IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V « < 2 3 4  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> NIPSCO Gas Prices, More ups and downs than a yo-yo
Homey
post Jan 21 2009, 11:49 AM
Post #61


Advanced Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 426
Joined: 10-October 08
Member No.: 826



No, we have a gate to the side of the house for access, and it's been drifted over for quite awhile and hard to open. I usually see him around the week of the 14th and we wave at each other.



Signature Bar
Nothing is worth more than this day!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Roger Kaputnik
post Jan 21 2009, 12:17 PM
Post #62


Spends WAY too much time at CBTL
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,237
Joined: 8-December 06
From: MC
Member No.: 3



It will say on the bill if it was estimated, by the way. Some places, and I think it is mostly businesses, have the kind the readers can get from outside the house with a drive-by.


Signature Bar
The difference between genius and stupidity is that there are limits to genius. Albert Einstein
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eric.hanke
post Jan 21 2009, 12:49 PM
Post #63


Advanced Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 445
Joined: 24-August 07
From: Kissimmee, FL
Member No.: 546



We received our NIPSCO bill, if that's what you want to call it, earlier this week. It required a stiff drink prior to writing the check.



Keep an eye on your meter if the bill is estimated. NIPSCO, as you would expect, always estimates high in their favor. I also noticed over the years, they like to estimate more during periods of rate increases.



Signature Bar
IPB Image


Welcome to the Michigan City Area Schools, we are over budget, over paid, overwhelmed ...

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Roger Kaputnik
post Jan 21 2009, 01:51 PM
Post #64


Spends WAY too much time at CBTL
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,237
Joined: 8-December 06
From: MC
Member No.: 3



L'chaim! and the next jesz will be for when I get my bill.


Signature Bar
The difference between genius and stupidity is that there are limits to genius. Albert Einstein
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Southsider2k12
post Feb 9 2009, 08:18 AM
Post #65


Spends WAY too much time at CBTL
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 16,425
Joined: 8-December 06
From: Michigan City, IN
Member No.: 2



http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=32967.35

QUOTE
Electric rate case moving forward

Joseph Malan
The News-Dispatch

MICHIGAN CITY - The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission took another step Friday in completing NIPSCO's 2008 electric rate case.

On Friday, the IURC finished hearing evidence and arguments from NIPSCO after a month of testimony from the company. On March 3, a field hearing will be held in Gary for any Northwest Indiana resident to submit written or oral testimony in the case.

NIPSCO is currently proposing a 9.8 percent base electric rate increase among all residential customers to match the increase in cost of operating electricity, as well as to recover funds from buying the Sugar Creek Generating Station in Terre Haute.

If passed, the average increase on a customer's monthly electric bill would be $12.76.

Nick Meyer, spokesman for NIPSCO, said rising fuel prices are mostly to blame for the electric rate case.

"Essentially there is a portion for fuel costs [on the bill] as they rise. That's the direct pass through to customers," Meyer said.

Meyer also said the base rate hasn't changed since 21 years ago, when the last rate case was filed.

On Wednesday, NiSource Inc., NIPSCO's parent company, released a report of earnings for 2008.

According to the report, NiSource earned $127 million in operating revenue during the final three months of 2008, as opposed to $59.5 million during the final three months of 2007.

However, NiSource's electric operations, which NIPSCO is chiefly responsible for, were much lower in 2008, compared to 2007. NiSource reported $220.2 million in operating earnings for 2008, while reporting $283.1 million in 2007.

According to the report, operating expenses increased by $41.3 million, due to higher employee and administrative costs, electric generation and other expenses, including those associated with NIPSCO's acquisition of the Sugar Creek Generating Station.

Meyer said he hopes the rate increase would help boost the company's operating earnings for 2009.

Danielle Dravet, spokeswoman for the IURC, said proceedings for the rate case are on schedule so far, but the ultimate decision could be far down the road.

"Rate cases can take anywhere from 12 to 18 months, and we are not bound by time constraints," Dravet said.

Former La Porte County Attorney Shaw Friedman is still representing La Porte County in the case, due to the fact the case began in 2008.

"President (Barb) Huston has been quoted as indicating that it was a fairly involved case and since it was well-along, the commission has directed us to remain in the rate case and address the concerns of La Porte County residents," Friedman said. "Stakes are high; this is the first rate case in over 20 years."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Southsider2k12
post Feb 12 2009, 12:59 PM
Post #66


Spends WAY too much time at CBTL
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 16,425
Joined: 8-December 06
From: Michigan City, IN
Member No.: 2



http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=50345.97

QUOTE
Rate case is vital

Joseph Malan
The News-Dispatch

MICHIGAN CITY - An upcoming hearing concerning the NIPSCO rate case is vital because customers can submit complaints and comments.

That's according to attorney Shaw Friedman, who's representing La Porte County in the matter.

The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission field hearing is at 6 p.m. Tuesday, March 3, at Indiana University-Northwest, Gary.

"It's important that ratepayers and the commission takes that input very seriously," Friedman said.

On Friday, the IURC finished hearing testimony from NIPSCO. As the first round of hearings began to wind down, Friedman revealed some of his main arguments against the utility.

NIPSCO, Friedman said, scored "dead last in the nation of the 120 utilities surveyed in the 2008 J.D. Powers' residential customer satisfaction survey."

According to the survey, NIPSCO received a score of 527 points out of a possible 1,000. By comparison, Toledo Edison, the company that finished second-to-last in the Midwest region, scored 572 points.

"We think that is really compelling evidence," Friedman said. "You don't reward companies for failure."

Friedman also said NiSource Inc., NIPSCO's parent company, is partially to blame for the local energy company's current condition and the rate case.

"NIPSCO customers are already paying for numerous mistakes by the parent company, NiSource, such as the $6 billion hostile takeover of Columbia energy in 2000," Friedman said.

"We will push hard in any rate order for protections such as 'ring-fencing' that will help protect against pressures from the parent company to upstream dividends, pay off parent company debt or reduce capital investment in the utility. Wall Street is going to keep pushing NiSource management to suck more profit from its NIPSCO electric subsidiary, and we believe protections have to be built into the IURC order to protect ratepayers."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Southsider2k12
post Feb 16 2009, 01:13 PM
Post #67


Spends WAY too much time at CBTL
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 16,425
Joined: 8-December 06
From: Michigan City, IN
Member No.: 2



http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=51247.66

QUOTE
NIPSCO
Electrical rate hearing coming

Editorial

The public will get a chance to voice its opinion about an electrical rate increase sought by Northern Indiana Public Service Co. on March 3 at Indiana University-Northwest in Gary.

It's no stretch to imagine that customers will be unanimously opposed to paying NIPSCO more, but a public hearing is a part of the lengthy process the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission conducts on rate changes, as it should be.

The real input, however, is more likely to be the presentation made by NIPSCO, which is now completed, and the opposing arguments of consumers, which is next. One of the parties representing consumers is La Porte County government. The La Porte County Commissioners have retained La Porte attorney Shaw Friedman, who has worked on NIPSCO matters for the last decade.

NIPSCO rates and the quality of its service are important to La Porte County residents. First, the electric bill is a significant cost homeowners and most apartment dwellers face every month. During a recession like this,, a rate hike is clearly unwelcome.

But, second, electricity rates and dependable service are important factors for companies looking for a place to do business. While a 10 or 12 percent increase in a household's electric bill is unpleasant, estimated at about $12 to $13 for a typical home, imagine the cost to businesses and industries that use larger amounts of electricity. Of course, they are in different categories than homes and pay different electricity rates, but for the sake of economic development, business retention and business expansion, this area needs rates as low as possible.

These are issues Friedman is an expert on, and he will make a good case for La Porte County's interests. As he has pointed out, NIPSCO is seeking a higher return on equity, 12 percent, than I&M, which gets 10.5 percent in its service territory just to the east. And Friedman points out that NIPSCO is rated last in the nation of the 120 utilities surveyed in the 2008 J.D. Powers' residential customer satisfaction survey.

NIPSCO has some distance to go to demonstrate it deserves a rate hike.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Southsider2k12
post Mar 5 2009, 01:34 PM
Post #68


Spends WAY too much time at CBTL
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 16,425
Joined: 8-December 06
From: Michigan City, IN
Member No.: 2



http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=52507.68

QUOTE
People can't afford NIPSCO increase
I thank Willie Milsap, 5th Ward councilman, for encouraging me to attend the public hearing on the NIPSCO electric rate case at Indiana University Northwest Tuesday.

It seems La Porte County United Way and other not-for-profit organizations have been receiving money from NIPSCO and they were encouraging the rate increase. When this money gets to La Porte County, who is receiving it? The middle man and the little person are paying for corporate luncheons and golf outings. The trustee offices and Jane and John Doe customers are NOT benefiting from this money. We have been paying more for NIPSCO than for our mortgages. One 91-year-old customer brought her NIPSCO bills to prove it. She paid $1,444.43 in January and $1,524.23 in February.

