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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT