16 N.E.3d 449
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Duke Energy Indiana sought to recover IGCC Project costs through the IGCC Rider for Oct 1, 2011–Mar 31, 2012.
- IGCC-9 review followed prior IGCC proceedings and established the framework for ongoing cost recovery and filings.
- Intervenors alleged Duke delayed testing by three months, incurring about $61 million in financing costs not proven reasonable.
- Duke proposed declaring about 50% of Edwardsport plant in-service for ratemaking, despite the Settlement Agreement defining a later in-service date.
- The Commission approved 100% of the requested financing costs and did not issue specific findings on the three-month delay or the 50% in-service issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Three-month delay financing costs findings | Intervenors: findings on delay and $61M cost are required; failure violates statute. | Duke/Commission: need not resolve all disputed issues; sufficient evidence supported recovery. | Remanded for explicit findings on the delay and its impact on rates. |
| Partial in-service declaration | Intervenors: not consistent with 4S1 in-service date; could raise rates without proper findings. | Duke: in-service designation may be for tax and rate purposes per Agreement; no need for additional findings. | Remanded for a clear statement of policy and evidentiary factors underlying the 50% in-service determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- NIPSCO, NIPSCO, 907 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind.2009) (fact-finding focus and deferential review of IURC expertise)
- Indiana Gas Co. v. Ind. Fin. Auth., Ind. Am. Ct. App. 999 N.E.2d 63 (Ind.2013) (multitiered review; required findings and substantial evidence)
- L.S. Ayres & Co. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 169 Ind.App. 652, 351 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976) ( articulates need for articulation of policy and evidentiary factors)
- McClain v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1314 (Ind.1998) (deference to agency findings; checks on reasonableness)