Senior citizens on fixed income, young adults just starting out, people with disabilities and I cannot afford an increase in NIPSCO bills. Please, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, say NO to the NIPSCO electric rate increase.

We Michigan City residents don't even have an office in Michigan City to go to with questions or complaints. Where is our service for our rate increase? Imagine a senior citizen trying to get help on the telephone pressing buttons for 15 to 20 minutes to a recorded message and you still do not have help with your problem, but NIPSCO wants a rate increase. After you talk to someone, it takes from one to one and a half hours for help to arrive. Then they want to bill you for the services rendered, unless you have an E.S.P. protection plan, which you don't understand.

NIPSCO says that it is "only" a $12 a month increase. If I am on fixed income, which I am, I can get: one loaf of bread for $1.19; one dozen eggs for $2.09; one gallon of milk (2 percent) for $3.69 and three pounds of ground beef with that $12.

Please do not let NIPSCO raise my rates.

On April 17 the Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC) and intervening parties are schedued to file testimony in this case. It is not too late to send your testimony. Refer to IURC Case number 43526 at www.in.gov/oucc/2457.htm or uccinfo@oucc.IN.gov

W. Faye Moore

Michigan City
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Southsider2k12
post Apr 22 2009, 01:24 PM
Post #69


Spends WAY too much time at CBTL
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 16,425
Joined: 8-December 06
From: Michigan City, IN
Member No.: 2



http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=55364.82

QUOTE


From Staff Reports

INDIANAPOLIS - The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission has agreed to hold a second public hearing on the electric rate increase sought by NIPSCO, this time in Michigan City.

Danielle Dravet, public information officer for the IURC, said the commission received the request for a second hearing from State Rep. Scott D. Pelath, D-Michigan City, and plans to schedule it soon.

"We are checking on a few dates," she said, and the IURC plans to announce the time and place sometime in the next couple of weeks.

"With a large service territory like NIPSCO's, we want to give people the opportunity to voice their concerns to the commission," she said.

NIPSCO is seeking a 15.62-percent increase for residential customers, which would cost the typical homeowner about an extra $12.76 per month.

The first hearing drew an overflow crowd at the March 3 hearing at Indiana University Northwest in Gary.

"The commission's first hearing was, as you know, very well attended. Public interest in a second is high, and several constituents of mine have already contacted me in support of a second hearing," Pelath said in a letter to Joseph M. Sutherland, executive director, governmental affairs, for the IURC.

"I would like to propose Michigan City, or another convenient location in La Porte County, as the site for the meeting. My hope is that a more central location for the second hearing would make it easily accessible to those living on the eastern edge of the NIPSCO service area. The Orak Shrine Center in Michigan City, for example, offers spacious facilities," Pelath said.

"I realize that the hearing would be held on a weeknight, and so I might suggest that a second hearing be held later in the evening than was the first, to ensure that everyone interested has the chance to arrive in a timely manner after work," he said.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Southsider2k12
post May 5 2009, 08:08 AM
Post #70


Spends WAY too much time at CBTL
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 16,425
Joined: 8-December 06
From: Michigan City, IN
Member No.: 2



As low as prices are now, I would look into locking into a rate long term. It might be going a bit lower, but in reality it can't fall much further than it already has done.

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=45178.34

QUOTE
Gas cost decrease announced

MERRILLVILLE, Ind. - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. announced Monday that the gas cost adjustment for May 2009 decreased compared with last month. This month's decrease is primarily attributed to an expected decrease in wholesale natural gas prices as compared with the previous month.

NIPSCO residential customers will see a decrease in natural gas costs of 18.13 percent when compared with April 2009. The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission approved the adjustment subject to refund.

A typical NIPSCO residential customer using 50 therms of natural gas should expect a decrease of approximately $6.16 from last month's statement in their May billing, although total bill amounts will vary as a result of actual consumption.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Southsider2k12
post Jul 10 2009, 03:06 PM
Post #71


Spends WAY too much time at CBTL
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 16,425
Joined: 8-December 06
From: Michigan City, IN
Member No.: 2



http://www.chestertontribune.com/Business/...5_on_nipsco.htm

QUOTE


By KEVIN NEVERS

A public field hearing has been scheduled by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) on the Northern Indiana Public Service Company’s request to increase its electric base rates and charges.

Under NIPSCO’s proposal, residential customers would seek their electric rate jump 14.34 percent.

The public field hearing is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 15, at the Orak Shrine Center at 3848 N. Frontage Road in Michigan City. At that hearing--scheduled to last until around 4 p.m.--the IURC will accept both oral and written consumer comments on the proposed rate hike. Additional comments may be submitted at an evening session, scheduled to begin at 6 p.m.

