Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.
44 N.E.3d 98
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Citizens Action Coalition v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Citizens Action I) remanded to the Commission to decide two issues: whether a three-month delay was chargeable to Duke and the impact on customers’ rates, and the policy/evidentiary basis for declaring 50% of the Edwardsport IGCC Plant in-service.
- On remand, the Commission issued findings asserting the delay was not unreasonable and addressing in-service for tax purposes, but did not quantify rate impact or address all evidentiary bases.
- The Commission also relied on prior orders (ECR 19 and ECR 20) in making its findings, even though those orders were not properly admitted into the IGCC-9 record.
- Intervenors argued the findings were insufficient and that the record should have been reopened to admit additional evidence.
- Duke asserted the Commission did not need to reopen the record and should adopt its proposed findings.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals ultimately reversed in part and remanded for fuller, properly supported findings on the tax in-service issue and to permit appropriate evidentiary development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the remand findings on the three-month delay sufficient? | Intervenors: findings are insufficient and not adequately supported by evidence. | Duke: findings are sufficient; evidence supports no imprudence in the delay. | Sufficient findings supported by record; no reversal on this issue. |
| Did the Commission properly address the in-service for tax purposes under the IGCC-4S1 settlement? | Intervenors: the partial in-service for tax purposes violated the settlement terms and affected rates. | Duke: tax in-service decisions are separate from the settlement’s in-service definition and regulatory effects; evidence supports no violation. | Not adequately addressed; court reverses and remands to resolve tax in-service impact. |
| Should the record have been reopened for additional evidence on tax in-service impacts? | Intervenors: yes, to develop proper rate-impact evidence. | Duke: no need to reopen; existing record sufficient. | Record should be reopened to address rate impact and evidentiary basis; remand authorized. |
| Were the previous orders (ECR 19/20) properly admissible as evidence on remand? | Intervenors: improper to rely on unadmitted orders. | Duke: orders were part of prior regulatory context and should be considered. | Erroneous reliance on unadmitted orders; remand requires proper evidentiary procedure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. Duke Energy Ind., Inc., 16 N.E.3d 1030 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (affirm/reverse/remand context for IGCC cost recovery and in-service issues)
- Ind. Gas Co. v. Ind. Fin. Auth., 999 N.E.2d 63 (Ind. 2013) (multilevel review; standard for agency findings and substantial evidence)
- City of Fort Wayne v. Utility Ctr., Inc., 840 N.E.2d 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (burden of proof in regulatory proceedings; agency findings)
- L.S. Ayres & Co. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 351 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976) (reversing/remanding for missing key issues or reasons)
- Civil Commitment of W.S. v. Eskenazi Health, 23 N.E.3d 29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (remand for evidentiary development when findings silent on key issue)
- Washington National Corp. v. Sears, 474 N.E.2d 116 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (technical terms and contract interpretation in regulatory context)
- George S. May Intern. Co. v. King, 629 N.E.2d 257 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (interpretation of technical terms in contracts)