AES Indiana says state storm outage inquiry not warranted
Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
AES Indiana says existing state regulations are sufficient — and no investigation is needed — following lengthy weather-related power outages in late June and early July that affected an estimated 100,000 people.
The electricity provider, a subsidiary of Virginia-based AES Corp., serves Hoosiers living in the Indianapolis area. As a large investor-owned utility, it’s subject to greater Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) oversight.
“While this was the most severe storm to hit Indianapolis in many years, the Company was prepared to and did address the impact of this storm with significant resources per its well-established storm restoration plan,” AES Indiana said in a recent filing with the IURC.
On June 29, a line of thunderstorms from Iowa turned into a derecho in Indiana, leaving a trail of destruction behind — and thousands without power. More than 600 employees worked “24/7” to make fixes, according to AES Indiana, but it still took more than five days until the utility reported restoring power to all affected.
State and nonprofit utility consumer advocates — the Office of Utility Consumer Counselor and Citizens Action Coalition — filed a joint petition on July 11 asking the IURC to investigate the utility’s “practices and procedures for storm outage restoration.” The filing included online posts from customers indicating outages past the time AES Indiana said it had restored power to all.
AES Indiana fought that request in a response filed July 18.
“The (IURC)’s existing framework is sufficient,” the utility asserted. “The Joint Petition identifies no deficiencies in the existing process, much less allege the Company fails to follow them.”
The utility outlined its restoration and outage reporting efforts during and after the storms — it’s still got an after-action report due August 3, for example — in addition to regular reporting and planning procedures.
It also said the posts “cast (unfairly) the Company in a poor light,” arguing that it already has a process for individual customers to make complaints and including screenshots showing it resolved the outages in each post — minus one account that didn’t reply.
And it called the joint petition an “attack on the Company.”
“The suggestion that the Commission does not already engage in meaningful oversight of storm restoration and associated issues lacks merit,” the utility concluded. “While the Commission has authority to devote resources to a formal investigation, the Commission should conclude that the Joint Petition fails to present information that warrants this result.”
AES Indiana Director of Transmission Field Operations Michael Holtsclaw signed the filing.
Outraged ratepayers
Customers, however, were angry and frustrated in dozens of pages of letters included with a new OUCC and Citizens Action Coalition response.
Many complained about having to replace hundreds of dollars worth of food in their refrigerators and freezers.
One woman, Sheri Salamone, said she lost a $3,000 medication that required refrigeration.
Others said the outages risked their health, with some requiring CPAP and oxygen machines to breathe while sleeping — forcing one man to go several days with 30-minute alarms overnight to avoid sleep.
Several said they’d experienced so many outages with AES Indiana — known as Indianapolis Power and Light until its acquisition — that they’d purchased generators.
One woman, Delores Wools, said the outages were leading her and other seniors in her neighborhood to consider selling their homes and moving elsewhere.
Others accused the utility of not adequately trimming the trees near power lines.
And the most common complaint: that the outages came within days of AES Indiana’s notice that it planned to increase its base rates.
The utility is seeking IURC permission to hike rates 13% — adding $17 to the average monthly bill. Such cases typically take about a year.
“We will need that rate-increase money to replace our spoiled food when AES leaves us without power for 45 hours again,” wrote Wools.
Advocates respond
The Office of Utility Consumer Counselor and Citizens Action Coalition, meanwhile, said they still have questions: what AES Indiana’s plan was, whether the utility followed that plan, and whether the plan was enough.
“Joint Petitioners are not making any allegations at this time of any imprudence. Joint Petitioners are simply looking to gather information about this storm event in the context of a commission investigation,” the two entities wrote in a July 25 filing.
They said they weren’t “required to prove anything at this point” — and didn’t have access to the information required — and said the IURC has the authority to launch an investigation without any allegations.
The entities also noted that the after-action report will only cover storm restoration-related costs, in accordance with the 2016 order establishing the reports.
And they said it was “unacceptable to ask” AES Indiana’s thousands of affected customers to “navigate” the individual complaint process, instead pushing for a “uniform (and) streamlined” investigation.
The online posts, the entities argued, “were simply to advise the Commission of evidence to dispute” AES Indiana’s power restoration data claim.
“The facts are not in dispute and speak for themselves. It took Respondent longer than five days to fully restore power to its geographically small service territory,” the two concluded. This is unacceptable.”
The filing was signed by Utility Consumer Counselor William Fine and Citizens Action Coalition Attorney Jennifer Washburn.
The dispute remains pending.
The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, not-for-profit news organization that covers state government, policy and elections.