The field hearing will be preceded by an informational meeting held by the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC), which will discuss the regulatory process and describe public field hearing procedures.

Comments submitted to the IURC will become part of the evidentiary record considered by the IURC in reaching its final decision. Commissioners are not permitted to answer questions during the public field hearing.

Proposed Rate Hike

In December NIPSCO announced that, instead of a two-phase hike of 15.5 percent in residential customers’ electric rate enacted over approximately two years, it would seek a single-phase hike of 14.34 percent.

If the IURC were to grant NIPSCO’s revised petition, residential customers would see an immediate increase of 14.34 percent, raising the average monthly bill by $12.76, from $81.68 to $94.44.

NIPSCO revised its petition to reflect the earlier than expected addition, on Dec. 1, 2008, of the Sugar Creek Generating Station’s capacity. NIPSCO purchased the Sugar Creek facility in 2008 for $330 million but did not anticipate its contribution to the company’s grid until June 2010.

One thing has not changed in the revised rate case, however: residential customers would still shoulder the greatest part of the rate hike, as the overall rate increase, when spread among NIPSCO’s residential, commercial, and industrial customers, would total only 9.8 percent.

Of NIPSCO’s approximately 457,976 customers--as of August 2008--nearly 88 percent were residential. But residential customers consume only 20 percent of NIPSCO’s generated electricity.

Around 12 percent of NIPSCO’s customers are commercial and they consume 21 percent of the company’s generated electricy; less than 1 percent of NIPSCO’s customers are industrial and they consume fully 53 percent of its generated electricity.

NIPSCO is attributing the need for a rate increase to necessary infrastructure improvements, to escalating fuel, transportation, environmental, and material costs, and to customers’ growing demand for energy.

OUCC Response

The OUCC, on the other hand--the state agency representing consumer interests before state and federal regulatory commissions--is recommending that NIPSCO’s electric base rate increase be denied.

“NIPSCO is seeking an $85.7 million increase in its annual base electric rate revenues in this case,” the OUCC said in a statement released in May. “In contrast, the OUCC is recommending a revenue reduction of $135.2 million.”

The OUCC did say that the recommended revenue reduction would be affected by two factors: the expiration of monthly residential rate credits totaling $55 million per year, as ordered by the IURC in a 2002 investigation of NIPSCO’s electric rates; and by the expiration of special contract rates for certain industrial customers.

“Due to these two factors, base electric rates paid by NIPSCO residential customers would remain at or near their current levels under the OUCC’s recommendations,” the OUCC said.

The OUCC is also recommending the following:

*Significant decreases in NIPSCO’s requested cost recovery for depreciation, return on investment, aging workforce expenditures, and gasoline/diesel fuel.

*An authorized return on equity of 10 percent, as opposed to NIPSCO’s request for a 12 percent return.

*The inclusion of emission allowance costs and revenues in base rates, offsetting part of the base rate impact on customers.

*A six-year amortization of rate case expenses instead of the three-year amortization requested by NIPSCO.

Submitting Comments

NIPSCO customers who wish to submit written comments on the case may do so either during or in advance of the Michigan City public field hearing. Written comments should include the consumer’s name, mailing address, and a reference to IURC Cause No. 43526. Send them to one of the following:

*Consumer Services Staff, Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, 115 W. Washington St., Suite 1500 South, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

*Fax: (317) 232-5923.

*E-mail: uccinfo@oucc.IN.gov

*OUCC website: www.IN.gov/OUCC

Some History

Although the IURC has not issued an electric rate order for NIPSCO since 1987--when the company last filed a comprehensive base-rate case--in 2002 it did enter into a settlement with NIPSCO under which the company credited customers’ bills at least $225 million over 49 months. That settlement followed a mandatory periodic review in which the IURC determined that NIPSCO’s operating income in 1999 was around $23 million higher than the maximum allowable under the 1987 order and that its rate of return was 10.63 percent, a point and a half higher than the 9.06 percent permitted by that order.

IURC staff initially recommended an 11.6 percent across-the-board reduction in electric rates, then agreed to the customer credits, which saved the average residential customer approximately $50 per year over the life of the settlement.

At the same time that IURC staff was recommending an 11.6 percent across-the-board decrease in electric rates, though, NIPSCO was maintaining that it deserved a 24-percent increase to reflect a fair return on the value of its assets.

 



Posted 7/8/2009
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th April 2024 - 06:03 AM

Skin Designed By: neo at www.neonetweb.com