Duke Energy vs. Indiana Utility Regulation Commission - 11/5/12

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Monday  November 5, 2012 
1:30 PM  EST

1:30 p.m. 93A02-1111-EX-1042. A January 2009 ice storm in southern Indiana caused damage to Duke Energy Indiana’s electrical system. Duke filed a petition with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) seeking deferred accounting treatment for its operating expenses relating to this storm. An evidentiary hearing was held, and Scott Storms was the administrative law judge. The Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC) opposed Duke’s request for deferred accounting treatment on grounds that it constituted both retroactive ratemaking and single-issue ratemaking. The IURC approved Duke’s request, and the OUCC appealed. While the OUCC’s appeal was pending before this Court, Storms accepted employment with Duke. After it was discovered that Storms was negotiating employment with Duke while cases involving Duke – including this one – were pending before him, an investigation was launched. Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 37, the OUCC filed a verified motion for stay of appeal and remand. This Court granted the OUCC’s motion and remanded this case to the IURC. In addition, the IURC reopened this case for further review and consideration. When this case was reopened, both Duke and the OUCC presented updated testimony. This time, however, the IURC reached a different result, concluding that Duke’s request for deferred accounting did not merit an exception to the general prohibition against retroactive and single-issue ratemaking. Duke now appeals arguing that the IURC did not have any legal basis to reverse its earlier decision. The Indiana Energy Association appears as Amicus Curiae. 

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  2. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  3. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  4. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  5. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.

ADVERTISEMENT