ILNews

COA opts for judicial restraint

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has opted for judicial restraint in not deciding whether state statutes involving the Commerce Clause and the use of clean coal technology are unconstitutional.

An opinion issued today in Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., et al. v. PSI Energy Inc., et al., No. 93-A02-0712-EX-1093, deals with an appeal from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission involving a Duke Energy proposal to build the state's first electric power plant of its kind since the 1980s. The proposed integrated gasification combined cycle plant, known as an IGCC, would be built at Duke's existing Edwardsport facility that would quadruple the electricity-generating capacity using a cleaner and more efficient system than conventional coal-fired plants. In seeking approval, Duke went before the utility regulatory body and also sought financial incentives authorized by state law.

Several environmental and citizen groups, including the Sierra Club and Citizens Action Coalition, challenged the commission's November 2007 approval for Duke, as well as a commission decision not to reopen the record a day before its decision.

The appellate panel affirmed the commission's decisions, finding that the body didn't abuse its discretion by denying the request to reopen proceedings and that state statutes allows Duke to recover construction costs.

On a final issue, the court declined to address whether Indiana Code Sections 8-1-8.5, 8-1-8.7, and 8-1-8.8 violate the U.S. Constitution's dormant Commerce Clause by expressing a preference for Indiana coal. The statutes deal with the issuance of certificates to construct utility power plants and clean coal technology, factors the commission must consider, and certain incentives offered for clean coal and energy projects.

Judges relied on General Motors Corp. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 654 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), where the court had decided that very issue and used a federal decision from then-U.S. District Judge John D. Tinder in Indianapolis as guidance. The court had decided in General Motors that provisions of the coal-related statute were unconstitutional because they were "plainly protectionist" and discriminated against interstate commerce, but that the utility commission could sever the unconstitutional provisions. In this case, the commission had recognized that decision and didn't consider the use of Indiana coal as a factor in granting Duke's petition, the court wrote.

"Even if we concluded that the statutory provisions at issue violated the Commerce Clause and had to be severed, Appellants would be entitled to no relief," the court wrote. "As a result, we conclude that it is unnecessary for us to decide Appellants' constitutional challenge to (the statutes)."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. All the lawyers involved in this don't add up to a hill of beans; mostly yes-men punching their tickets for future advancement. REMF types. Window dressing. Who in this mess was a real hero? the whistleblower that let the public know about the torture, whom the US sent to Jail. John Kyriakou. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/us/ex-officer-for-cia-is-sentenced-in-leak-case.html?_r=0 Now, considering that Torture is Illegal, considering that during Vietnam a soldier was court-martialed and imprisoned for waterboarding, why has the whistleblower gone to jail but none of the torturers have been held to account? It's amazing that Uncle Sam's sunk lower than Vietnam. But that's where we're at. An even more unjust and pointless war conducted in an even more bogus manner. this from npr: "On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier." Today, the US itself has become lawless.

  2. "Brain Damage" alright.... The lunatic is on the grass/ The lunatic is on the grass/ Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs/ Got to keep the loonies on the path.... The lunatic is in the hall/ The lunatics are in my hall/ The paper holds their folded faces to the floor/ And every day the paper boy brings more/ And if the dam breaks open many years too soon/ And if there is no room upon the hill/ And if your head explodes with dark forbodings too/ I'll see you on the dark side of the moon!!!

  3. It is amazing how selectively courts can read cases and how two very similar factpatterns can result in quite different renderings. I cited this very same argument in Brown v. Bowman, lost. I guess it is panel, panel, panel when one is on appeal. Sad thing is, I had Sykes. Same argument, she went the opposite. Her Rooker-Feldman jurisprudence is now decidedly unintelligible.

  4. November, 2014, I was charged with OWI/Endangering a person. I was not given a Breathalyzer test and the arresting officer did not believe that alcohol was in any way involved. I was self-overmedicated with prescription medications. I was taken to local hospital for blood draw to be sent to State Tox Lab. My attorney gave me a cookie-cutter plea which amounts to an ALCOHOL-related charge. Totally unacceptable!! HOW can I get my TOX report from the state lab???

  5. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

ADVERTISEMENT