ILNews

Justices take Rockport gasification appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will hear an appeal that could determine the fate of a controversial proposal to fund a southern Indiana coal gasification plant with guaranteed prices above current market rates for the substitute natural gas it would create.

Justices Thursday granted transfer in Indiana Gas Company, et al. v. Indiana Regulatory Commission, 93S02-1306-EX-00407. A divided Court of Appeals panel reversed an Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission order approving a contract that would have funded the plant in Rockport.

The appellate panel was divided over whether the state’s entire contract must be voided because the definition of “retail end use customer” differs from the statutory definition. The majority ruled that it must, but Chief Judge Margret Robb argued in dissent that only that portion of the contract with the errant language must be voided.

Transfer to the Supreme Court was expected after the Indiana General Assembly in the closing days of this year’s session deferred to the court in Senate Enrolled Act 494. Plant backers blasted the action and Gov. Mike Pence’s signature on the bill, saying it may have doomed a project championed by former Gov. Mitch Daniels, which is expected to cost at least $2.4 billion. But the plant’s backers vowed to press on.

“We will work hard for a win if the Supreme Court takes the case,” Indiana Gasification LLC said in a statement after Pence signed SEA 494. “If we win, however, only a clear reversal of position by the governor would enable the project to go forward.”

Opponents celebrated the Legislature’s about-face, casting the plant as an untested design, an environmental menace and a brazen example of crony capitalism benefiting former Daniels adviser Mark Lubbers, now project director for Indiana Gasification.

Even if the justices reverse the Court of Appeals, SEA 494 would trigger a new round of state regulatory review. Leucadia National Corp., the parent company of Indiana Gasification, announced it was suspending work on the Rockport site pending judicial review. Leucadia said it has spent $20 million on the Rockport proposal to date. 

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT