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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?