INDIANAPOLIS— Both developers of the proposed $2.6 billion Rockport coal-to-gas plant and opponents of the state’s contract to buy and then resell its product are asking the Indiana Supreme Court to review the matter.
The sides each petitioned the state’s high court to wade into the contentious debate at the same time lawmakers are working on legislation that could also affect the plant’s future. It has passed the Senate already and is set for a House committee hearing on Wednesday.
The argument is over the 30-year contract in which the Indiana Finance Authority agreed to buy the Rockport plant’s synthetic natural gas at a pre-negotiated rate and then resell it to Hoosiers. Customers would benefit when that rate is below open-market natural gas prices and pay more when it tops those market prices.
Attorneys for Indiana Gasification LLC, the company building the plant that’s being financed by New York-based Leucadia National Corp., are asking the Supreme Court to confirm that the contract is final and end the legal wrangling.
Meanwhile, a roster of opponents led by Evansville’s Vectren Corp. are asking the five-member high court to strike down the deal, which they argue is a departure from what Indiana lawmakers had originally intended when they approved the project.
If that happens, a bill that is set for a hearing in the House Utility Committee on Wednesday would send the deal back to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission for another round of reviews — essentially restarting the clock on the entire process.
Both sides are petitioning the Indiana Supreme Court to re-examine a ruling delivered last year by the Indiana Court of Appeals. That court forced one technical change to the contract, but denied Vectren’s other arguments.
“This appeal presents the first opportunity for this court to interpret the statutory requirements of an SNG (synthetic natural gas) contract against the backdrop of one of the state’s biggest governmental undertakings,” Vectren’s petition says.
Opponents say that Hoosier ratepayers could lose as much as $4 billion over the 30-year life of the contract — a figure that developers dispute, noting that the state could seize their plant if that is ultimately the case.
“Hoosier ratepayers who depend on natural gas companies for their energy needs will be forced to pay more for their gas under the contract, without any reliable guarantee that they will be made whole before — or even after — the contract expires,” Vectren says.
Two powerful business lobbying organizations, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce and the Indiana Manufacturers Association, have filed briefs in favor of Vectren’s position.
In its petition, Indiana Gasification argues that the Supreme Court should simply send the contract back to the IURC with instructions to approve it with that one technical change that the appeals court ordered.
“The underlying issue here presents just one question: What is the proper way to remedy the inclusion of the 37 words found to have been inappropriately added,” Indiana Gasification’s petition says.
Developers say they have no problem with the Indiana Court of Appeals’ decision that those words should not be included. But, Indiana Gasification argues, reversing the IURC’s approval of the contract is not the appropriate way to make that change.
“The IURC already determined, after extensive hearings and volumes of evidence, that the contract should be approved. The opinion agreed in every aspect, save those 37 words,” the petition says.