ILNews

COA rules on public utility issues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission finding United States Steel Corp. acted as a public utility when it delivered electricity and natural gas to another steel producer in northwestern Indiana.

U.S. Steel and ArcelorMittal had an arrangement in which U.S. Steel would provide the electricity and natural gas to the Plate Mill located within the steel-making operation of U.S. Steel. The two companies swapped facilities within their respective industrial complexes, so ArcelorMittal began operating this mill. Electricity would originally come from Northern Indiana Public Service Company; U.S. Steel arranged with NIPSCO to transport natural gas from other producers to the mill, which was paid for by ArcelorMittal.

The steel producers filed an informal complaint, and later a formal complaint, with the IURC Consumer Affairs Division, seeking a determination that their actions didn’t violate any tariff, contract, or other utility law. NIPSCO filed a formal complaint that U.S. Steel had violated Indiana law and NIPSCO’s tariffs by selling electricity and gas service.

A final order of the IURC determined that U.S. Steel’s provision of electricity and transportation of natural gas to ArcelorMittal made U.S. Steel a public utility as defined by statute. Both U.S. Steel and ArcelorMittal, as well as NIPSCO, appealed the order.

In United States Steel Corp., et al. v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., No. 93A02-1006-EX-632, the appellate court determined the regulatory commission erred in determining that U.S. Steel’s delivery of electricity to ArcelorMittal made it a public utility under Indiana Code 8-1-2-1(a). The delivery of electricity for use at the mill did not amount to service directly or indirectly to the public. U.S. Steel provided electricity to only one customer located within its industrial complex pursuant to a special agreement, wrote Judge Paul Mathias. The commission also erred in concluding U.S. Steel had violated Indiana’s Service Area Assignments Act by selling electricity to ArcelorMittal within NIPSCO’s exclusive electric service area because U.S. Steel isn’t a public utility so it is not an electricity supplier.

The judges affirmed the commission on the issue of whether U.S. Steel acted as a public utility regarding the delivery of natural gas to ArcelorMittal at the mill. U.S. Steels activities fell under subsection 2 of I.C. 8-1-2-87.5(b), which says that anyone “engaged in the transportation of gas solely within this state on behalf of any end use consumer or consumers” is a public utility. As such, U.S. Steel’s resale of natural gas purchased from NIPSCO to ArcelorMittal violated NIPSCO’s tariff ban on resale.

The appellate court also affirmed the dismissal of the steel producers’ complaint against NIPSCO and held that the regulatory commission wasn’t required to address NIPSCO’s additional claims, which it chose not to do. They remanded for the commission to vacate the portions of its order regarding U.S. Steel being a public utility in the distribution of electricity.
 

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