Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. v. Office of the Utility Consumer Counselor, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 645
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Duke Energy Indiana petitioned the IURC on July 22, 2009 for deferred-accounting treatment of $11.6 million of ice-storm costs; storms totalled about $32 million across two events in four months (wind storm Sept 2008, ice storm Jan 2009).
- OUCC opposed the request, arguing against retroactive/single-issue ratemaking and against treating two storms as an extraordinary event.
- IURC initially granted deferred accounting in July 2010, finding the combined storms justified an extraordinary exception.
- ALJ Storms presided over first hearing; a separate audit followed after concerns of undue influence surfaced; the audit found no undue influence by Storms in this case.
- In December 2010 the IURC reopened the case and, after a second evidentiary hearing in 2011, denied the deferred-accounting relief for $11.9 million; Duke appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the IURC’s October 2011 order supported by substantial evidence and not required to provide a detailed explanation for changing conclusions after updated evidentiary record
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IURC’s October 2011 order denying deferral was arbitrary and capricious | Duke contends the IURC contradicted itself by duplicating review | OUCC/IURC argue updated evidence justified the new ruling | No; substantial evidence supports the second decision and change was warranted by new evidence |
| Whether the IURC needed to explain its change in position after reopening | Duke asserts due process requires an explanation for reversal | IURC not required to articulate explicit rationale for every change when evidence changes | Not required; updated record justified the outcome and no due-process violation found |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 907 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind. 2009) (two-tiered judicial review of agency decisions; substantial-evidence standard applies to findings of fact)
- Lincoln Utils., Inc. v. Office of Util. Consumer Counselor, 661 N.E.2d 562 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (agency decisions reviewed for substantial evidence and proper context of regulatory setting)
- Indiana State Bd. of Registration and Education for Health Facility Administrators v. Cummings, 387 N.E.2d 491 (Ind. 1979) (arbitrary-and-capricious review requires adequate written reasons for changes in decision)