STATE OF INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

VERIFIED PETITION OF PUBLIC ) SERVICE COMPANY LLC FOR APPROVAL PURSUANT TO ) IND. CODE §§ 8~1-2-42(a), 8-1-8.8-11, AND TO THE EXTENT ) NECESSARY IND. CODE § 8-1-2.5-6, OF A RENEWABLE ) CAUSE NO. 45196 ENERGY POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH ) ROAMING BISON WIND, LLC, INCLUDING TIMELY COST ) RECOVERY. )

INDIANA OFFICE OF UTILITY CONSUMER COUNSELOR PUBLIC'S EXHIBIT NO. 1

TESTIMONY OF OUCC WITNESS ANTHONY A.ALVAREZ

March 15, 2019

Respectfully submitted, Public’s Exhibit No.1 Cause No. 45196 Page 1 of 8

TESTIMONY OF OUCC WITNESS ANTHONY A. ALVAREZ CAUSE NO. 45196 NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY LLC.

I. INTRODUCTION

1 Q: Please state your name, business address, and employment capacity. 2 A: My name is Anthony A. Alvarez, and my business address is 115 West Washington

3 Street, Suite 1500 South, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. I am employed as a Utility

4 Analyst in the Electric Division of the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer

5 Counselor (“OUCC”). I describe my educational background and preparation for

6 this filing in Appendix A to my testimony.

7 Q: Have you previously testified before the Indiana Utility Regulatory 8 Commission (“Commission”)? 9 A: Yes. I have testified in a number of cases before the Commission, including electric

10 utility base rate cases; environmental and renewable energy PPA and tracker cases;

11 Transmission, Distribution, and Storage System Improvement Charge (“TDSIC”)

12 cases; and applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity

13 (“CPCN”).

14 Q: What is the purpose of your testimony? 15 A: My testimony addresses the request by Northern Indiana Public Service Company

16 LLC (“NIPSCO” or “Petitioner”) for approval of the Wind Energy Purchase

17 Agreement (“Wind PPA”) between NIPSCO and Roaming Bison Wind, LLC

18 (“Roaming Bison”) dated January 18, 2019. I review the Wind PPA contracted

19 price. I discuss the generator interconnection, system impact studies, engineering,

20 and technical issues related to this Cause. I recommend the Commission approve Public’s Exhibit No.1 Cause No. 45196 Page 2 of 8

1 NIPSCO’s proposed Wind PPA with certain conditions and reporting requirements

2 discussed in my testimony.

3 Q: Please briefly summarize the results of your review. 4 A: My review of NIPCO’s request concluded the following:

5 1. NIPSCO identified and included this wind project in its short-term action 6 plan because it was one of the bids in the RFP in the lowest-priced tranche. 7 The price NIPSCO contracted to pay for energy in the Wind PPA is in-line 8 with the current national average of wind PPA prices.

9 2. Roaming Bison filed its petition requesting that the Commission decline to 10 exercise jurisdiction and authority over the construction and operation of 11 the wind facility in Cause No. 45207.1 An order is expected in this Cause 12 prior to an order in Cause No. 45207.

13 3. The interconnection of the Roaming Bison Wind facility required MISO 14 upgrades and triggered network impacts in the PJM system (“PJM Affected 15 System”). MISO allocated Roaming Bison $16 million and PJM allocated 16 $9.6 million for a total $25.6 million of network upgrade costs.2 NIPSCO 17 indicated that Roaming Bison is responsible for these costs outside of the 18 PPA contract price.

19 4. Roaming Bison has not finalized the configuration and specification of the 20 wind turbines and MISO may hold it subject to its generator modification 21 process before it can proceed with interconnection. Interconnection is 22 integral to the Wind PPA between NIPSCO and Roaming Bison.

23 5. A regular report that shows the wind energy delivered on an hourly basis 24 with system-specific “on-peak” and “off-peak” hours included, and 25 curtailments indicated would help provide better understanding and long- 26 term knowledge gain of the wind energy production characteristics specific 27 to the Roaming Bison site. I recommend the Commission require NIPSCO 28 to provide the OUCC and Commission with an annual report (“Roaming 29 Bison Annual Wind Production Report”) for a period of five (5) years from

1 Cause No. 45207, Verified Petition, Roaming Bison, Request for Declination of IURC Jurisdiction dated February 28, 2019. 2 See MISO DPP 2107 Feb. Central Area Study Ph. III Final Report, p. 6. PJM performed a System Impact Study (“SIS”) then estimated and allocated the costs of Roaming Bison’s impact to the PJM system. Website: https://cdn.misoenergy.org/GI-DPP-2017-FEB-Central_SIS_Phase_III_FINAL_Report_v2293965.pdf. Accessed: 03/01/2019. Public’s Exhibit No.1 Cause No. 45196 Page 3 of 8

1 the date of Roaming Bison’s commercial operation, as discussed in more 2 detail later in my testimony.

3 Q: What did NIPSCO propose in this proceeding? 4 A: NIPSCO seeks approval of a long-term Wind PPA contract it entered with Roaming

5 Bison Wind Farm for 300 MW of expected installed capacity.3 Roaming Bison was

6 among the wind resources NIPSCO selected to include in its “preferred portfolio”

7 in its 2018 IRP.4 Roaming Bison has a concurrent petition requesting the

8 Commission decline to exercise jurisdiction and authority over the construction and

9 operation of the wind facility (Cause No. 45207). NIPSCO claims the planned

10 location of the Roaming Bison wind project is in the part of Indiana with

11 “advantageous meteorological and diversity conditions.”5

II. WIND PPA CONTRACTED PRICE

12 Q: Did you review the price NIPSCO contracted to pay for energy in the Wind 13 PPA? 14 A: Yes. I reviewed the Wind PPA contracted price, as well as the Request for Proposal

15 (“RFP”) bids and short-term action plan identified in NIPSCO’s 2018 Integrated

16 Resource Plan.

17 Q: Do you have concerns with the Wind PPA contracted price? 18 A: No, I do not. NIPSCO identified and included this wind project in its short-term

19 action plan because it was one of the bids in the RFP in the lowest-priced tranche.6

3 (Redacted) Petitioner’s Confidential Exhibit No. 2, Direct Testimony of Mr. Patrick N. Augustine, p. 4, Footnote #1: “Installed capacity or ICAP represents the nameplate capacity of a resource and the maximum amount of output that can be produced at any given time.” 4 Mr. Campbell, Direct 4, line 1; and p. 6, lines 9 - 13. See also Mr. Augustine, Direct at 3, lines 11 – 18. 5 Mr. Campbell, Direct at 7, lines 12 – 15. 6 Mr. Augustine, Direct at 12, lines 1-17. Public’s Exhibit No.1 Cause No. 45196 Page 4 of 8

1 The PPA price is in line with the current national average of wind PPA prices,

2 which is between $14 and $47 per MWh.7

III. OUCC ISSUES AND CONCERNS

3 Q: Do you have concerns you would like to bring to the Commission’s attention 4 regarding this proceeding? 5 A: Yes. I have several concerns regarding this proceeding. First, Roaming Bison has

6 yet to receive the Commission’s declination to exercise jurisdiction over the

7 Roaming Bison project in Cause No. 45207. Second, neither NIPSCO nor Roaming

8 Bison could confirm the final configuration and specification of the wind turbines,

9 which would more than likely change during the implementation stage of the

10 project. Specifically, Roaming Bison filed its generator interconnection request

11 with MISO using Siemens wind turbines but identified GE wind turbines in its

12 declination petition with the Commission, Cause No. 45207. Finally, based on this

13 change, Roaming Bison may need to make a generator modification request and

14 receive a “non-substantive” determination from MISO before it can proceed with

15 the interconnection. Interconnection is integral to the Wind PPA between NIPSCO

16 and Roaming Bison.

