ILNews

Court splits over whether approval of entire contract must be voided

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Chief Judge Margret Robb dissented from her colleagues on the Court of Appeals Tuesday as to whether approval of a contract for the purchase and sale of substitute natural gas must be voided in its entirety because the contract definition of “retail end use customer” differs from the statutory definition.

The Indiana Finance Authority and Indiana Gasification LLC executed a contract in January 2011 that details the sale and purchase of substitute natural gas that IG plans to produce at a $2.7 billion Rockport plant, with delivery set to begin in the first quarter of 2016.

The IFA and IG sought approval of the contract by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission and requested that the commission order Indiana regulated gas utilities to enter into utility management agreements with IFA so that IFA could pass proceeds and costs to retail end use customers through the utilities, if necessary. Several utilities, industrial companies and citizens groups intervened.

After several public hearings, the commission approved the contract in November 2011. The commission didn’t address the scope of the term “retail end use customer” and found that it could be addressed at a future time. The industrial group filed a petition for reconsideration, arguing that industrial transportation customers were exempt from being classified as retail end use customers under statute and did not have to pay the pass-through costs of the substitute natural gas under the contract. The utilities and citizens groups also appealed.

The appellate judges agreed in Indiana Gas Company, Inc. and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company, et al. v. Indiana Finance Authority and Indiana Gasification, LLC, 93A02-1112-EX-1141, that the utilities’ and industrial group’s claims are justiciable and the industrial group has standing to sue. The court also unanimously found the commission did not exceed its jurisdiction under the Substitute Natural Gas Act when it approved the contract as a final purchase contract.

But Judges Patricia Riley and Senior Judge Carr Darden reversed the commission order approving the contract because the contract’s definition of retail end use customer did not conform to what the Legislature intended under the SNG Act. The majority found industrial transportation customers are not subject to the SNG Act as retail end use customers.

Robb believed that reversal of the commission’s approval of the contract in its entirety isn't necessary and that the court could “merely exclude the part of the contract which includes transportation customers in the definition of retail end use customers without frustrating the primary purpose of the contract.”
 

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