Indiana
Indiana Supreme Court case mulls whether counties can strip health insurance from elected officials • Indiana Capital Chronicle
Are elected officials entitled to health insurance regardless of the number of hours they work?
That question is before the Indiana Supreme Court, who heard arguments in a Perry County case Thursday that could have statewide implications for local officials.
The case began after the Perry County commissioners discontinued health insurance coverage for certain part-time county employees in June 2023. A Perry County councilman, Keith Huck, sued and sought an injunction to keep his insurance. He works about nine hours a month, according to evidence in the case.
A local judge granted Huck’s injunction, but the Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed. The appeal to the Indiana Supreme court is interlocutory, meaning it is occurring while the case is ongoing.
“This court should declare that local unit elected officials who work less than 30 hours a week should be part-time employees for purposes of group health benefits,” said attorney Maggie Smith, representing Perry County.
“Exempting all local unit elected officials from being considered part-time employees will have such a drastic fiscal impact on the public’s fisc that such an exemption should be the result of a public policy decision of the Legislature, and that has not happened yet,” she added.
Need to get in touch?
Have a news tip?
She argued that state law gives local units the right to not offer health insurance to part-time employees and that’s what Perry County did when facing a fiscal crisis.
The decision impacted 12 of the 21 local elected officials they deemed part-time, including the Perry County commissioners who made the decision.
Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta Rush pointed out that state law says elected county officials are not required to report hours and can’t determine or change compensation based on the number of hours worked. She asked if insurance is part of compensation.
Smith said it isn’t part of compensation at the county level and said counties are allowed to exempt part-time employees from health care benefits. She also acknowledged confusion between statutes.
“I agree with you that these statutes, as is sometimes the case, are not the pillar of clarity, but the answer to that in this case is precisely why this court should not create rights that have such a significant financial impact,” she said.
Justice Geoffrey Slaughter said county council members on the same board could work different hours and therefore one could be eligible for insurance and the other not. Supreme Court Justice Mark Massa also noted there are elected county prosecutors in smaller communities that might not meet 30 hours a week.
Attorney Robert Burkart, representing Huck, said a county can choose not to offer insurance at all, but if they do, then elected officials have a right to participate.
Slaughter questioned that contention: “Essential to your argument is that the county cannot treat elected officials as part-time employees. But where does it say that?”
Burkart said justices must look at a progression of statutes from 1957 to 1990 and to a non-binding attorney general opinion from 1978.
“Basically, the General Assembly giveth and only the General Assembly can taketh away from elected officials if the insurance is offered,” he said.
The court also has to consider whether Huck losing county-paid insurance counts as irreparable harm that would require an injunction. Smith said Huck could have gone on COBRA insurance or bought a plan on the marketplace.
But Burkart said the plans would have different levels of protection and there would be continuity of care issues.
But Slaughter said Huck can receive damages at the end of the case if he wins to cover his losses.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Gov. Mike Braun asked state regulators to reconsider their decision to greenlight a $71 million rate increase for AES Indiana, doubling down on his condemnation of a move that could leave Indianapolis residents with higher electrical bills for years.
Braun wrote in a June 18 news release that he had asked Indiana Utility Counselor Abby Gray, who heads the office representing ratepayers in proceedings before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, to petition for a rehearing of the AES rate case.
Gray indicated in the release that her office would submit the petition shortly. No petition had been posted on the IURC’s online docket as of this story’s publication.
The rate increase, which was approved by the IURC on June 17, was substantially less than the $192 million increase that AES initially requested. It was also less than the amount proposed in a settlement last October between AES and major electricity consumers.
But the Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, which Gray leads, came out strongly against any increase to AES’s base rates. In September, the OUCC called for a $21 million reduction instead.
As the Republican Party grapples with rising discontent over affordability, Braun has used opposition to rising utility rates to telegraph that he’s committed to keeping costs down for Indiana residents. He signed a law in February that allows the state to make rate-setting decisions that reward or penalize utilities based on metrics including affordability.
In March, he told reporters that he would take on Indiana’s five investor-owned utilities, describing himself as the “new sheriff in town.”
And after the IURC voted 3-1 to approve the AES rate increase, he wrote in a post to X that he was “deeply disappointed.”
Braun wrote in the June 18 news release that he had appointed Gray, a longtime OUCC lawyer and judge, to her current post because he knew she “would help me fight for Hoosiers.”
According to AES’s estimates, the rate increase will cost households an additional $5 per month for every 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity they use, beginning in July. A second hike will take effect in January.
Tilly Robinson is a Pulliam fellow for the Indianapolis Star. She can be reached at tilly.robinson@indystar.com.
The Protect College Sports Act, legislation meant to introduce and codify sweeping reforms related to college athletics, passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday morning.
It now heads to the Senate floor.
The bill passed out of committee by a 19-9 vote. Indiana Republican Sen. Todd Young voted no, his decision reflecting Big Ten concerns over the bill.
A spokesman for Sen. Young told IndyStar, “Senator Young hopes that additional changes can be made to the bill to address concerns raised by the Big Ten.”
Co-sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), the Protect College Sports Act represents Congress’ most substantial success so far in a yearslong effort to bring legislative reform to college athletics. Since before the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders in college sports — including the NCAA, member conferences and schools, and other major players — have lobbied for national solutions to what have become state and regional problems.
Several pieces of legislation have been introduced across the last several years, only to fizzle long before reaching the floor of either chamber. The SCORE Act, introduced last year in the House of Representatives, gained some traction and passed out of committee, but was never brought to the floor.
Which makes Thursday’s news meaningful. Moving the Protect College Sports Act to the Senate floor, while not a guarantee of any outcome, potentially takes the bill past a threshold no other such piece of reformative legislation has yet been able to cross.
Cruz told Yahoo! Sports’ Ross Dellenger on Thursday that Cruz believes Sen. Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is committed to introducing the bill to the Senate floor soon.
The bill provides a legal framework for a host of potential reforms and protections for college sports. It grants limited antitrust protection to the NCAA, places limits on certain things including potential conference realignment, builds safeguards meant to protect non-revenue and Olympic sports, addresses potential broadcast rights reforms, and more.
It enjoys significant backing, and not just among leaders in college sports. This week, the NFL, its players’ association, the National Basketball Players Association and Major League Baseball all voiced their support for the bill.
Two key constituencies not in lockstep on the bill voiced their own concerns Thursday.
In a joint statement issued just after 10 a.m. Thursday, the Big Ten and SEC — far and away the two most powerful conferences and arguably two greatest power centers, full stop, in college athletics — suggested they still hold significant reservations over the bill.
“From the outset, we identified a set of essential revisions to the PCSA necessary for the long-term sustainability of college athletics,” the statement read. “We have worked with both majority and minority staff to advance those revisions, which focus on better supporting student-athletes and stabilizing the college sports environment. We continue to believe revisions are needed to secure our support for the bill.
“Despite our sustained engagement and good faith efforts, these critical revisions have not been accepted.”
The statement went on to note the “several Commerce Committee members that share our concerns and support these recommendations.”
Young is one of several members of the committee representing a Big Ten state, including one of three Republicans. He is the only Republican member of the committee whose state contains multiple schools in the conference.
Allowing for those reservations, Thursday’s news is still significant. It marks the first time a bipartisan bill on the subject has reached this point in the Senate and, should it be brought to the floor, it would be the first such legislation to reach that stage, in either chamber.
The bill could be brought to the Senate floor as early as July, though that timeline remains fluid.
(INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE) – The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission voted 3-1 Wednesday to approve a $71 million electricity rate increase for AES Indiana customers.
That is about 37% of what the utility initially requested and lower than a settlement agreement proposed in October.
Neither Gov. Mike Braun nor consumer advocates are happy with the outcome.
“My top priority is affordability, which is why I am deeply disappointed by the IURC’s approval of another AES rate increase,” he said. “Hoosiers have spent years tightening their belts and making tough financial decisions. It’s time for utility companies to do the same.”
Members of the commission didn’t explain their votes Wednesday. IURC Chair Andy Zay focused his remarks on the process.
“There’s a lot of eyes on this order and what we’re doing today,” he said. “What is before you on the floor is a nearly a year’s worth of work, evidence, deliberations, and considerations that bring us to this moment in this decision. None of this was taken lightly. I want to thank my colleagues for the patience and working through this amongst the auspice of affordability, which is certainly a hot topic now, as well as the resiliency, reliability that we see in this increased demand in electricity.”
The Office of Utility Consumer Counselor last year recommended that state regulators deny AES Indiana’s request for a $193 million base rate increase — instead proposing a $21 million reduction in current rates.
“The AES rate order issued today is an outrage and Hoosiers deserve better!” Counselor Abby Gray said in a statement Wednesday. “Governor Braun has made it clear that ratepayer affordability is a priority, far more than just a ‘hot topic’ as described by the chairman of the IURC today. This order fails the governor’s call to overhaul how utilities are regulated in order to lower bills for ratepayers.”
Gray’s office represents Hoosier ratepayers in regulatory cases.
“The order approves a substantial profit margin for shareholders in addition to a rate increase for customers,” she continued. “It even requires ratepayers to pay approximately $3 million to AES lawyers and experts.”
AES Indiana provides electricity service to about 490,000 homes and businesses in Indianapolis and some nearby areas.
The utility originally sought $193 million in rate increases. The previously proposed settlement agreement dropped that to $91 million, while the final, approved settlement agreement lands at $71 million.
Three IURC members supported the increase: Zay, David Veleta and David Ziegner.
Commissioner Bob Deig voted no. A fifth member, Anthony Swinger, recused himself because he worked on the case previously when he was on the consumer counselor’s office staff.
Ben Inskeep, program director for ratepayer advocacy group Citizens Action Coalition, said utilities across the country often ask for a larger increase than they need, knowing that regulators will disallow “roughly half” of it.
“The latest AES Indiana fuel adjustment clause proceeding shows AES Indiana is actually not only earning all of their allowed profit but over-earning by $19 million their return amount,” he said. “They’re already extremely financially successful at this moment in time, so it’s rather bizarre to even get an extra $71 million dollars approved here.”
Inskeep also noted that the increases will fall disproportionately on residential customers over commercial and industrial users.
Brandi Davis-Handy, president of AES Indiana, said the company has maintained some of the lowest rates in the state for more than a decade “through disciplined planning and a focus on efficiency. We applied the same approach here by working closely with stakeholders to make balanced decisions that keep the system reliable, limit customer impact, and align with the state’s energy pillars.”
AES said for a typical residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month, the increase will be less than $5 per month per phase. Phase one rates will be implemented in July 2026 and phase two rates will be implemented in January 2027.
The final order says the utility “will not seek to implement a change in basic rates and charges as a result of its next base rate case before January 1, 2030.”
A new law, however, requires all utilities to file a multi-year rate case in 2029, though implementation wouldn’t happen until 2030.
-
California3 minutes agoCalifornia lawmakers seek $32M to combat invasive pest found on grapevines sold at Costco
-
Colorado10 minutes agoColorado’s Deion Sanders With Controversial Big 12 Coach Ranking
-
Connecticut13 minutes agoSierra Club Connecticut, State Representatives Host Black Lungs Matter: Juneteenth Press Event – CleanTechnica
-
Delaware18 minutes agoFrom blueprint to breakthrough: Tackling affordable housing in Wilmington
-
Florida25 minutes agoWeather Aware Day declared for Friday as heat and strong storms threaten Central Florida
-
Georgia28 minutes agoDHS appears to axe plan to construct immigration detention megacenter in small Georgia town
-
Hawaii33 minutes agoAmbassadors of aloha: Food events aim to boost tourism with unique Hawaii-made products
-
Idaho40 minutes agoIdaho State Police arrest Dillon Thorpe on rape, child enticement charges in Elmore County