17 Q: Please explain why the Wind PPA should remain subject to the Commission’s 18 findings in Cause No. 45207. 19 A: Roaming Bison must receive authority and prior approval from the Commission

20 before constructing an electric generating facility. In concurrent Cause No. 45207,

7 See Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy, Version 2.0, p. 3, November 2018: Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison—Sensitivity to U.S. Federal Tax Subsidies. Website: https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf. Accessed 03/13/2019. Public’s Exhibit No.1 Cause No. 45196 Page 5 of 8

1 Roaming Bison is seeking such approval from the Commission. However, the

2 OUCC will file testimony in Cause No. 45207 on May 1, 2018. If Roaming Bison

3 is unable to receive a favorable order from the Commission (in Cause No. 45207),

4 then the project would not go forward regardless of the Commission’s approval of

5 the Wind PPA in this Cause No. 45196. Therefore, the request of approval of the

6 Wind PPA in this proceeding should remain subject to the Commission’s findings

7 in Cause No. 45207.

8 Q: Please discuss your concern regarding the interconnection costs associated 9 with Roaming Bison. 10 A: Petitioner’s witness Mr. Andrew S. Campbell, Direct at 11, Lines 9 – 15, testified

11 on the deliverability of the energy generated by Roaming Bison to the grid.8

12 However, Mr. Campbell did not elaborate on the interconnection costs related to

13 the network impacts, network upgrades and affected system associated with

14 Roaming Bison. Based on MISO’s cost allocation study, it allocated Roaming

15 Bison total network upgrade costs in excess of $25 million.9

16 Q: Please provide a brief description of the $25 million network upgrade costs 17 MISO allocated to Roaming Bison. 18 A: Although Roaming Bison would be in the MISO system, part of the MISO study

19 assessed the effect of the wind facility on other systems (i.e. PJM system). PJM

20 conducted a System Impact Study (“SIS”) of the effect of the facility on PJM,

21 estimated the costs to address the network impacts Roaming Bison triggered on the

22 PJM system (“PJM Affected System”), and allocated these costs to Roaming Bison.

23 Out of the total $25 million costs allocated to Roaming Bison, $15 million was for

8 (Redacted) Petitioner’s Confidential Exhibit No. 1, p. 11, lines 9 – 15. 9 See MISO DPP 2107 Feb. Central Area Study Ph. III Final Report, p. 6. Public’s Exhibit No.1 Cause No. 45196 Page 6 of 8

1 MISO associated network upgrades and $9.6 million was for PJM associated

2 network upgrades.10

3 Q: Is NIPSCO responsible for the $25 million network upgrade costs allocated to 4 Roaming Bison? 5 A: No. NIPSCO indicated it is not responsible for these costs outside of the Wind PPA

6 contract price.11

7 Q: Please discuss the changes in the wind turbines Roaming Bison plans to deploy. 8 A: As discussed earlier, Mr. Campbell identified the wind turbines to be Siemens wind

9 turbines, but Ms. Baker’s testimony in Cause 45207 identified it as GE wind

10 turbines.12,13 In additions, Confidential Attachment 1-B, Exhibit L of Mr.

11 Campbell’s testimony, further identified the four (4) different wind turbine vendors

12 for Roaming Bison; each with different wind turbine offerings. From an electrical

13 engineering perspective, there was inconsistency in the wind turbine information

14 these respective parties provided and depending on what wind turbines Roaming

15 Bison would eventually install, it may be subject to MISO generator modification

16 process.

17 Q: Did Roaming Bison make a generator modification request to MISO? 18 A: No, I am not aware of such request.

19 Q: Do you have concerns you would like to bring to the Commission’s attention 20 regarding how a Generator Modification Request to MISO may affect the 21 Wind PPA between NIPSCO and Roaming Bison? 22 A: Yes. If Roaming Bison issues a generator modification request for wind turbine

23 changes to MISO, and MISO does not return a “non-substantive modification”

10 Id. MISO DPP 2107 Feb. Central Area Study Ph. III Final Report, p. 6. 11 Public’s Attachment AAA-1. 12 (Redacted) Pet. Conf. Exh. No. 1, Confidential Attachment 1-B – Exhibit C, p. C-2 – One Line Diagram. 13See Cause No. 45207, Direct Testimony of Ms. Erin Baker, p. 6, lines 5 – 23. Public’s Exhibit No.1 Cause No. 45196 Page 7 of 8

1 determination, then MISO may not allow the interconnection to proceed.

