ILNews

Supreme Court revives Rockport plant proposal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court revived a controversial state-backed deal that would facilitate construction of a $2.7 billion coal-using synthetic natural gas plant in Rockport. The decision likely sets up another round of state regulatory review if developers choose to move forward.

Justices on Tuesday unanimously affirmed a contract between the Indiana Finance Authority and Indiana Gasification, LLC that a divided panel of the Court of Appeals invalidated. But the Court of Appeals’ differences over whether the contract was valid were rendered moot when the state agency and the private company amended the deal, the Supreme Court ruled.

In affirming the decision of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to approve the contract, Chief Justice Brent Dickson cited language used in cases dating to 1904: “When the concrete controversy at issue in a case ‘has been ended or settled, or in some manner disposed of, so as to render it unnecessary to decide the question involved,’ the case will be dismissed.

“Appellants requested that this Court vacate the IURC’s Order in part because the Contract’s definition of (retail end use customers) improperly applied to industrial transportation customers; IFA and Indiana Gas have addressed this concern by amending the Contract approved by the IURC and rendering it unnecessary for this Court to decide the issue,” Dickson wrote.

The politically charged deal obligates the state to purchase synthetic natural gas for 30 years at guaranteed prices much higher than current market rates.

An unusual alliance of environmental groups, utilities and business concerns oppose the deal championed by former Gov. Mitch Daniels and cite it as a polluting example of crony capitalism. The project is backed by former Daniels adviser Mark Lubbers, whose connections to Justice Mark Massa resulted in calls for Massa to recuse himself, which he refused to do.

After the ruling, Jodi Perras of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign said the ruling was disappointing and called the project a “boondoggle.”

“The justices ignored serious flaws in the state’s contract to buy expensive coal gas and pass the costs on to Indiana natural gas customers. The contract doesn’t guarantee savings for ratepayers. With each passing day of low natural gas prices, it confirms even more that the contract will cost Hoosier ratepayers billions of dollars,” Perras said in a statement.

The final outcome for the contract and the fate of the proposed plant likely will be decided elsewhere in the Statehouse. Lawmakers this year enacted Senate Enrolled Act 494 that deferred to the Supreme Court and also put new regulatory hurdles before the proposal. Gov. Mike Pence also signaled opposition to the project, backed by hedge fund Leucadia National Corp.

After Pence signed SEA 494, Lubbers issued a statement that cast doubt on the plant’s future.

“We will work hard for a win if the Supreme Court takes the case,” the statement said. “If we win, however, only a clear reversal of position by the governor would enable the project to go forward.”

Justices ducked the change in the law that passed as the case was being argued on appeal.

“We decline the request of (Indiana Gasification) to address the validity and impact of Senate Enrolled Act 494 as part of this appellate proceeding,” Dickson wrote in a footnote.

The case is Indiana Gas Company, Inc. and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company, et al v. Indiana Finance Authority and Indiana Gasification, LLC, 93S02-1306-EX-407.
 





 

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT