ILNews

Judges address 'public utility' questions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a case of first impression in this state, the Indiana Court of Appeals has determined that BP Products North America Inc.'s petroleum refinery plant in northern Indiana isn’t a public utility as defined by state statute when it acts as a sort of conduit and provides natural gas and other services such as steam and wastewater to other private companies nearby.

But that ruling also affirmed a regulatory commission’s finding that the oil company is serving as an indirect public utility when it sells water to a local city for processing and sale to local customers.

The unanimous ruling came today in BP Products North America, Inc. and United States Steel Corp. v. Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor and Northern Indiana Public Service Co., No. 93A02-0905-EX-490, as an appeal from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s decisions in 2009.

In 2008, the IURC received a request from BP relating to its operations at the Whiting refinery plant along Lake Michigan. As part of its crude oil refining operation, BP generates electricity and natural gas obtained from Northern Indiana Public Service Co. to power its plant and it also transmits excess gas, electricity, steam, and water to adjacent and on-site entities through private contracts – such as the nearby U.S. Steel plant and other companies. The refinery also sends low pressure raw service water to the city wastewater treatment facility to process and pass along to customers.

The BP request asked the IURC to determine that it wasn’t acting as a public utility in providing these materials or services or alternatively that it could be considered a "public utility" under Indiana Code Section 8-1-2-1(a).

The state commission determined in May and June 2009 that BP was not a public utility in connection to its natural gas transportation to a tenant on its property, but that it was considered a public utility with its provision of steam, electricity, water, and wastewater and sewer services. The commission also found that BP was acting as a public utility when selling water to the city.

On appeal, the state’s intermediate appellate court disagreed, reversing the IURC decision on those points and finding the commission misapplied state statute and relevant caselaw.

The judges found that caselaw doesn’t support the principle that an entity that serves only itself isn’t a public utility, but that it’s one that is dedicated to public use under a common law duty to serve all who apply or an entity that may be “impressed with public interest.” Finding no Indiana cases directly on point, they turned to several from other jurisdictions such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania that have interpreted what constitutes a public utility.

“Because BP served these selected companies – a special class of entities that did not make up the indefinite public – it was engaged in a private activity, not the provision of services directly or indirectly to the public,” Senior Judge John Sharpnack wrote for the panel, which included Judges Nancy Vaidik and Cale Bradford. “Thus, as to these entities, the Commission which erroneously interpreted both the controlling statutes and related caselaw, must vacate its orders and allow BP to proceed outside its jurisdiction.”

The judges saw BP’s contract with the City of Whiting in a different light. "The contract provides for the provision of water to an entity that is a mere conduit serving the undifferentiated public, at least indirectly. Accordingly, BP is acting as a public utility when it sells water to the City," wrote the judge.

On the issue of supplying electricity, the appellate court also found that the IURC had erred in determining that BP is an “electricity supplier” as defined by I.C. Section 8-1-2.3-1 – in large because it wasn’t a “public utility.”

The case is affirmed on the city water aspect and reversed and remanded on the other issues.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT