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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT