Duke Energy v. Indiana Utility Regulation Commission - 12/10/12

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Monday  December 10, 2012 
1:30 PM  EST

1:30 p.m. 93A02-1111-EX-1042. Indiana Supreme Court courtroom. On October 5, 2010, Gov. Mitch Daniels fired Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) Chairman David Lott Hardy. Hardy was aware that one of his administrative law judges, Scott R. Storms, had been communicating with Duke Energy Indiana regarding a position with the company while Storms was presiding over administrative proceedings involving Duke, yet Hardy did not remove Storms from matters involving Duke. This was one such case; Storms was the ALJ, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC) recommended denying Duke relief, but the IURC found in favor of Duke. The IURC conducted an audit and eventually found that Storms did not exert any undue influence in his decision. Nevertheless, the IURC reopened this case for further review and consideration of the evidence presented. After another evidentiary hearing before a new ALJ and the full Commission, the IURC found against Duke. Duke now appeals, mainly arguing that the IURC did not have the authority to reverse its original decision. The IURC and the OUCC ask us to affirm. The Indiana Energy Association appears as amicus curiae.
 

Back to Events
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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT