Duke Energy Accused of Over-Collecting $90 Million from Customers

The Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor claims that the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission did not approve that extra revenue.

Source: SOPA Images / Getty

INDIANAPOLIS — Duke Energy Indiana is being accused of over-collecting $90 million from customers over the past year.

In a filing made earlier this month, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC) claimed that the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) did not approve of that extra revenue when it finalized the rate order in early 2025.

The filing also claims that both IURC Chairman Andy Zay and the Chief Administrative Law Judge in the case, Loraine L. Seyfried, made a mistake in allowing Duke Energy to collect that money.

In a separate filing made on May 27, Zay and Seyfried found that Duke Energy was in compliance with its rate order and that the OUCC’s arguments had no merit because “The Rate Order included footnotes indicating the amounts approved were subject to refinement.”

Ben Inskeep with the Citizens Action Coalition (CAC) told FOX 59 that refinements are meant to be significantly smaller changes and that they would never see a $90 million difference.

“Usually, we’re talking maybe small differences in the hundreds of thousands or low millions for a utility like Duke Energy Indiana that’s collecting more than a billion dollars from customers every year,” Inskeep said.

Both the CAC and the OUCC are appealing Chairman Zay’s findings. Inskeep said that the process could take several months.

“Duke Energy customers are in 69 out of 92 counties in Indiana,” said Inskeep. “There are hundreds of thousands of Duke Energy Indiana customers. These customers have been charged month on end now at rates that are higher than the commission authorized.”

Duke Energy Indiana made the following response:

“Based on the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s most recent bill survey, Duke Energy currently has the lowest residential rates for an average customer on our system. We followed the instructions in the commission’s order. Since that time, on three different occasions, the commission’s staff and most recently the commission’s presiding officers in the case, reviewed and approved how we implemented the commission’s decision.”

The IURC has not commented on the case.