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. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT