State nixes NIPSCO hub plea

State regulators have slammed the door shut for a second time on NIPSCO's proposal to close five service hubs in northern Indiana.

In an order issued this week, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission rejected the utility's bid to reopen the case. On Aug. 10, the IURC issued its "final order" requiring the utility to keep all 12 of its service hubs open and fully staffed.

"It shows our argument was flawless and beyond a shadow of a doubt," said David Chlebek, legislative committee chairman for USW Local 12775. "Along with all the coalition partners, we were able to show this was a matter of public health and safety."

NIPSCO is "disappointed" with this week's IURC ruling and reviewing its options, according to Tom Cuddy, a NIPSCO spokesman. The utility has the option of appealing to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

The IURC also said it could not consider a settlement between NIPSCO and the city of Crown Point, which would have allowed the downsizing of NIPSCO's presence there. That settlement was submitted after the IURC's Aug. 10 final order.

The controversy dates to March 2002, when the LaPorte County Board of Commissioners and the City of Michigan City obtained an emergency order requiring NIPSCO to keep its service hub in LaPorte open.

At the time, NIPSCO had planned to close maintenance hubs in LaPorte, Hammond, Crown Point, Plymouth and LaGrange and consolidate their operations with NIPSCO hubs in Gary, Valparaiso, Angola and Goshen.

Communities across Northwest Indiana joined with the USW to fight the proposal. The USW represents hundreds of NIPSCO workers who could have lost jobs if the hubs were consolidated.

During the three-year controversy, NIPSCO arrived at agreements with Michigan City, LaPorte and Plymouth that would allow the downsizing of service hubs in LaPorte and Plymouth. The IURC's Aug. 10 order said NIPSCO could proceed with those plans.

But it ordered that service hubs in Crown Point and Hammond remain open and fully staffed as they were before March 15, 2002.

In its order this week, the commission said it didn't buy NIPSCO's arguments, made in the appeal, that the original complaints were "union driven." It said the charge that the union was behind it was new and not found anywhere in the record of the proceeding.