Indiana Gas Company, Inc., and Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, et al. - 4/11/17

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  April 11, 2017 
10:00 AM  EST

10 a.m. 93A02-1604-EX-00943. Appellants/Plaintiffs, Indiana Gas Company, Inc. and Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company (collectively, “Vectren”), appeal the appellee, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s (“the IURC”), denial of their petition to update their seven-year plan under the Transmission, Distribution, and Storage System Improvement Charges and Deferrals statute (“the TDSIC statute”).  Traditionally, a utility’s rates to customers are adjusted through periodic rate cases.  However, in 2013, the Indiana Legislature enacted the TDSIC statute, Indiana Code §§ 8-1-39(1)–(17), to allow utilities to recover their expenses for replacement gas transmission, distribution, or storage projects in a timelier manner.  Under the TDSIC statute, a utility may recover 80% of capital expenditures and costs approved by the IURC, although it must wait to recover the remaining 20% during its next rate case.  In order to recover the 80% under the TDSIC statute, a utility must create a seven-year plan for its eligible transmission, distribution, and storage improvements and must get approval from the IURC for the plan.  Indiana Code § 8-1-39-10 lists the requirements for the contents of a petition for a seven-year plan and for approval of such a plan.  A utility may then petition for an “update” to the seven-year plan under Indiana Code § 8-1-39-9.

Vectren filed a seven-year TDSIC plan in 2013, which the IURC approved.  The original plan included project-by-project details for the first year of the plan and project cost estimates for years two through seven. Vectren and the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (“OUCC”) agreed on an update procedure by which Vectren would “move [its] upcoming year-specific projects into a work-order level of detail,” similar to that which it had provided for year one.  On October 1, 2015, Vectren requested approval for two projects it had not listed in its original seven-year plan.  Vectren contended that it could not have predicted the necessity of the projects when it sought approval of the seven-year plan.  The OUCC and the IURC did not oppose the need for, or cost of, the projects, but the IURC denied Vectren’s petition for the updates on the premise that it did not have the authority to approve projects that were not part of Vectren’s original seven-year plan.

On appeal, the parties ask us to determine whether a utility may add qualifying new projects to its existing seven-year plan under the TDSIC statute’s update process.  Vectren also raises the issue of whether the doctrine of res judicata prevents the IURC from revoking its earlier approval of Vectren’s update plan for its seven-year plan.  Indiana Energy Association has filed a “friend of the court” brief that aligns with Vectren, and Industrial Energy Consumers, Inc. has filed a “friend of the court” brief that aligns with the Appellees-Defendants, the IURC and the OUCC. 

Back to Events
Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. File under the Sociology of Hoosier Discipline ... “We will be answering the complaint in due course and defending against the commission’s allegations,” said Indianapolis attorney Don Lundberg, who’s representing Hudson in her disciplinary case. FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW ... Lundberg ran the statist attorney disciplinary machinery in Indy for decades, and is now the "go to guy" for those who can afford him .... the ultimate insider for the well-to-do and/or connected who find themselves in the crosshairs. It would appear that this former prosecutor knows how the game is played in Circle City ... and is sacrificing accordingly. See more on that here ... Legal sociologists could have a field day here ... I wonder why such things are never studied? Is a sacrifice to the well connected former regulators a de facto bribe? Such questions, if probed, could bring about a more just world, a more equal playing field, less Stalinist governance. All of the things that our preambles tell us to value could be advanced if only sunshine reached into such dark worlds. As a great jurist once wrote: "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." Other People's Money—and How Bankers Use It (1914). Ah, but I am certifiable, according to the Indiana authorities, according to the ISC it can be read, for believing such trite things and for advancing such unwanted thoughts. As a great albeit fictional and broken resistance leaders once wrote: "I am the dead." Winston Smith Let us all be dead to the idea of maintaining a patently unjust legal order.

  2. The Department of Education still has over $100 million of ITT Education Services money in the form of $100+ million Letters of Credit. That money was supposed to be used by The DOE to help students. The DOE did nothing to help students. The DOE essentially stole the money from ITT Tech and still has the money. The trustee should be going after the DOE to get the money back for people who are owed that money, including shareholders.

  3. Do you know who the sponsor of the last-minute amendment was?

  4. Law firms of over 50 don't deliver good value, thats what this survey really tells you. Anybody that has seen what they bill for compared to what they deliver knows that already, however.

  5. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!