Substation structure and exterior equipment at a Duke Energy substation in North Carolina is pictured. The utility plans to build a new substation near Whiteland Road and State Road 135 in Johnson County.
Photo provided by Duke Energy
A Greenwood property owner’s bid to stop their land from being taken for a Duke Energy substation was rejected by Indiana utility regulators, with the eminent domain case proceeding in a local court.
The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission dismissed the case filed by “Johnson County Concerned Citizens” opposing Duke Energy Indiana’s efforts to use eminent domain to build a new power substation on an 8.82-acre site on Whiteland Road near State Road 135. The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot come before the commission again.
The parcel of land in question is owned by Whetstone Branch LLC and the company does not want the substation to be built on the property. The site is part of a roughly 117-acre parcel that Whetstone Branch was planning to develop for commercial, residential or mixed-use developments.
Whetstone Branch formally filed a complaint with the IURC about the Duke Energy’s plans on Aug. 31, a few days after Manager Michael Stout first told the Daily Journal about his opposition to them. Stout and Whetstone Branch believe the location is unsuitable. They believe the substation would conflict with land use plans and how it would be near “substantial” residential and commercial development.
Stout was also concerned about safety, saying he believed it was unsafe to put the substation near housing developments. Several housing projects are either already existing, being built or planned to be near the substation site.
In August, Stout circulated a letter detailing Whetstone Branch’s opposition. Dozens of residents signed the letter and the complaint to express their concern and opposition.
State regulators took issue with the arguments presented by residents, saying it was an attempt to circumvent the state’s condemnation procedures. The IURC has no “subject matter jurisdiction” to do so, their Jan. 31 dismissal order says.
Duke Energy denied the allegations made by Concerned Citizens and made the initial motion to dismiss the case. In August, a utility spokesperson told the Daily Journal the new substation was needed because of increasing demand on the electrical grid. The new substation was expected to increase the reliability of electrical service in the area.
Before choosing the site, the utility engaged in “extensive siting studies and engineering” to determine the appropriate location based on several considerations, said McKenzie Barbknecht, a Duke Energy spokesperson. Those studies determined that the substation should be placed near the intersection of either State Road 135 and Smokey Row Road or State Road 135 and Whiteland Road to improve service, she said.
Duke Energy officials do not believe the substation could be a safety risk. The utility’s substations are set back at a safe distance from the road and are surrounded by security fencing, Barbknecht said.
She also said that as plans for the project advanced, Duke Energy would “continue to keep an open dialogue with the community and reach out to neighbors to keep them informed.” Residents with questions are encouraged to reach out by calling 800-820-9362 or by emailing [email protected].
Stout said he disagrees with the IURC’s decision, specifically how the commission said they do not have jurisdiction on the matter.
“You go, ‘Wait a minute. What do you mean you have no jurisdiction? Who regulates the utility? Nobody?’” Stout said. “As a matter of law, we think they’re completely wrong.”
Concerned Citizens is not appealing the decision, however, as it would get sent back to the same entity that says it doesn’t have jurisdiction, he said.
“Why would I do that fool’s errand?” Stout said.
Now the only case left is the condemnation of the land that is going through a local civil court. Stout is disappointed that there appears to be no process for someone to argue about site suitability and that the IURC appeared not to want to rule on the issue presented by 105 residents, including some Duke Energy customers, he said.
“They punted. They spent 10 pages punting, but they punted,” Stout said. “Their central message was not our jurisdiction.”
