Energy, Telecommunications and Utilities Law Alert - Indiana Court of Appeals Affirms IURC Order in NIPSCO Electric Rate Case

On April 19, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) order in Cause No. 44688, which approved a settlement agreement among less than all of the parties and authorized a rate increase for Northern Indiana Public Service Co (NIPSCO). In Citizens Action Coalition v. Northern Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., the court addressed the July 18, 2016, settlement agreement that the Citizens Action Coalition (CAC) had not joined.

The CAC appealed the IURC order approving the settlement and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the findings addressing (1) the increase to the fixed customer charge and its impact on energy conservation and (2) the effects of the fixed charge and lack of a low-income rate on African-American and elderly customers. The CAC also challenged the IURC’s decision not to require NIPSCO to begin gathering and reporting data that CAC claimed was essential to understanding affordability issues.

The court declined to reweigh the evidence and considered the rate increase as a whole. Further, the court afforded substantial deference to the IURC’s approval of a settlement agreement. As to the sufficiency of the evidence, the court wrote: “CAC may genuinely believe that a different rate design is preferable . . . [but] we can only conclude that there is substantial evidence supporting its [the IURC’s] decision to accept the [Settlement’s] proposed rate design.” (Bracketed information added for clarification.) As to the IURC’s findings of fact, “the IURC was not required to make specific findings” on every particular CAC argument, but was instead only “required to consider NIPSCO’s rate design scheme as a whole, making specific findings as to all factual determinations material to the ultimate conclusions.”

With respect to low-income consumers, the court expressed privacy concerns over the data reporting requested by the CAC and policy concerns over shifting costs to other customers. Ultimately, the court found these policy issues were better addressed by the General Assembly.

Barnes & Thornburg represented NIPSCO before the court.

For more information, contact the Barnes & Thornburg attorney with whom you regularly work, or one of the following attorneys in the firm’s Energy, Telecommunications and Utilities Law Practice: Nick Kile at Nicholas.Kile@btlaw.com or 317-231-7768; Teresa Morton Nyhart at Teresa.Nyhart@btlaw.com or 317-231-7716; Peter Rusthoven at Peter.Rusthoven@btlaw.com or 317-231-7299, Parvin Price at Parvin.Price@btlaw.com or 317-231-7721; Hillary Close at Hillary.Close@btlaw.com or 317-231-7785; Jeffrey Peabody at Jeffrey.Peabody@btlaw.com or 317-231-6465; Douglas Everette at DEverette@btlaw.com or 317-231-7764; or Lauren Box at Lauren.Box@btlaw.com or 317-231-7289.

© 2017 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. It may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of Barnes & Thornburg LLP.

This Barnes & Thornburg LLP publication should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own lawyer on any specific legal questions you may have concerning your situation.

Visit us online at www.btlaw.com and follow us on Twitter @BTLawNews.