[Tom Burns]

Thoughts, comments?

[Southsider2k12]

Thoughts? I am not surprised

Comments? @#$^%ER%^&*FCUI&F^&

[Tom Burns]

Thoughts? I am not surprised

Comments? @#$^%ER%^&*FCUI&F^&

(Tried to post this a few minutes ago, comment on a comment, but apparently I did it wrong, again. If this is a duplicate, please eliminate.)

"@#$^%ER%^&*FCUI&F^&" Per George Carlin, I am not sure I could put that comment on the radio even without identity of the author, but it translates.

[JHeath]

16%? Are they crazy?
Most of our bills will probably be double of what they were only a month or two ago as it is, just because of the weather. Now they want us to pay even more?

[Roger Kaputnik]

C'mon, people, I thought this was a capitalist society. What say the MF's from the U of Chicago re regulation of this private company? What say the free-marketeers? The deregulation advocates?

[Ang]

What say the NiSource bigwigs with big fat bank accounts that are only getting bigger?

They say, "Hell Yea!!! Rate increase! Whoo-Hoo!! Let's do it!"

[Roger Kaputnik]

Quite a contrast with the folks wondering how to pay the bill or what they will do without to pay it. This is why I have not supported deregulation of utilities. People ARE more important than money.

[Dave]

Thoughts, comments?

[Animal House quote] Thank you sir, may I have another? [/Animal House quote]

[Tom Burns]

C'mon, people, I thought this was a capitalist society. What say the MF's from the U of Chicago re regulation of this private company? What say the free-marketeers? The deregulation advocates?

If Milton Friedman were alive now I think he would say that the market is not free, when one side in essence controls the market for its benefit the market fails to be free....i.e. the closeness between Wall Street/investment bankers and regulators, and the situation where utility regulation in many states is in hands of those who hope to someday get better pay working for utilities. This comment is not directed to the Indiana utilities regulators, but to regulation in general by boards supposedly independent of the regulated industries. The utility industry has a voice to influence regulators, the general interest which is larger is so defuse that its influence is less.

Maybe this is getting a bit heavy... Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Sorry I can't get to the Sunday event, I am buried in ice attempting to make my rounds radio station to station but stuck in central Illinois.

[mcstumper]

Thats 0.875% per year for the past 20 years.

[Southsider2k12]

Thats 0.875% per year for the past 20 years.

Which is extremely misleading considering prices charged have changed a lot in 20 years.

[mcstumper]

Which is extremely misleading considering prices charged have changed a lot in 20 years.

By that do you mean surcharges, delivery charges, etc?

[Southsider2k12]

By that do you mean surcharges, delivery charges, etc?

When the price of natural gas has increased, the prices have risen, because my NIPSCO bill sure as heck has changed in the last 20 years, that's for sure. I am sure when they are talking about a "rate" increase, they are talking about how they charge for the price they receive, which is very misleading IMO. The price increases have been passed along the whole time.

[eric.hanke]

I am no economist but would it not be fair to say that NIPSCO wants to increase their profit margin by 16%?

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=59565.56

NIPSCO rate hike amended

From Staff Reports

MICHIGAN CITY - NIPSCO announced Monday the planned electric-rate adjustment related to the new Sugar Creek generating facility is being amended.

Rather than a two-step process that would amount to an overall electric bill increase of 11.7 percent for NIPSCO customers, it is now a one-step process and will result in a 9.8 percent overall increase. The lower rate increase is due to the Terre Haute generating facility beginning operation Dec. 1, rather than in June 2010, which had first been expected.

The 9.8 percent increase will more than likely take effect in early 2010, NIPSCO spokeswoman Colleen Reilly said. A typical NIPSCO residential electric customer will see an increase of approximately $12.76 in their monthly electric bill.

According to Reilly, when the utility first purchased the Sugar Creek facility, it was under contract to provide power to eastern states through the PJM Interconnection, a regional power transmission organization. Once NIPSCO purchased the generating facility, they were able to end the facility's contract with PJM and dispatch the power through Midwest ISO, a regional power transmission organization that serves the Midwest.

Because NIPSCO was able to switch transmission organizations, they were able to start generating energy for NIPSCO customers much earlier than anticipated.

Reilly said the electric rate hike is the result of a combination of several factors.

"The cost of doing business, infrastructure improvements, capacity and shareholder returns are some things taken into consideration," Reilly said.

The original two-step rate hike called for a 2.7 percent rise to be implemented in early 2010, and a 9 percent increase four to six months following the first increase.

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...&TM=30949.6

NIPSCO rate hike amended

From Staff Reports

MICHIGAN CITY - NIPSCO announced Monday the planned electric-rate adjustment related to the new Sugar Creek generating facility is being amended.

Rather than a two-step process that would amount to an overall electric bill increase of 11.7 percent for NIPSCO customers, it is now a one-step process and will result in a 9.8 percent overall increase. The lower rate increase is due to the Terre Haute generating facility beginning operation Dec. 1, rather than in June 2010, which had first been expected.

The 9.8 percent increase will more than likely take effect in early 2010, NIPSCO spokeswoman Colleen Reilly said. A typical NIPSCO residential electric customer will see an increase of approximately $12.76 in their monthly electric bill.

According to Reilly, when the utility first purchased the Sugar Creek facility, it was under contract to provide power to eastern states through the PJM Interconnection, a regional power transmission organization. Once NIPSCO purchased the generating facility, they were able to end the facility's contract with PJM and dispatch the power through Midwest ISO, a regional power transmission organization that serves the Midwest.

Because NIPSCO was able to switch transmission organizations, they were able to start generating energy for NIPSCO customers much earlier than anticipated.

Reilly said the electric rate hike is the result of a combination of several factors.

"The cost of doing business, infrastructure improvements, capacity and shareholder returns are some things taken into consideration," Reilly said.

The original two-step rate hike called for a 2.7 percent rise to be implemented in early 2010, and a 9 percent increase four to six months following the first increase.

[Tom Burns]

Hearing gets underway at Indianapolis. LaPorte county commissioners to testify and a follow up hearing will take place in Gary. We are following this on air, WEFM.