Customers, advocates ask state to say no to CenterPoint settlement that would raise rates

EVANSVILLE — With CenterPoint's proposed settlement on the table, customers and consumer advocates are asking the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to say no.

"Please have compassion for us in Southern Indiana and deny this rate hike," a customer letter filed by the Office of Utility Consumer Counselor states.

"I hope this rate increase will not be allowed, but at the very least will be reduced to a more affordable level," another states.

Those are two of about 32 additional comments from customers shared via the OUCC's June 19 filings in opposition to the proposed settlement agreement filed in May by CenterPoint, along with industrial companies SABIC, Toyota Motor Manufacturing of Indiana, Inc., Consolidated Grain & Barge, CountryMark Refining and Logistics, and the Marathon Petroleum Company.

Under the current proposed settlement, a residential customer using 799 kilowatt hours of energy would see a $35.03 increase on their bill. For transitional customers, ones who heat their residence with electric, while standard customers primarily heat their homes with natural gas, the increase to their bill for 1,129 kilowatt hours would be $52.33.

Consumer groups file opposition testimony

Both the OUCC and the Citizen Action Coalition filed their testimony Friday stating their organizations do not agree with the proposed settlement.

In a CAC news release, Justin Barnes, President of EQ Research LLC, states the proposed settlement is "objectively self-serving" and does not reflect the interests of most customers.

CAC Program Director Ben Inskeep wrote in his testimony that affordability does not only pertain to lowering or the cost of electric service "to one customer class at the expense of making electric service unaffordable and uncompetitive for other customer classes."

“The extreme magnitude of the residential bill increase under the Settlement Agreement...while large industrial customers see only small bill increases, should induce strong skepticism from the Commission as to whether the Settlement Agreement is consistent with the statutory directive of affordability across the customer classes or otherwise in the public interest,” Inskeep stated.

David Dismukes, an OUCC witness, addressed affordability concerns stating CenterPoint uses a flawed analysis by assessing it in comparison to the median household income customer in its counties.

"By definition, half of the households within the company’s service territory have more difficulty paying for monthly utility bills than shown by the Company’s analysis," Dismukes testified. "It is for this reason that analyses examine affordability for low-and-moderate income households rather than average-income households."

Dismukes provides data for customers in the 15th and 20th percentile of household income. In his analysis, he also states he does not include rental costs, despite other regulatory commissioners considering those as a necessity that should be used when calculating energy burden.

His calculations found the energy burden to exceed 6% of household income for customers at or below the 15th percentile income level and nearly exceeding six percent for customers at the 20th percentile income level.

"On a county-specific basis, the analysis shows that the company’s rates currently exceed or will exceed this six percent affordability level for households reporting income at the 15th percentile income level in all counties with the exception of Warrick County," Dismukes states. "The analysis also shows that households earning at the 20th percentile income level currently exceed or will exceed the six percent energy burden in Vanderburgh, Spencer, and Pike counties"

Dismukes testifed there is no "universal definition" of what is unaffordable, and the 6% threshold is meant to represent extreme burden.

"Arguing that an energy burden of nearly six percent is somehow a positive is similar to attempting to reassure a flood victim that his or her circumstance is not that bad since they only got a few of feet of water in their home rather than being completely submerged," Dismukes states.

Where does this process stand?

Rebuttal from the settling parties is due Aug. 2. After that, a settlement hearing will start on Sept. 3.

Closing briefs will be filed in September and October.

The IURC has extended the deadline to issue a final ruling on the company’s latest electrical base rate case by 126 days, meaning a decision may not come until Feb. 3, 2025. That’s about 14 months after CenterPoint proposed the increase.

This article originally appeared on Evansville Courier & Press: Customers, advocates ask state to say no to CenterPoint settlement that would raise rates