Packed house as residents voice opposition to proposed Duke Energy rate increase

Close to 170 people packed into the Olcott Young Room of the Monroe Convention Center in downtown Bloomington on Thursday night, for a field hearing on Duke Energy’s case to increase electricity rates.

That’s a big number, because it’s the maximum occupancy for the room under the fire code.

The rate increase is also a big number. By the utility’s own reckoning, Duke’s proposal would increase a typical customer’s bill by at least $330 a year.  The Citizens Action Coalition puts that number at over $500 a year.

Duke Energy cites a need for additional revenue in order to make the electric grid stronger and more resilient, and a need to make its operations friendlier to the environment. Duke has issued a statement describing some recent projects in Monroe County that will improve the resilience of the grid.

In connection with the proposed rate increase, Duke also cites its energy assistance tools, designed to help consumers manage their bills.

Based on the 300-day timeline for utilities rate cases,  and the April 4, 2024 filing by Duke, a final order on Duke’s request can be expected around the end of January 2025. The rate case can be tracked on the IURC’s docket.

Thursday’s hearing in Bloomington was hosted by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) and the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC).

Bloomington’s gathering included people who traveled from Ellettsville, Columbus, Bedford, Mooresville, and Poland.

The only required field hearing is in the largest municipality in Duke’s service area, which is Fishers. That will take place on June 27 at 5 p.m. at the Hamilton East Public Library, at 5 Municipal Drive.

But state senator Shelli Yoder and state representative Matt Pierce requested that a hearing be held in Bloomington, and the OUCC obliged. Yoder led off the testimony, followed by Pierce, and Monroe County councilor Cheryl Munson.

Besides Yoder, Pierce, and Munson, among the speakers were a number of current and former elected officials—like city councilmembers, school board members, and former Bloomington Mayor Tomi Allison.

In his remarks, Pierce covered many of the policy issues.

Pierce cited the $500 annual impact on the typical consumer analyzed by the Citizens Action Coalition, saying that it would significantly burden his constituents. Pierce criticized the proposed 29.9% hike in fixed charges, because it disincentivizes energy efficiency by consumers and the adoption of renewable energy sources like solar power.

Pierce also challenged the justification for raising Duke’s return on equity from 9.7% to 10.5%, arguing that Indiana’s favorable regulatory environment already attracts investors with minimal risk, making the increase unnecessary.

Pierce also condemned Duke’s continued reliance on coal, which he described as increasingly costly due to rising environmental regulations and coal ash disposal issues. He was particularly critical of Duke’s proposed use of rate increases to fund carbon capture and storage studies in connection to the Edwardsport plant.  Pierce described trying to maintain the coal gasification at the Edwardsport plant as “one of the more expensive approaches to energy.”

Pierce also objected to the inclusion of trade association dues in ratepayer costs, equating these memberships to lobbying expenses, which he believes should not be funded by consumers.

Pierce urged the commission to prioritize affordability in their considerations, which would be in line with a recent legislative directive. He cited the legislature’s addition to state law of IC 8-1-2-0.6, which outlines the “five pillars” the utility commission must consider in rate-making decisions:

• Reliability: Ensuring a consistent and dependable supply of electricity to consumers.
• Affordability: Keeping energy costs manageable for consumers.
• Resiliency: The ability of the energy system to withstand and recover from disruptions.
• Stability: Maintaining stable electricity delivery without fluctuations or interruptions.
• Environmental Responsibility: Considering the environmental impacts of energy production and striving for sustainable practices.

Pierce said Duke’s proposed rate increases fail to meet the affordability and environmental responsibility criteria outlined in the legislative mandate. Pierce urged the OUCC to rigorously scrutinize Duke’s proposals and reject those that would unduly burden consumers and perpetuate reliance on costly and polluting energy sources.

Pierce made a plea to the OUCC to act as a line of last defense for consumers, emphasizing the importance of protecting the financial well-being of residents.

Pierce put it in the context of the refrain he always hears as a state legislator, when he raises concerns about what is best for the ratepayers. Pierce said, “The response I always get is: You don’t have to worry about that, because the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, under the law, must ensure that all rates are just and reasonable.”

Pierce continued, “And quite honestly, the legislature hides behind that, right? So we say we can count on you, to make it all work out in the end. So I’m asking you, as a legislator, to bring some truth to that statement, to make that happen for ratepayers.”

From Bloomington’s city council, Andy Ruff and Hopi Stosberg spoke. Stosberg read aloud passages from the city council’s letter, which was adopted at its meeting earlier in the week.

Several speakers took up the same point as Pierce, related to Duke’s proposed increase in its return on equity from 9.7% to 10.5%.

On the topic of return on equity, one of the speakers took less than a minute at the mic. Here’s what he said:

My name’s Andrew Oxner, that’s A-N-D-R-E-W and it’s O-X-N-E-R. … I know it’s been a long evening, so instead of going on a long tirade, like I had planned, I’ll keep this very, very short. I am a shareholder of Duke Energy. I benefit from the profits. I get a dividend every quarter. Duke Energy pays out 3 billion dollars a year in dividends to people like me, and as long as they’re making 3 billion dollars in excess profit to pay to people like me, I don’t need blood money coming from these people [gestures to audience] These people deserve a break. And that’s all I have to say. Say no to the hike. I don’t need the extra money. Thank you.

Addressing the hardship for consumers of an extra $500 a year, or even $330 a year, were several speakers.

Among them was Matthew Schulz, a doctor of chiropractic medicine, who said he was testifying on behalf of all Duke Energy’s customers, but most specifically “the disabled, single parents, children, and small business owners that will all be harmed by this rate increase.”

Schulz said that Duke Energy should get a rate decrease, not a rate increase. He told the IURC and the members of the IURC and the OUCC: “Personally, I’m struggling to pay my already existing energy bill…” He continued, “As a single parent taking care of a 22-month old, it is a struggle to say the least, to afford the already high energy bills and consequently make it an even larger struggle affording things like diapers, wipes and food for my family.

At the start of Thursday’s 6 p.m. hearing, the temperature was 89 F degrees. Schulz said, “This has already been a hot spring and an even hotter start to summer. My son and I have been forced to live in the dark in 80-plus degree temperatures in an effort to make the current energy costs as affordable as possible.”

Schulz added, “In short, Duke Energy is making their customers suffer and now are proposing to increase that suffering.” Schulz said, “I have to get assistance for my current Duke Energy bills, so that my power doesn’t go out or food goes bad. I now live in Section 8 housing and an older home and have no other options. This rate increase will literally take food out of my son and my mouth and inhibit me from affording other things such as diapers.”

Speaking from the perspective of someone who works with Section 8 housing vouchers at the Bloomington Housing Authority was Ryan Still. He said, “We provide Section 8 vouchers to 1,500-plus residents…And I personally oversee a caseload of about over 300 households.”

Still pointed out that there are a lot of people who need help, but are not able to get on to Section 8. He estimated that number at around 6,300 households in Monroe County and the surrounding counties. Among those 6,300 households are 2,500 with children, and 1,900 that have a member who is disabled, Still said.

Still said that BHA also hears from township trustees that they have not been able to assist as many people that come to them for help. Still wrapped up by saying that the current safety net, which includes Section 8 and township trustee assistance, is overflowing.

“There’s not a good safety net to fall back on. If the rate is raised, people will suffer directly and there is nothing there to catch them because it’s overflowing,” Still said.

Still added, “People are going to become homeless, people are going to struggle to eat. These are realities that will happen, if the rate is raised.”

Photos: Duke Energy Rate Case Field Hearing, Bloomington