2 Interconnection is integral to the Wind PPA between NIPSCO and Roaming Bison.

IV. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

3 Q: Does the OUCC recommend certain reporting requirements for the Wind 4 PPA? 5 A: Yes. To ensure that the wind project is progressing forward, the OUCC

6 recommends NIPSCO provide the OUCC and the Commission the information

7 NIPSCO receives from Roaming Bison under Article 4.1 (A) through (F) in the

8 Wind PPA. In addition, the OUCC recommends NIPSCO provide an annual report

9 showing the Roaming Bison Wind energy production (“Roaming Bison Annual

10 Wind Production Report”). A report that incorporates the attributes of wind energy

11 production specific to the Roaming Bison site with the characteristics of NIPSCO’s

12 system load would help provide long-term knowledge gain and better

13 understanding of the wind energy production in Indiana. This annual report shall

14 include the following details:

15 (1) The actual wind energy delivered on an hourly basis; with 16 (2) The corresponding NIPSCO Summer and Winter On-Peak and Off- 17 Peak delivery hours identified; and 18 (3) Any and all curtailments, including specific dates, times, and reason for 19 or cause of curtailment. 20 (4) Provide the data and information of the preceding year annually for a 21 period of five (5) years; with 22 (5) The initial period commencing at the Commercial Operation Date 23 (“COD”) of the wind farm. Public’s Exhibit No.1 Cause No. 45196 Page 8 of 8

1 Q: Do you expect these reporting requirements would be burdensome to the 2 utility? 3 A: No. NIPSCO would provide information it already receives from Roaming Bison.

4 In addition, the Roaming Bison Annual Wind Production Report simply aggregates

5 the data and information already available to NIPSCO into one comprehensive

6 report that will promote long-term knowledge and understanding of wind energy

7 here in Indiana.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

8 Q: What do you recommend in this case? 9 A: I recommend the Commission approve the Wind PPA in this Cause, subject to its

10 findings in Cause No. 45207, and with the reporting requirements discussed

11 previously in my testimony.

12 Q: Does this conclude your testimony? 13 A: Yes. AFFIRMATION

I affirm, under the penalties for pe1jury, that the foregoing representations are true. ~ - Utility Analyst II Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor

Cause No. 45196 NIPSCO and Roaming Bison Wind, LLC

Date Cause No. 45196 Page 1 of 2

APPENDIX A

I. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE

1 Q: Please describe your educational background and experience.

2 A: I hold an MBA from the University of the Philippines (“UP”), in Diliman, Quezon

3 City, Philippines. I also hold a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering from

4 the University of Santo Tomas (“UST”), in Manila, Philippines.

5 I joined the OUCC in July 2009, and have completed the regulatory studies

6 program at Michigan State University sponsored by the National Association of

7 Regulatory Utility Commissioners (“NARUC”). I have also participated in other

8 utility and renewable energy resources-related seminars, forums, and conferences.

9 Prior to joining the OUCC, I worked for the Manila Electric Company

10 (“MERALCO”) in the Philippines as a Senior Project Engineer responsible for

11 overall project and account management for large and medium industrial and

12 commercial customers. I evaluated electrical plans, designed overhead and

13 underground primary and secondary distribution lines and facilities, primary and

14 secondary line revamps, extensions and upgrades with voltages up to 34.5 kV. I

15 successfully completed the MERALCO Power Engineering Program, a two-year

16 program designed for engineers in the power and electrical utility industry.

17 Q: What did you do to prepare your testimony? 18 A: I reviewed the petition, direct testimony and attached exhibits filed by NIPSCO in

19 this Cause. I reviewed the Roaming Bison Wind Farm Power Purchase Agreement

20 (“Roaming Bison Wind PPA”) and Commission Orders in a number of wind farm Cause No. 45196 Page 2 of 2

1 related dockets relevant to this proceeding including those in Cause Nos. 43068,

2 43097, 43259, 43328, 43338, 43393, 43484, 43602, 44018, 43678, and 44978.14 I

3 participated in meetings and discussions with OUCC staff and case team related to

4 issues identified in this Cause.

