Hoosiers hit with historically high electric bill increases, consumer watchdog study shows
Citizens Action Coalition collected and analyzed 20 years of data from five of the state's monopoly utilities — NIPSCO, CenterPoint, Duke Energy Indiana, AES Indiana and I&M — and found residents were hit this year with the highest year-over-year price increase since at least 2005.
The group's key findings show a statewide average energy bill increase of more than $28 per month — a 17.5% jump.
The Indiana Energy Association, in a written statement in response to the CAC report, said its members "are committed to keeping affordability top of mind, while also making the investments needed to provide reliable electricity."
Kerwin Olson, executive director of CAC, said for years Indiana lawmakers have passed utility-friendly legislation shifting economic risk and cost on to Hoosiers already facing rising costs for housing, healthcare and other bills.
'This is an ongoing trend of continuing to use rate payers as economic development tools while inappropriately shifting all of the investment risk of running the utility away from utilities themselves and their investors onto shareholders,' Olson said. 'And that comes at a cost, and that cost is starting to display itself as extraordinary rate increases.'
The continued increase in utility bills is exacerbating an affordability crisis, he said, and Indiana is the epitome of regulatory and legislative control by investor-owned utilities that dictate policy and regulatory outcomes. The state, Olson said, needs to get serious about looking at policy solutions that invite competition and provide customers with a choice rather than allowing monopoly pricing.
"Let's get serious about making sure the everyday working class Hoosier can live their life with some dignity and afford the daily cost of living," he said.
CAC's analysis of data from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission shows large year-over-year bill increases for Hoosier's residential energy bills between July 1, 2024, and July 1, 2025.
The Indiana Energy Association noted "Indiana has been growing, and Indiana's utilities have an obligation to keep pace with that demand and power a modern economy."
The association wrote that Indiana's energy companies invested in additional power generation and modernization of the electric grid that delivers that power.
"We've added advanced technology to the electric grid that reduces power outages and hardens the grid against severe weather. There also have been substantial investments in evolving environmental regulations," the statement says.
NIPSCO customers, the ratepayers already paying the most, saw the largest increase of $50, or 26.7%, per month, according to CAC. NIPSCO spokeswoman Tara McElmurry told IndyStar the company is aligned with IEA's statement and has nothing further to add.
CenterPoint customers saw a $44 per month increase, or 25%, over the last year following an IURC-approved rate increase. CenterPoint did not immediately respond to IndyStar's request for comment.
Duke Energy Indiana customers saw a $26 increase on their monthly bills. Angeline Protogere, spokeswoman for Duke Indiana, wrote in an email to IndyStar that Duke has the lowest average rate among major utilities in Indiana for residential users, and that the year-over-year survey includes base rates as well as fuel and purchased power costs, which fluctuate quarterly. New rates allow Duke to continue making investments in a variety of ways including outage resilience, increasing reliability and transmission infrastructure among other things.
"We have invested $1.6 billion in our electric grid, power plants and overall system on behalf of our customers, and that is reflected in a base rate increase that went into effect in February 2025," Protogere wrote.
AES Indiana residential customers paid about $17 more each month, and the utility recently filed for another rate increase. AES did not comment but instead referred IndyStar to the IEA statement.
I&M customers saw bills rise $6 a month. I&M did not immediately respond to IndyStar.
Gov. Mike Braun ran his gubernatorial campaign, in part, by promising lower energy costs for Hoosiers, and state lawmakers referenced affordability during legislative session this year.
These promises have yet to come to fruition, and Olson said lawmakers continue to compound the issue of energy bills running rampant with laws such as Senate bills 424 and 423 which shifted even more costs onto Hoosiers. He also pointed out Braun's new Strategic Energy Growth Task Force, meant to address affordability, lacks any consumer advocates.
'It's hard to believe we're serious about affordability when a task force like that lacks a consumer voice,' Olson said. 'And then we see numbers like these: rate increase after rate increase after rate increase with no end in sight and with no apparent desire from the state to seriously take a look at why and try to fix the problem.'
Olson and CAC are not opposed to economic development and growth, but he said the risks need to appropriately be shared and something needs to change.
'All we want to do in Indiana is build, build, build in the name of energy dominance, and rate payers be damned,' he said.
IndyStar's environmental reporting project is made possible through the generous support of the nonprofit Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust.
IndyStar environment and natural resources reporter Sophie Hartley contributed to this report.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
a day ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana tolls on I-65? I don't like it, but our crumbling roads need the cash.
