COA upholds electric utility’s rate hike

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding substantial evidence supporting a regulatory body’s ruling, the Indiana Court of Appeals denied an attempt by Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana to overturn approval for a utility rate hike.

CAC opposed a settlement agreement reached between Northern Indiana Public Service Co. and other groups that would increase the fixed charges for residential and small commercial customers. Following two evidentiary hearings, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission ultimately approved the agreement.

On appeal, the CAC argued the rate design included in the settlement agreement and the IURC order is unjust and unreasonable. In particular, it asserted the power company did not produce substantial evidence to support the increase to the fixed charge. Also, the rate design discourages energy efficiency and conservation and it will have a disparate impact on low-income, African-American and elderly populations.

The appellate panel noted its inquiry was limited to whether there is substantial evidence supporting the commission’s acceptance of the settlement agreement. And on all three arguments raised by the CAC, the court found the IURC’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.

In regards to the CAC’s additional argument that NIPSCO should have been required to include a low-income payment assistance program as part of the rate design, the court was sympathetic. The COA noted it shared concerns that the CAC was left out of the settlement negotiations. If the nonprofit had been included, perhaps a compromise would have been reached and a payment assistance program would have been part of the final agreement.

But, noting the IURC found numerous implementation and policy-related concerns with the program proposed by the CAC, the appellate panel declined to second-guess the regulatory agency’s assessment.

“It is extremely regrettable that the result of this process is a rate design including rate increases with no assistance available for low-income consumers,” Judge John Baker wrote for the court. “But under these circumstances, we cannot say the IURC erred in entering the order without such a program included.”

Finally, the Court of Appeals also declined to reverse the IURC’s order on the basis that NIPSCO was not required to collect and report data about its consumers.

The case is Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.; NIPSCO Industrial Group; and United States Steele Corp., 93A02-1608-EX-1854.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways:

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.