14 IURC Final Order in Cause No. 43068 dated December 6, 2006, which addressed the declination of jurisdiction for the Benton County Wind Farm. IURC Final Order in Cause No. 43097 dated December 6, 2006, which addressed the PPA between Duke and the Benton County Wind Farm. IURC Final Order Cause No. 43259 dated December 5, 2007, which addressed the PPA between and the Benton County Wind Farm. IURC Final Order Cause No. 43328 dated November 28, 2007, which addressed the PPA between and Indiana & Michigan Power Company. IURC Final Order Cause No. 43338 dated November 20, 2007, which addressed the declination of jurisdiction for the Fowler Ridge Wind Farm. IURC Final Order in Cause No. 43393 dated July 24, 2008, which addressed the PPAs NIPSCO with Buffalo Ridge I LLC and Barton Windpower LLC. IURC Final Order Cause No. 43484 dated October 1, 2008, which addressed declination of jurisdiction for the Hoosier Wind Project. IURC Final Order Cause No. 43602 dated February 18, 2009, which addressed declination of jurisdiction for the LLC project, Phase I. IURC Cause No. 44018 dated March 7, 2012, which addressed Indianapolis Power and Light's Renewable Energy Production (Rate REP). IURC Final Order Cause No. 43678 dated August 19, 2009, which addressed declination of jurisdiction for the Meadow Lake Wind Farm LLC project, Phase II. IURC Final Order in Cause No. 44978 dated December 20, 2017, which addressed the declination of jurisdiction for the Jordan Creek Wind Farm. Attachment AAA-1 Cause No. 45196 Page 1 of 6

STATE OF INDIANA

INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

VERIFIED PETITION OF NORTHERN ) INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY LLC ) FOR APPROVAL PURSUANT TO IND. CODE ) §§ 8‐1‐2‐42(a), 8‐1‐8.8‐11, AND TO THE EXTENT ) NECESSARY IND. CODE § 8‐1‐2.5‐6, OF A ) CAUSE NO. 45196 RENEWABLE ENERGY POWER PURCHASE ) AGREEMENT WITH ROAMING BISON ) WIND, LLC, INCLUDING TIMELY COST ) RECOVERY. )

PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO THE INDIANA OFFICE OF UTILITY CONSUMER COUNSELOR’S FIRST SET OF DATA REQUESTS

Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC (“Petitioner” or “NIPSCO”),

pursuant to 170 IAC 1‐1.1‐16, the discovery provisions of Rules 26 and 37 of the Indiana

Rules of Trial Procedure, and the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s February 8,

2019 Docket Entry, by its counsel, hereby submits the following Objections and

Responses to the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor’s First Set of Data

Requests (“Requests”).

General Objections

All of the following General Objections are incorporated by reference in the response to each of the Requests:

Attachment AAA-1 Cause No. 45196 Page 2 of 6

1. The responses provided to the Requests have been prepared pursuant to a reasonable investigation and search conducted in connection with the Requests in those

areas where information is expected to be found. To the extent the Requests purport to

require more than a reasonable investigation and search, Petitioner objects on grounds

that they seek to impose an undue burden and unreasonable expense and exceed the scope of permissible discovery.

2. To the extent that the Requests seek production of electronically stored

information, Petitioner objects to producing such information from sources that are not

reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.

3. The responses provided to the Requests set forth the information in

reasonably complete detail. To the extent that the requesting party contends that a

Request calls for more detail, Petitioner objects to the Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, seeks to impose an undue burden and unreasonable expense, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery.

4. Petitioner objects to the Requests to the extent they seek documents or

information which are not relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding and to the

extent they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Attachment AAA-1 Cause No. 45196 Page 3 of 6

5. Petitioner objects to the Requests to the extent they seek an analysis,

calculation, compilation or study which has not already been performed and which

Petitioner objects to performing.

