Duke customers could see 15-percent rate increase

Thursday, July 4, 2019

The average Duke Energy residential customer could see a monthly bill increase of $23 if the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission grants Duke’s request for a rate increase.

The energy company announced Tuesday that it had asked the IURC for the increase in the interest of “generating cleaner electricity, improving the reliability of electric service, and investments to serve a growing customer base.”

“We’ve made investments to meet the needs of a customer base that has grown by more than 100,000 since our last full-scale rate review,” said Duke Energy Indiana President Stan Pinegar. “We also have environmental responsibilities and are taking significant steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and move to a cleaner power generation mix. And we are upgrading our electric grid to improve reliability, help avoid power outages and speed service restoration when outages do occur.”

To meet these demands, Duke is looking to increase annual revenue by about $395 with the increase.

According to numbers provided by Duke, that would mean an overall average rate increase of about 15 percent across all customer groups.

If approved, the increase will be added to bills in two steps, approximately 13 percent in mid-2020 and two percent in 2021. Timing will depend on IURC action.

The increase will vary among consumers depending on the cost to serve different types of customers. If approved by the commission, the company’s typical residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours a month could expect a monthly bill increase of about $23, or approximately 77 cents per day, which includes both steps of the increase. 

To help customers save on their electric bills, the company is proposing a pilot program with time-of-use rates where customers can lower their bills on high power demand days by shifting their power usage to times of day when energy is less expensive.

The company also noted that Duke Energy Indiana’s overall average electric rate is currently below state, regional and national averages and is the lowest overall electric rate average in Indiana.

The regulatory review process will include an opportunity for public comment.

In selling the increase, Duke noted that the proposed new rates would be “used to cover a range of innovations, upgrades and improvements that customers value, including investments to accommodate growth, transitioning to cleaner energy, improving reliability and reducing power outages and providing customers with more convenience.”

View 6 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Clean energy?

    Do they mean like the ugly, loud, bird blenders they already have north of Lafayette?

    Those really have paid off. Not. If the feds didn't subsidize them

    with our tax dollars, they would have never been built.

    So many waisted resources for a dumb idea.

    Pay up you deplorables.

    -- Posted by direstraits on Fri, Jul 5, 2019, at 8:08 AM
  • First thing is that all those Windmills North of Lafayette DO NOT belong to Duke Energy , they belong to either NIPSCO or Indiana Michigan. They are tied directly to the Sugar Creek Generation Station south of Terre Haute. The Generation Station belongs to the same as the Windmills. But dire straits you are 100% correct- windmills, solar and even Ethanol Plants would fold without government subsidizes. One last point to keep in mind is the fact Duke Energy is wanting to move more to Natural Gas Turbines at the Generation Stations and if they do that the price of a kWH goes up and if there becomes a Natural Gas shortage or a "Natural Gas War" the price will skyrocket. Remember back in the mid 80s when people could NOT afford to heat their homes with Natural Gas because of a "shortage".

    -- Posted by goingon80 on Sun, Jul 7, 2019, at 7:22 AM
  • *

    I recommend a nuclear power plant (or two).

    Nuclear power is safe, efficient, and would keep the cost of electricity very low.

    It has been used in Europe for well over 30 years with no real issues.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Mon, Jul 8, 2019, at 9:23 AM
  • Too bad they tore down Marble Hill when it was at least half finished. Could have been salvaged for future use. Nothing left there now.

    -- Posted by Ben Dover on Mon, Jul 8, 2019, at 11:50 AM
  • Public Service Indiana (now Duke Energy) was forced to scrap Marble Hill. The State and Federal Dictators kept changing the rules and requirements. One example was the containment structures, PSI followed the exact guidelines which allowed a small percentage of concrete honeycombing- after these structures were complete the government came in with new guidelines and PSI had to remove all they had done and start over. This is just one example , there were so many " new" requirements that it quadrupled the original projected cost. The final straw was the Indiana Governor made a decision that even if they went ahead it would not be allowed in the rate base by the IURC. PSI Stock went from around 45.00 a share to 6.00 a share overnight. Our good government at work [NOT]. These are the same people who subsidizes the above mentioned. Think about this - the cost of building a ethanol plant, the maintaining of that plant, the wages and benefits of employees, the electric to convert the ethanol , the water, the waste and waste water, the shipping of both corn and the product ethanol and whatever else I have missed. With that in mind realize they are paying 6 to 8 dollars ( or more ) per bushel of corn and you get about 2.5 gallons of ethanol. Gas which is said to be more expensive than ethanol is 3.00 a gallon so ethanol is less and can barely cover the cost of corn. These are your tax dollars at work.

    -- Posted by goingon80 on Mon, Jul 8, 2019, at 4:26 PM
  • The point of a rate increase because of “clean” fuel is a manufactured problem. The fuel(s)used to generate electricity should be readily available, abundant and economical. The natural resource that fits the need here is still COAL. Brainwashed and gullible is what we are expected to swallow about the “climate crisis” and the URC is playing along. The politicize environmental movement is the playground for the Bernies, AOC et al to score votes. Don’t accept that the problem that is trying to be solved is a problem of that magnitude, separating you from your money is.

    -- Posted by direstraits on Mon, Jul 8, 2019, at 5:40 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: