NIPSCO Electric Rates in Northern Indiana

I have eight years of actual billing records from my NIPSCO account — 102 consecutive monthly reads. My effective cost per kilowatt-hour, calculated directly from those bills, increased from approximately 13.9 cents in 2018 to 22.7 cents in 2026.

The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission's own 2025 Electricity Residential Bill Survey — a primary government document — provides independent corroboration. NIPSCO ranked last among all nine Indiana jurisdictional utilities at $233.62 per 1,000 kWh as of July 1, 2025. The IOU average across all five investor-owned Indiana utilities was $187.00. NIPSCO's bill was 24.9% above that average.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration has separately reported that NIPSCO had the second-highest residential customer rate among all electric utilities reporting data nationally. This is not a regional affordability problem. It is a NIPSCO-specific problem.

In July 2025, the IURC approved a new NIPSCO electric rate increase phased in through Q1 2026. The settlement authorized an increase of approximately $23/month for the average residential customer using 672 kWh/month — a 16.75% increase. NIPSCO's original request had been $32/month.

The Citizens Action Coalition opposed the settlement. Their analysis found that an average residential customer using 729 kWh/month saw monthly bills rise from $136.53 in September 2024 to $171.27 by March 2026 — a 25.45% increase in 18 months. The settlement also eliminated a Low-Income Multi-Family Rate that NIPSCO had originally proposed and CAC had supported. Large commercial and industrial customers received proportionally smaller increases than residential customers.

The rate is rising faster than I can reduce consumption.

Indiana's electric market is fully regulated. NIPSCO holds a state-sanctioned monopoly in northern Indiana. Residential customers in Dyer, Highland, Hammond, and surrounding communities have no ability to choose an alternative electric provider. The IURC is the sole institutional check on NIPSCO's pricing — which makes the integrity of that commission a matter of direct material consequence to every ratepayer it serves.

Commissioner David Ziegner has served on the IURC since 1990 — 36 years — receiving continuous reappointments from governors of both parties. During his entire tenure, the commission has approved every NIPSCO rate increase brought before it. Commissioner Ziegner serves on the Board of Directors of NARUC — the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners — an organization that includes active engagement from the same investor-owned utilities its member commissioners regulate. Scholars and practitioners of utility regulation commonly refer to the institutional risk that arises when a regulator's professional identity and career become intertwined with the regulated industry over decades as 'regulatory capture.' Whether that characterization applies here is a judgment I leave to others. What is not a matter of interpretation is the 36-year tenure, the NARUC board seat, and the 91.71% rate increase that occurred on this commission's watch.

Commissioner Anthony Swinger brings a different institutional background: 25 years at the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, the state agency that advocates for ratepayers in commission proceedings. His appointment is meaningful. At the March 2026 IURC affordability hearings, Commissioner Swinger pressed NIPSCO directly on its consumer complaint volume, documenting that more than half of all statewide IURC consumer affairs complaints were about NIPSCO alone — and that year-to-date complaint volume had already matched all 12 months of 2025. That is the kind of adversarial scrutiny ratepayers need from this body.

To Chair Zay and the full commission: the February 2026 affordability investigation was a necessary step. The question now is what the investigation produces. Indiana ratepayers need to see specific, enforceable outcomes — not findings that NIPSCO is invited to address on its own timeline.

The following are documented facts drawn from FEC filings, NiSource's own public disclosures, and Indiana campaign finance records. I am placing them in this letter because they are relevant to a full understanding of the regulatory environment that produced the rate outcomes described above. I am not asserting that any contribution influenced any decision. I am asserting that the public has a right to know these relationships exist.

The governor of Indiana appoints all five IURC commissioners. NiSource contributed to both governors associations in 2024. Note: PAC contributions are employee-funded; governors association contributions are corporate funds — a distinction worth drawing clearly.

Indiana has no statutory limits on PAC contributions to state legislative candidates. This is a matter of law, not a claim against any individual.

In June 2023, NiSource sold a 19.9% equity stake in NIPSCO Holdings II to Blackstone Infrastructure Partners for $2.15 billion. Following this transaction, the IURC approved a declination petition for NiSource's newly created NIPSCO Generation LLC (GenCo) in September 2025. That approval exempted GenCo from the standard requirement to file a detailed plan before building or acquiring new generation facilities — the Public Convenience and Necessity process that applies to the regulated utility.

GenCo is designed to build and own power plants serving Amazon and other data center customers in northern Indiana. The Citizens Action Coalition and the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor both filed notices of intent to appeal the GenCo approval. CAC Executive Director Kerwin Olson has stated publicly that if GenCo were to lose money, those losses could affect NiSource's credit rating and, in turn, impact NIPSCO's residential customers — and that some infrastructure costs could still reach residential ratepayers through the opaque process created for GenCo. This is not speculation. It is the documented concern of the state's own ratepayer advocacy office.

This assessment came from the financial industry — from analysts whose job is to evaluate risk to NiSource shareholders. Their characterization of those commissioners as favorable to investor interests, and their departure as bad for NiSource, is relevant context for evaluating the commission's historical posture toward rate cases.