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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT