ILNews

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.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

  2. I was incarcerated at that time for driving while suspended I have no felonies...i was placed on P block I remember several girls and myself asking about voting that day..and wasn't given a answer or means of voting..we were told after the election who won that was it.

  3. The number one way to reduce suffering would be to ban the breeding of fighting dogs. Fighting dogs maim and kill victim dogs Fighting dogs are the most essential piece of dog fighting Dog fighting will continue as long as fighting dogs are struggling to reach each other and maul another fih.longaphernalia

  4. Oh, and you fail to mention that you deprived the father of far FAR more time than he ever did you, even requiring officers to escort the children back into his care. Please, can you see that you had a huge part in "starting the war?" Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

  5. Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

ADVERTISEMENT