6. Petitioner objects to the Requests to the extent they are vague and ambiguous and do not provide a reasonable basis from which Petitioner can determine what information is sought.

7. Petitioner objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information that is

subject to the attorney/client, work product, settlement negotiation or other applicable privileges.

8. Petitioner objects to the Requests to the extent they purport to require

Petitioner to supply information in a format other than that in which Petitioner normally keeps such information.

9. Petitioner objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek production of documents created during an unreasonably long or unlimited period, on the grounds that the Requests are overly broad, seek to impose an undue burden and unreasonable

expense, and exceed the scope of permissible discovery.

Attachment AAA-1 Cause No. 45196 Page 4 of 6

10. Petitioner objects to the Requests to the extent they request the production of information and documents not presently in Petitioner’s possession, custody or control.

11. Petitioner objects to the Requests to the extent they request the production of (a) multiple copies of the same document; (b) additional copies of the same document merely because of immaterial or irrelevant differences; and (c) copies of the same information in multiple formats on the grounds that such Requests are irrelevant, overbroad, unreasonably burdensome, unreasonably cumulative and duplicative, not required by the Commission rules, and inconsistent with practice in Commission proceedings.

12. The responses constitute the corporate responses of Petitioner and contain information gathered from a variety of sources. Petitioner objects to the Requests to the extent they request identification of and personal information about all persons who participated in responding to each data request on the grounds that: (a) they are overbroad and unreasonably burdensome given the nature and scope of the requests and the many people who may be consulted about them; and (b) they seek information that is subject to the attorney/client and work product privileges. Petitioner also objects to the

Requests to the extent they request identification of witnesses to be called in Petitioner’s case‐in‐chief or rebuttal who can answer questions regarding the information supplied

Attachment AAA-1 Cause No. 45196 Page 5 of 6

in the responses on the grounds that: (a) Petitioner is under no obligation to call witnesses to respond to questions about information provided in discovery; and (b) the Requests

seek information subject to the work product privilege.

13. Petitioner assumes no obligation to supplement these responses except to

the extent required by Ind. Tr. R. 26(E) (1) and (2).

Without waiving these objections, Petitioner responds to the Requests in the

manner set forth in the attached.

Dated this 4th day of March, 2019.

As to objections,

______Claudia J. Earls (No. 8468‐49) NiSource Corporate Services ‐ Legal 150 West Market Street, Suite 600 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Phone: (317) 684‐4923 Fax: (317) 684‐4918 Email: cjearls@.com

Attorney for Petitioner Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC

Attachment AAA-1 Cause No. 45196 Cause No. 45196 Page 6 of 6 Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC’s Objections and Responses to Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor’s Data Request Set No. 1

OUCC Request 1‐001: If the Roaming Bison Wind Farm is allocated system upgrade costs from any RTO, including PJM or MISO, would NIPSCO be responsible for the system upgrade costs, in any way, in this or any other proceeding, outside of the PPA price paid to the Roaming Bison Wind Farm? Objections:

Response: No. NIPSCO is only required to pay the PPA price for the term of the Roaming Bison PPA.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing Indiana Office of Utility

Consumer Counselor Public's Exhibit No. 1 Testimony of OUCC Witness Anthony A. Alvarez has been served upon the following counsel of record in the captioned proceeding by electronic service on March 15, 2019 to the following:

Claudia J. Earls Erin E. Whitehead M. Bryan Little NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY NiSOURCE CORPORATE SERVICES - LEGAL [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Nicholas K. Kile Jennifer A. Washburn Hillary J. Close Margo L. Tucker Lauren M. Box Citizens Action Coalition BARNES & THORNBURG LLP jwashburn@c i tact. org [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] lauren. [email protected]

Todd A. Richardson Dennis Rackers Anne E. Becker [email protected] LEWIS KAPPES P.C. [email protected] [email protected]

Tomas Haas l'\.ttorney No. 34983-29 Deputy Consumer Counselor

Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor 115 W. Washington Street Suite 1500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 [email protected] .gov 317-232-2494 - Phone 317-232-5923 - Facsimile