The $50,000 "Political Stunt": Fact-Checking Connie Gramarossa's NIPSCO Mailer

As LaPorte County residents continue to open utility bills that force many seniors to choose between heating their homes and buying groceries, Commissioner Connie Gramarossa is spending campaign funds to send out mailers bragging about her "victory" over NIPSCO.

The mailer claims that "while every other political body in Northwest Indiana stayed silent," Gramarossa "stepped up" and "delivered results" by securing a settlement that avoided the full requested rate increases.

It is a compelling narrative for an election year. Unfortunately, the official timeline of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) and the public record tell a very different story — one of a late-to-the-party political stunt that wasted at least $50,000 of taxpayer money on a crony attorney, while delivering zero additional savings to ratepayers.

What the Mailer Actually Claims

The Real Timeline: Who Was Actually Fighting NIPSCO?

Gramarossa's central claim is that she led the charge while others stayed silent. The official IURC docket for Cause Number 46120 proves this is demonstrably false.^[1]

NIPSCO filed its request for a massive electric rate hike on September 12, 2024.^[1:1] Almost immediately, the state's Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC) — the agency statutorily required to represent all Indiana ratepayers at no extra cost to taxpayers — began its work.^[2]

Simultaneously, the Citizens Action Coalition (CAC), Indiana's oldest consumer advocacy organization, launched a massive public campaign against the hike. The CAC held its first town hall meeting to organize opposition on October 22, 2024 — a full seven weeks before LaPorte County took any action.^[3] They held another town hall in Hebron on November 18, and were actively organizing residents to speak out at public field hearings in Valparaiso, Hammond, and Gary throughout late November and early December.^[3:1]

The table below illustrates just how late LaPorte County arrived to a fight already well underway:

Where was LaPorte County during the crucial months of September, October, and November when the case was being built? Silent.

It was not until December 9, 2024 — nearly three months after NIPSCO filed its case, and just ten days before the December 19 deadline for intervenor testimony — that Gramarossa and the Board of Commissioners finally acted.^[4] Their action was not to join the existing, free coalition of advocates already fighting the hike. Instead, in a 2-1 vote, they chose to hire local attorney Shaw Friedman to "intervene" on the county's behalf.^[4:1]

A "Waste of Taxpayer Money"

The decision to hire Friedman was immediately controversial. County Auditor Tim Stabosz publicly objected, calling Friedman's pitch an "aggressive 'sales job'" and a "heavy-handed effort to 'create work' for himself."^[5] Stabosz noted that Friedman's engagement letter conveniently referenced reviewing "thousands of pages of spreadsheets" at $175 an hour, and recommended the board solicit competitive bids from other attorneys before making any decision.^[5:1]

Commissioner Joe Haney, who cast the lone dissenting vote against hiring Friedman, was even more direct. He correctly pointed out that agencies like the OUCC and the CAC were already fighting for residents without charging the county additional fees.^[6]

"The La Porte County Board of Commissioners wasted roughly $50,000 of taxpayer money in a political stunt to appear 'tough' on NIPSCO. No other Indiana municipality hired a law firm to fight the rate increase... In the end, La Porte County taxpayers are left with a $50,000 bill for a failed public relations ploy."

— Commissioner Joe Haney, February 20, 2025^[6:1]

While Gramarossa publicly cites the cost at $50,000, other county officials have alleged the final bill for Friedman's services ballooned to approximately $100,000 — well above the amount the board originally approved. Regardless of the final tally, the question remains: what did taxpayers actually get for their money?

The "Settlement" Spin

Gramarossa's mailer claims she "delivered results" by securing a settlement that avoided the full requested increases, "saving the average family an estimated $1,200–$1,600 a year." This is perhaps the most misleading claim of all.

The settlement that reduced NIPSCO's requested revenue increase from $368.7 million to $257 million was negotiated between NIPSCO and the state's OUCC — not LaPorte County.^[2:1] The OUCC's team of expert witnesses and attorneys spent months building the case that ultimately produced those savings for ratepayers across all of Northern Indiana, at no additional cost to any county government.

In fact, Gramarossa herself publicly admitted she was unhappy with the deal. At the February 19, 2025, Board of Commissioners meeting, she read a statement expressing her "disappointment" with the settlement, noting it still provided NIPSCO with a 15 percent residential rate increase.^[7]

So what did Shaw Friedman's $50,000+ intervention actually achieve? According to the agreement, LaPorte County agreed not to oppose the OUCC's settlement in exchange for NIPSCO promising to "study" the potential conversion of the Michigan City Generating Station and pledging $5 million for local economic development.^[7:1] As Commissioner Haney pointed out, these "concessions" were hollow gestures that NIPSCO would likely have pursued regardless to secure large commercial customers in the county.^[6:2]

The Bottom Line

When you receive a campaign mailer bragging about fighting utility companies, it pays to check the receipts.

The timeline is undeniable. The CAC and the state OUCC were deep in the fight against NIPSCO for months before LaPorte County got involved. When Gramarossa finally acted, it was to spend tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on a politically connected attorney just days before the filing deadline. The result was a rate hike that still forces seniors to choose between heat and food, and a "settlement" that Gramarossa herself admitted was disappointing.

Celebrating that a massive rate hike "could have been worse" is out of touch. Spending $50,000 — or more — of taxpayer money to take credit for it is unacceptable.

References