When I head to Chicago or Nashville, I know I'll be receiving a tolling invoice in the mail soon after. It's a minor inconvenience because I don't use those routes very often. But the prospect of Indiana tolling interstates within state lines is an entirely different discussion. I take Interstate 65 to and from work almost every day and I would no doubt rack up a ridiculous bill — at the same time that I'm paying high gas taxes every time I fill up. My immediate reaction is: no way. But I'm trying to see all sides of the debate. The fact is Hoosiers love to complain about our roads, but no one wants to pay to improve them. And our roads aren't that bad depending on who you ask. The Indiana Department of Transportation compared Indiana to neighboring states on 12 criteria, including road and bridge conditions, fatality rates, travel reliability and more: 'INDOT ranked in the top 3rd in 5 areas and in the middle 3rd in the others,' the 2024 report said. The federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics also rates 97% of Indiana's roads as 'good' or 'fair.' But a Reason Foundation analysis found Indiana ranked 32nd in highway performance nationally. And the money raised from Indiana's fuel-related taxes simply isn't keeping up with demand. That's partially because people are purchasing less gasoline. Newer cars are more efficient, and some cars don't need it at all. Inflation has also spiked the cost of repairing or replacing roads and bridges. So, Indiana — and every other state — has a diminishing revenue stream but more roads than ever to maintain. And when I say Indiana, I don't just mean state-owned roads. Most of the roads in the state are cared for by counties, cities and towns — about 89%. Their needs are immense. One analysis said local governments would require an additional $2.4 billion annually to eliminate poorly rated local roads and bridges across the state over the next 10 years. The annual price tag for simply maintaining roads at the current condition is $1 billion. So, would any of the additional revenue raised from tolls go to local infrastructure? More from Niki Kelly: Indiana's crackdown on small college programs will drive students away Lawmakers recently tried to think outside the box and offer other options. One was a surcharge on deliveries, such as Amazon and DoorDash. That language was removed pretty quickly. The state is also trying to force local units into implementing wheel taxes to take some ownership of the problem and raise fees and taxes at the local level. But those are honestly just nibbling around the edges of the problem. Tolling is where the money is at. And it's a lot of money. One 2017 feasibility study produced for INDOT estimated that a statewide interstate highway tolling program would have an 85% chance of generating upwards of $39 billion between 2021 and 2050. It further reported a 50% chance that revenue could exceed $53 billion over that timeframe. The estimates didn't include the costs to install and maintain tolling gantries, process payments, provide customer service, enforce collections and more. Former Gov. Eric Holcomb chose not to go down that route, but Gov. Mike Braun appears to be more interested. And lawmakers recently removed some final impediments to imposing tolling on state highways. 'It's going to have to be considered because, otherwise, I don't think we can maintain our main arteries,' Braun said earlier this year. Tolling interstates isn't as clear-cut as it seems. It's generally against federal law to collect tolls on existing federal highways. But Congress has allowed several exceptions. For instance, a state can toll an existing bridge after it is reconstructed and toll new lanes added to an interstate. Briggs: Mike Braun grandstands on Indianapolis crime while murders drop 24% The option that is most expansive is the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, which allows tolling on existing interstate facilities to fund needed reconstruction or rehabilitation on corridors that could not otherwise be adequately maintained or functionally improved. It has only three slots — awarded to Missouri, North Carolina and Virginia years ago. But those states never implemented the program, which has essentially been inactive. INDOT said it has not filed a waiver request on tolling — yet. I honestly don't see how tolling in some way can be avoided. Leaders want to capture the trucks and travelers passing through Indiana without stopping for gas. But it'll be tough to avoid hurting Hoosiers already paying their fair share.
Indianapolis Star
a day ago
- Indianapolis Star
Trump administration grants two Indiana plants ‘relief' from toxic pollution regulations
Last week the Trump administration eased pollution regulations for dozens of industrial sites across the country that spew toxic emissions — two of which operate inside Indiana. Across a series of four proclamations, the White House gave the roughly 90 facilities — chemical manufacturers, sterilization facilities, power plants — an additional two years to meet hazardous air pollution rules set by the EPA under the Biden administration. The new proclamations will allow certain facilities to keep operating under the EPA's old regulations until roughly 2028 and 2029, although individual deadlines vary. In Indiana, a chemical manufacturing plant in Mount Vernon, SABIC Innovative Plastics, and a medical equipment sterilization facility in Ellettsville, operated by Cook Medical, both received extensions. Some Hoosiers are concerned the move deprioritizes human health. The government claims "that meeting compliance is too burdensome/expensive to the business but not meeting the compliance levels can be very burdensome to the health of nearby communities," Gabriel Filippelli, a biochemist and urban health researcher at Indiana University, wrote to IndyStar in an email. "These standards have been developed for solid, scientific reasons, and this feels like rolling back protections for people to enhance profits for companies." The Clean Air Act allows pollution compliance extensions if the technology needed to meet standards isn't available and if the exemptions are in the national security interest of the United States. The White House is arguing both points. 