School superintendents, retirees and others gave the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission an earful Tuesday night on NIPSCO’s proposed 20% rate increase, which would drive up residential customers’ monthly bills by around $45 per month.

For about 90 minutes, the IURC heard testimony about struggling to pay electric bills during the field hearing at Ivy Tech Community College in Valparaiso.

Additional field hearings will be held on Dec. 5, beginning at 12:30 p.m. at Hammond City Hall and 5 p.m. at the Carter G. Woodson Branch of the Gary Public Library, 501 S. Lake St.

On Dec. 19, the Indiana Office of the Utility Consumer Counselor plans to offer its recommendations on NIPSCO’s rate request.

Andy Anderson, superintendent of Tri-Creek School Corp., said the district is struggling financially because of a failed referendum, having to cut 30 positions as well as reducing programs. The district is losing teachers to other school districts that can pay $5,000 to $10,000 a year more. A large increase in electric bills will only make matters worse, he said.

The district has installed LED lighting and taken other energy-saving measures, but utility bills continue to increase, he said. The proposed rate increase would cost the district an additional $160,000 per year.

“We don’t have the luxury to just hold a couple of hearings and leave it to a board to decide the outcome on behalf of the entire southern third of Lake County,” Anderson said.

“America is struggling. A rate increase of 20% to 25% is flat-out unacceptable,” he said. “Please say no to the proposed NIPSCO increase. Send the message to do as the rest of us have had to do in figuring it out, of how to continue to do more with less. The problem with schools and taxpayers, though, is that we’ve already had to do more with less, and now we are at a breaking point.”

Jeff Brooks, superintendent of the Metropolitan School District of Boone Township in Hebron, said after his district’s voters passed a referendum in 2021, the school board worked on a comprehensive eight-year financial plan so another referendum might not be needed in 2029. “One of our specific strategies was to target our energy expenses,” he said.

“Between 2021 and now, the latter part of 2024, we’ve made some significant strides toward our goal of becoming more energy efficient,” Brooks said.

“Every single light bulb in our district, both inside and out, has been replaced with energy-efficient LEDs. We have installed a solar panel array on the roof of Hebron Elementary School which was energized in January of this year. We are also finishing off a much larger solar and building automation project under a guaranteed energy savings contract with the hopes of getting closer to our financial goal of 2029.”

Despite these substantial energy-saving measures, “our electricity costs have continued to skyrocket,” he said.

In 2021, the district paid NIPSCO $343,000 for electricity. In 2022, it was $367,000. In 2023, after full implementation of LED lighting, it was $398,000. Even after solar panels became operational in 2024, the district is on track to spend nearly $430,000 on electricity.

“This represents a staggering 23.5% increase, which equates to $87,000 since 2021,” Brooks said. “Energy consumption is one of our largest operational expenses, and as you’ve heard our school district has taken decisive action to reduce our usage.”

The proposed increase would add another $100,000 a year to the district’s operating budget, he said, limiting the district’s ability to meet students’ needs.

Stacey Schmidt, superintendent at Porter Township School Corp., offered a similar refrain. The district’s buildings have solar arrays on their roofs, and every light bulb is LED. In addition, lights go off when a room isn’t in use. The HVAC systems have been updated, too.

“We are taking great measures to be able to reduce our energy consumption in an effort to be good consumers, to be good stewards of the dollars entrusted to us as we educate our students,” she said.

Despite these measures, the district is paying an additional 24.5% for portions of the building not covered by solar arrays. That’s not taking into account NIPSCO’s proposed increase.

Ryan Rust, a Hebron resident, was armed with figures from his family farm’s NIPSCO bills over the years.

In November 2016, the farm was charged 14.93 cents per kilowatt hour. In November 2019, it was 14.26 cents. This month, it was 20.52 cents – a 43.9% increase over the last five years, he said.

That’s $751.20 more per year. In the same time period, the median household income in Indiana rose by $709.17. Rent and mortgage costs have risen, too, although at a rate less than the cost of electricity, Rust said.

Martha Rae said she operates a small business that provides developmental services to Indiana’s youngest children. Her business operates on a razor-thin margin, and this proposed increase could put her out of business, she said.

Already, 20% of her colleagues have left the field because of the rising costs of doing business, she said.

“When I need to invest in my business, I figure it out internally,” she said. “I don’t pass along these costs to my customers.”

“Indiana loses $4.2 billion of economic revenue due to the lack of service capacity within fields such as mine,” Rae said. “This rate increase will further disrupt this part of Indiana’s vital education” sector.

Mike Alonzo, a retiree and a landlord, said he has had to deal with inflation, property tax increases and higher property values. “It just seems like you’re piling on with the rest of them,” he said.

Michigan City Council President Don Przybylinski noted that 21% of his city’s residents are at or below the poverty line. The median household income in Michigan City is $51,000, compared to $76,000 statewide. The Salvation Army packs 500 backpacks a week to feed schoolchildren.

City employees got a bonus this year but not a raise because the city couldn’t afford raises, he said.

He doesn’t want NIPSCO to make a profit on the backs of municipalities, schools, local businesses, nonprofits and low-income residents, he said.

Electrical engineer Jacqueline Hanlon said NIPSCO’s proposed electric rate increase “will be harmful to our community at large.” The elderly and disabled “often do not have the luxury of just picking themselves up by the bootstraps and choosing to increase their income,” she said.

“Small businesses, in many ways, are backbones of our communities and are disproportionately affected by these sorts of rate increases relative to the larger entities,” Hanlon said. The proposed rate increases would drive up the cost of prices for consumer goods across the area, she said.

“It does not make sense that Hoosier households who obviously have less financial resources than large entities are for some reason being asked to shoulder a higher percentage of the cost of business these large industrial and commercial customers are shouldering,” Hanlon said. “This tends to exacerbate issues of wealth inequality and adds weight to keep working people down. While 42% of Hoosiers are struggling to afford basic necessities, they are being attacked time and time again by these rate increases.”

Rev. Michael Cooper of Portage took NIPSCO to task over fees for late payments and support for low-income customers. Setting aside $100,000 to help low-income customers isn’t enough, he said. In addition, customers need energy throughout the year, not just in winter when energy assistance programs kick in.

Several residents, including Wendy Reigel of Chesterton, complained about data centers that would create significant additional demand for electricity. “Please start making the richest companies in the world pay for their own things,” she said. “You’re asking us to pay for our own things; I ask the IURC to make the hyperscale data center industry pay for theirs.”

In a statement Monday night, NIPSCO said NIPSCO’s new electric rates aren’t related to data centers’ interest in locating in Northwest Indiana.

“Based on NIPSCO’s proposal, an average residential electric customer, as a result of this case, would see an overall increase of approximately $32 per month, or approximately 22% above projected bills at the time of implementation,” the statement said.

Increased would be phased in, on Sept. 1, 2025, and March 2026.

The utility’s request would cover electric transmission and distribution system upgrades as well as its move from coal to renewable energy. “A significant component of customer bills today is associated with the cost of purchasing coal to operate our coal-fired electric-generating facilities – estimated at $126 million annually,” the statement said. “As those remaining facilities are retired between 2026 and 2028, those costs will be eliminated.”

“We understand that any rate increase is significant to customers, and it is our goal to work with customers to identify bill payment assistance solutions. NIPSCO offers a variety of options for customers who are having difficulty paying their bills, including low-income programs along with budget and payment plans,” the statement said.

In addition to next week’s field hearings, the public can offer comments until Dec. 12 at www.in.gov/oucc/2361.htm or by mail at Public Comments, Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, 115 W. Washington St. Suite 1500 South, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

Don’t include sensitive or personal information because the comments will be public online. Refer to either IURC Cause No. 46120 or NIPSCO Electric Rates. Include your name, city and ZIP code.

Doug Ross is a freelance reporter for the Post-Tribune.