Utilities’ gifts to legislators: dinners, cocktails, golf, sports tickets.

Electric utilities are among the largest corporate contributors to state elections in Indiana. They spent nearly 100 times as much as pro-environment groups in the past five years, and far more than mining companies, according to National Institute on Money in State Politics data.

Their state lobbying, which totals hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, includes spreading freebies around to legislators: dinners at McCormick & Schmick’s, cocktails at Moe & Johnny’s, rounds of golf, tickets to Indiana Pacers and Indianapolis Colts games. Utilities are also the biggest donors to a state foundation that covers costs of economic-development travel for the governor.

Among the top recipients of their contributions and gifts is state Rep. Heath VanNatter, vice chair of the House Utilities and Energy Committee. He voted for the solar bill utilities wanted. He put forth the amendment that ultimately killed the energy-efficiency program. VanNatter, a Republican who represents an area north of Indianapolis, did not respond to requests for comment.

“The faster you do it, the more expensive it becomes.”

The utilities say the transition away from coal is best handled at a measured pace. They’re increasing their use of alternatives, but a post-coal Indiana is a “long, long ways into the future,” said Maassel, president of the Indiana Energy Association, which opposes the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.

“In anything, generally speaking, the faster you do it, the more expensive it becomes,” he said.

Maassel said more than 730,000 Indiana households have after-tax incomes under $30,000 and pay a sizable chunk of that for energy, so utilities are mindful of the cost of change.

“The existing facilities many times enjoy an economic advantage because they’ve been paid for to some level, and upgrading them with additional [pollution] controls … makes sense,” Maassel said.

This reasoning galls Kerwin Olson. He’s executive director of the Citizens Action Coalition, an Indianapolis consumer and environmental advocacy organization that often clashes with utilities. Olson contends that the most cost-effective option is to stop using coal sooner, not later.

He’s not talking about health and climate costs, though research suggests they make the true price of coal much higher. He means people’s actual utility bills.

“If you’re a utility company with a guaranteed rate of return and the more you spend, the more you make, you’re going to choose the most expensive option,” he said. “That’s why we continue to rely almost exclusively on coal.”

Olson said that while coal-plant pollution controls were once the cheapest option, that’s no longer the case. Efficiency and wind aren’t only cleaner but are also less expensive than coal, he said, while utility-scale solar is on par.

That’s clearly the case for new construction. Comparing piecemeal coal-plant retrofits to the alternatives is trickier, but David Schlissel with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, which advocates for reduced dependence on fossil fuels, said many coal plants are uneconomic even without additional controls.

Cheaper electricity from gas and renewables prevents them from selling as much to the grid as they once did. In states such as Indiana where utilities own the plants, he said, ratepayers take the hit.

Utility analyst Paul Patterson said power companies aren’t necessarily wedded to coal — some are moving aggressively on renewables. But it’s an industry that craves stability, said Patterson, with New York-based Glenrock Associates.

And in states that have staked out pro-coal positions, he said, “there may be a whole variety of political issues” at play. AEP tells investors in its most recent annual report that it wants to rely more on natural gas, energy efficiency and renewables “where there is regulatory support.”