'SABIC appreciates the Trump administration's decision to grant regulatory relief,' Jennifer Schumann, a spokeswoman for the Mount Vernon plant, wrote in a statement to IndyStar. There isn't an 'off the shelf solution' for compliance with the 2024 EPA regulations, she added — rather, the technology needs to be engineered and constructed. The American Chemistry Council, which represents manufacturers like SABIC, maintained the cost of meeting pollution regulations could exceed $50 billion, per a partially filled records request that the IndyStar obtained from the EPA. Advocates for environmental and public health say the exemptions are examples of the administration putting profit over human and environmental health. An EPA assessment for the plants in Mount Vernon and Ellettsville places both facilities on the high end of riskiness to human health, after considering the amount of chemicals released onsite, the degree of toxicity and the size of the exposed population. 'There were regulations put in place by experts based on what is good for human health,' said Heather Navarro, the director of the Midwest Climate Collaborative, a climate change response network which includes Indiana University and the City of Indianapolis. 'Now we're saying that what's more important is profit. And I think that's hugely problematic, and that should concern every American.' It isn't yet clear if or how the administration will address the potential public health impacts of two-year exemptions. And while it's hard to gauge exactly how two additional years of non-compliance will impact communities downwind of pollutants, the exemption "equals two years of potentially profound impacts on community health," according to Filippelli. One proclamation targeted exemptions at 39 medical equipment manufacturing facilities, which often use the gas ethylene oxide to sterilize their products. Ethylene oxide is highly effective, but it's also a carcinogen that can leak out of vents during the sterilization and aeration process, according to the EPA. In a 2024 report, the EPA wrote many medical sterilization facilities in the United States are located near residences, schools and communities with environmental justice concerns. They determined the use of ethylene oxide at several of the plants pose 'high lifetime cancer risks to surrounding communities.' 'It's a really useful compound in manufacturing everything from sterilizations to manufacturing things like antifreeze and polyester,' said Shannon Anderson, the directory of advocacy at Earth Charter Indiana. 'But it's also incredibly dangerous to human health. It's a carcinogen. It's responsible for all kinds of respiratory inflammation and chronic inflammation and it can damage your nervous system. And in certain quantities, it can be fatal.' The Cook Medical plant treats tens of thousands of pounds of ethylene oxide every year, but the facility's emissions and discharges of the toxic chemical have dropped drastically since 2019, according to EPA data. In 2023, the EPA reported 11 pounds of ethylene oxide at Cook Medical in Ellettsville were disposed of or released. Cook Medical declined to comment on why they applied for an exemption. A separate proclamation directed two-year exemptions at chemical manufacturers and refineries, like the SABIC plastic plant in Mount Vernon. The SABIC plant develops thermoplastics, and in 2023, it released several million pounds of chemicals on and offsite, according to the EPA. Schumann, SABIC's spokeswoman, told IndyStar in a statement the emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants impose 'substantial and costly additional burdens on chemical manufacturers already operating under stringent regulations,' and the company will continue to uphold the 'highest standards' in their environmental stewardship. But environmental advocates aren't convinced the burdens of monitoring and regulating air pollution can just dissipate with a presidential proclamation.
Indianapolis Star
2 days ago
- Indianapolis Star
ACLU lawsuit over Indiana's college intellectual diversity law is dismissed
A legal challenge to Indiana's law mandating "intellectual diversity" in college classrooms has been dismissed after a judge ruled the fear behind the law's subsequent chilling effect on free expression was unproven. In his July 23 order, Judge Richard L. Young wrote that the legal complaint was premature. The case also lacks standing, he said, because universities have not taken or threatened enforcement actions against faculty members. "The court finds Plaintiffs have adequately shown they have an actual fear of enforcement that has chilled their protected speech," wrote Young, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton. "The issue is whether that fear is well-founded." Last September, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed a lawsuit on behalf of four Hoosier professors who claim the state law infringes on academic freedom and their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In a statement to IndyStar, ACLU of Indiana spokesperson Laura Forbes said the organization is disappointed in the decision and is considering its options. When Senate Bill 202 progressed through the Indiana Statehouse in 2024, professors decried the legislation, claiming the bill would stifle academic freedom and damage higher education outcomes, recruitment and prowess. Academic freedom is defined as the ability for an institution's faculty and staff members to build curriculum, research and pursue knowledge without interference from government officials and administrators, according to several First Amendment organizations. Several U.S. Supreme Court cases have labeled academic freedom as protected under the First Amendment. SB 202 requires the state's public universities, when evaluating a faculty member's tenure, to consider whether they have embraced free expression and "intellectual diversity" in the classroom and if they have expressed political views unrelated to their discipline while teaching. It also directed universities to stand up a process for students to report professors on those grounds. If a university finds that a professor is teaching contrary to the law, the professor may not be granted tenure or be denied a promotion. The bill, introduced by Sen. Spencer Deery, R-Lafayette, was enacted in July 2024. A year in, a total of 14 complaints have been filed at Indiana University, Ball State University, Indiana State University and Ivy Tech University. It's unclear whether any disciplinary action has been taken on them yet. The ACLU's complaint argues that the law was not adequately defined, and the professors have changed the content and pedagogy of their courses in fear of disciplinary action. An ACLU news release said the law could chill course debate over concerns that unfounded theories must be given the same credence as "rigorously studied academic analysis." The lawsuit was the ACLU's second attempt to challenge the law. It first challenged SB 202 in May 2024, but that effort was dismissed after the judge said the plaintiffs lacked jurisdiction to sue. The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
