periodic “Price Hike Alerts” warning of impending local gas price spikes. Though not as imminent or dramatic as the overnight price spikes we often see at the pumps, there is indeed an increase looming for Indiana’s electricity prices. Indiana is losing its foot-hold as a low-cost energy state, having dropped from fourth to 13th in the nation since 2002. The reason? Simply stated, new and pending environmental regulations are requiring cleaner coal energy. For better or worse, more than 80 percent of Indiana’s electricity generation comes from coal. The cost to clean up the coal plants to meet environmental regulations can easily climb into the hundreds of millions.

shoultz Shoultz

Another culprit for Indiana’s rising energy costs is Father Time. More than 76 percent of Indiana’s utility-owned electricity generating units are nearing retirement with over 30 years in service. There’s a bit of a perfect storm brewing, leaving Indiana utilities with few good choices for serving demand, controlling prices and complying with environmental regulations.

Indiana’s largest commercial and industrial companies are understandably concerned. One Hoosier manufacturer has stated that utilities account for approximately 50 percent of its total costs to convert raw materials to a finished, marketable product. Many of Indiana’s manufacturers are competing nationally and internationally. While Indiana enjoys the jobs and tax contributions from large companies, the cost of energy often plays a significant role in a company’s decision to stay here, particularly when millions can be saved by relocating production facilities to another state or country with lower-cost energy.

Like commuters jockeying to find cheap gas before the price hike, some Indiana companies are exploring ways to minimize the harm expected from increasing electricity prices. Some are considering building their own generation facilities; others are seeking discounted rates through special contracts with their electric utility. Many are taking a closer look at ways to conserve energy, either through efficiency measures or by agreeing to interrupt their operations during high-cost peak demand periods.

Policymakers have noticed. In the 2013 session, the Indiana General Assembly passed legislation that, among other things, allows large customers to apply for short-term discounts of up to 30-percent off a portion of their electricity bill. To receive the discounts, companies must get approval from the Indiana Economic Development Corporation and show that the discount is necessary to attract and maintain jobs. After prodding by some of Indiana’s largest companies, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission is now investigating whether large users must pay for their utility’s standard energy efficiency programs if the customer self-funds its own initiative that is specifically tailored to reduce the customer’s energy consumption.

Many question if Indiana can be saved by competition. On Sept. 19, the Indiana General Assembly’s Regulatory Flexibility Committee will hear at least one view on whether Indiana’s law should be changed to allow customers to choose their electricity provider. Proponents of the idea say that in “customer choice” states like Illinois, customers enjoy lower overall electricity prices because the competitive market is at work. Opponents, including Indiana’s investor-owned utilities, say that states with customer choice actually have higher electricity rates. They claim that an open market creates volatility, which in turn discourages utilities from investing in much-needed baseload capacity.

It is too soon to tell whether our state’s energy policy has gone far enough to save Indiana’s economy from an exodus of our largest businesses. Will our leaders successfully navigate the complicated political waters to create energy policies that attract and retain jobs critical to Indiana’s economy while satisfying residential customers, utilities and federal mandates for cleaner energy? It is a tall order, for sure, but we need to get it right.•

__________

Nikki Shoultz is a partner is the Utilities, Energy & Renewables Group at Bose McKinney & Evans LLP. She can be reached at nshoultz@boselaw.com.

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 Indiana Lawyer 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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT