Citizens Action Coalition v. Duke Energy Indiana - 6/25/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Wednesday  June 25, 2014 
1:00 PM  EST

1 p.m. 93A02-1305-EX-394. Krannert Center for Executive Education, West Lafayette. In November 2007, Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. ("Duke") received approval from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission ("IURC") to build an "integrated gasification combined cycle" power plant ("Plant") at Duke's Edwardsport facility in Knox County, Indiana. As allowed under Indiana Code section 8-1-8.5-6, the IURC ordered semi-annual reviews of the Plant's construction progress. During each six-month review, and as permitted under Indiana Code chapter 8-1-8.8, Duke asked the IURC for permission to timely recover "reasonable and necessary" constructions costs and financing costs through customer utility rates. In the instant action, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., Sierra Club, and Valley Watch, Inc. ("Joint Intervenors") appeal from the IURC's order in its ninth semi-annual review. On appeals, the Joint Intervenors present the following issues:
   Whether the IURC committed reversible error by authorizing inclusion of 100 percent of Duke's requested financing costs (under Indiana Code section 8-1-8.8-12) in retail customer rates without making any findings of fact or conclusions thereon regarding Joint Intervenors' argument that Duke cannot recover financing costs for a three-month delay in construction; and
   Whether the IURC committed reversible error by unconditionally allowing Duke to declare 50 percent of the Plant to be "in service" without making any findings of fact or conclusions thereon, and despite Duke's admission that the Plant had not reached its "In-Service Operational Date" as that term was defined in the Settlement Agreement to which Duke was a party.

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. 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