Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., Indiana Association for Community and Economic Development, Indiana Coalition for Human Services v. Indianapolis Power & Light Company
74 N.E.3d 554
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL) sought approval to raise base electricity rates in December 2014, proposing higher monthly fixed customer charges and a declining block rate (DBR) for volumetric energy charges.
- Joint Intervenors (consumer and community groups) challenged the DBR, arguing it discourages conservation and disproportionately harms low‑income, elderly, and African‑American customers; they also proposed a 25% low‑income subsidy funded volumetrically and requested mandatory reporting of interruption/arrearage data.
- The Commission held hearings, received testimony from IPL, the OUCC economist (Watkins), and Joint Intervenor experts, and adopted a rate design increasing the customer charge while retaining DBR, citing gradualism and cost‑causation considerations.
- The Commission rejected the 25% low‑income subsidy and declined to impose mandatory reporting, finding the proposals raised complex policy and implementation issues better suited for broader proceedings or the legislature and that the record was insufficient for a targeted subsidy or a reporting mandate.
- Joint Intervenors appealed, alleging the Commission failed to make specific findings on (1) DBR’s effect on conservation, (2) disparate impact on elderly and African‑American customers, (3) rejection of the 25% subsidy, and (4) denial of mandatory interruption reporting. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission failed to make findings on DBR’s effect on energy conservation | DBR reduces incremental price, discourages conservation and conflicts with federal/state conservation policy; Commission must find whether DBR is deleterious | Commission relied on testimony and declined immediate elimination, applying gradualism and cost‑causation; no statutory mandate to eliminate DBR now | Affirmed: record supports Commission’s holistic rate decision; no requirement to make the particularized finding requested |
| Whether Commission failed to find DBR disproportionately harms elderly and African‑American customers | DBR disproportionately burdens these groups; remand needed for findings and relief | Commission found no statutory duty to address subgroup impacts separately and the record did not show the rate order was unreasonable for the whole class | Affirmed: no statutory requirement to separately quantify subgroup impacts; Commission acted within discretion |
| Whether Commission erred by rejecting a 25% low‑income subsidy funded volumetrically | Subsidy is necessary and feasible; Joint Intervenors presented evidence on LIHEAP and arrearage impacts | Commission found the proposal raised implementation, policy, and cost‑allocation issues not properly developed in this rate case and better addressed in broader or legislative proceedings | Affirmed: Commission reasonably declined to adopt the subsidy on the record presented |
| Whether Commission erred by denying mandatory reporting of interruption/arrearage data | Reporting is necessary to evaluate low‑income impacts and to design programs | Commission encouraged stakeholder collaboration but declined to impose a regulatory reporting mandate in this rate case absent fuller development | Affirmed: Commission’s refusal to order reporting was reasonable and within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Northern Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. U.S. Steel, 907 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind. 2009) (describing the Commission as a fact‑finding body with specialized rate‑making expertise)
- Citizens Action Coalition of Ind., Inc. v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 485 N.E.2d 610 (Ind. 1985) (administrative orders must include specific findings on factual determinations material to ultimate conclusions)
- McClain v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1314 (Ind. 1998) (two‑tier review: substantial evidence for basic facts and reasonableness of ultimate findings)
- L.S. Ayres & Co. v. IPALCO, 351 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. 1976) (rate‑making methodology is within Commission expertise)
- Citizens Action Coalition v. Public Serv. Co., 450 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (declining to require lifeline or below‑cost rates; assistance programs may be legislative)
- Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 397 N.E.2d 623 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979) (burden on challengers to show Commission findings unsupported by record)