Duke Energy is facing criticism over its proposed rate hikes of up to 16%, while delaying the retirement of its coal-fired power plants in Indiana.

The energy company, which recorded a profit of $497 million in the state in 2023, is now seeking approval for the increase, citing rising operational costs.

Robyn Skuya-Boss, director of the Hoosier Chapter of the Sierra Club, questioned the necessity of the rate hike, especially given the company's recent profits.

"That is money that is coming out of customers' pockets," Skuya-Boss pointed out. "We are really questioning, why does Duke need a rate increase now?"

Duke Energy has defended its decision, explaining the rate increase is needed to maintain and upgrade its infrastructure, as well as cover the costs of transitioning to cleaner energy sources. The company has also pointed to inflation and other economic factors driving up operational expenses.

However, the delayed closure of the coal plants has sparked further criticism from environmentalists. Skuya-Boss argued keeping the plants operational contradicts Duke's pledges to reduce carbon emissions and transition to renewable energy.

"That's an expensive choice for them to be making for customers," Skuya-Boss emphasized. "Our contention is really to see Duke Energy make the decision this year to invest in that clean energy transition."

Regulators are reviewing the requested rate increase, with the outcome potentially affecting costs for thousands of Duke Energy customers in Indiana. Both sides are making their case to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, with ratepayers and advocacy groups urging the commission to carefully consider the financial implications before approving any increase.


get more stories like this via email

A bill introduced in Congress is facing backlash from nonprofit organizations, warning it could stifle free speech.

The Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act would postpone tax deadlines for citizens who are unlawfully detained abroad or held hostage but it would also give the federal government the power to remove the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit group it deems to be supporting "terrorist organizations."

Critics of the bill claimed it would give President-elect Donald Trump the power to make decisions about churches, universities, news outlets and more.

Lisa DePaoli, communications director at the Center for Coalfield Justice, said it could be used to stifle the environmental work they do in Pennsylvania.

"The main issue for us is that it could take away our nonprofit designation, and it could take away our First Amendment rights," DePaoli contended. "If stripped of our rights, it'll just make the fight to protect our communities that much harder."

Proponents said it would require the federal government to provide evidence a nonprofit has supported a listed terrorist organization. More than 130 religious, civil rights and other advocacy groups have joined the ACLU in asking lawmakers to vote against the bill.

According to the ACLU, there would be a 90-day period in which a nonprofit group could defend itself against the accusations. However, the federal government might not have to turn over the evidence it would be using to make its case.

DePaoli noted she has concerns environmental groups would be specifically targeted with such powers.

"We obviously don't consider ourselves a terrorist organization but I do know that, in the past, some environmental organizations have been labeled as such," DePaoli pointed out. "It feels like a really slippery slope to me. We don't want our First Amendment rights taken away. We want to be able to speak out and express if we're upset with something they're doing."

The bill passed the House last Thursday, in a vote of 219 in support and 184 against. Fifteen Democrats sided with all but one Republican to support the bill.


get more stories like this via email

Indiana environmental advocates are facing uncertainties following the election.

Changes in federal leadership could shift key environmental protections, creating questions for state policies on coal ash and water quality.

Sam Carpenter, executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council, noted federal regulations, like those from the Environmental Protection Agency, have helped Indiana manage environmental challenges, including addressing unlined coal ash pits contaminating groundwater. With shifting federal priorities, there is a question of what will happen to the protections.

"The EPA had recently come out with guidelines that require those to be cleaned up," Carpenter pointed out. "There are similar things with coal-fired power plants where we still rely quite a bit on our coal power generation which is dirty."

Carpenter argued the plants are costly and harmful to health and the climate. Supporters of reduced regulation argue scaling back federal oversight could ease economic pressures on Indiana's coal industry and reduce costs for energy providers.

Carpenter expressed concern over Indiana's legislative stance, emphasizing a need for strong regulations to protect the well-being of Hoosiers and natural resources in the state amid increased development.

"What we need to think about is protection of our health, protection of our water, of our natural assets," Carpenter emphasized. "In our statehouse there is a real concern about regulation. We rely on some protection for natural resources."

Despite the challenges, Carpenter urged residents to stay hopeful and engaged, stressing involvement is a powerful antidote to despair. He assured supporters the council would keep pushing for clean energy, water quality improvements and partnerships across political lines to secure a healthier environment.


get more stories like this via email

Hispanic families who fish to put food on the table are disproportionately affected by mercury, which accumulates in seafood in Southern California.

Surveys at 10 piers in Los Angeles and Orange counties found 60% of the anglers were Latino and native Spanish speakers, and 78% of them were fishing to feed their families.

Sofia Barboza, ocean manager for the Hispanic Access Foundation, said the families are exposed to toxins in fish from polluted waters.

"We found that Hispanic anglers in California are actually ingesting an average of 13.9 micrograms of mercury per day via fish consumption that they had caught in local waters," Barboza reported. "This is double the amount of mercury that has been determined as safe by the EPA."

Fish with high mercury levels have also been found in the Bay Area, the Central Coast near Humboldt and Deer Creek. A newly-released report from the foundation about Latinos in U.S. fisheries found 5% of Latinos in California, or about 785,000 people, work in the agricultural, forestry, fishing, hunting and mining sectors. But no research yet exists to determine how many Latinos are in commercial fishing.

Barboza suggested the warning signs about pollution at the piers, as well as government websites, should be translated into Spanish.

"Even though 28% of the California population speaks Spanish, the California Fish and Wildlife Department fishing regulations are not provided in Spanish on their website," Barboza pointed out. "Something we would like to see moving forward."

The report also recommends stronger oversight of commercial fishing companies hiring Hispanic migrant workers on H2B visas to ensure they receive fair wages, safe working conditions and access to safe housing.