Indiana Gas & Electric Company v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission
75 N.E.3d 568
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Vectren North and Vectren South (collectively “Vectren”) obtained Commission approval in 2013 of seven‑year TDSIC plans under Ind. Code § 8‑1‑39‑10; the plans contained detailed projects for year one and general categories/estimates for years 2–7.
- The TDSIC statute allows a utility to (a) file a Section 10 petition to have a seven‑year plan approved (Commission makes findings and designates "eligible improvements") and (b) file Section 9 update petitions during the plan term that must “update” the seven‑year plan and may recover up to 80% of costs.
- This Court previously held in NIPSCO that a seven‑year plan lacking sufficient detail for years 2–7 was inadequate and that Section 9 updating cannot substitute for the Section 10 requirements.
- Vectren filed multiple Section 9 updates; Update‑1 (approved) included projects not in the original plan. After NIPSCO, Vectren delayed Update‑2. In Update‑3, Vectren sought to add several "new" projects not listed in its original plan (including large transmission and meter projects).
- The Commission approved only projects in Update‑3 that fell within categories specified in the original plan and denied approval for projects not designated in the original Section 10 plan, concluding Section 9 updates may only modify previously designated eligible improvements.
- Vectren appealed, arguing (1) Section 9 permits adding new projects to a Section 10 plan and (2) res judicata (collateral estoppel/law of the case) barred the Commission from reversing its prior position.
Issues
| Issue | Vectren's Argument | Commission/OUCC Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 9 updates may add new projects to an approved Section 10 seven‑year plan | "Update" applies to the seven‑year plan as a whole, so new projects may be added via Section 9 to allow timely cost recovery | "Update" is limited to changes to projects already designated as eligible under Section 10; new projects must be added via a Section 10 petition | Court: Commission's interpretation reasonable; Section 9 cannot be used to add new projects (affirmed) |
| Whether res judicata/collateral estoppel bars the Commission from denying new projects in Update‑3 | Prior Commission orders and appellate affirmance preclude the Commission from reversing its earlier practice of approving new projects in updates | Commission may alter prior orders under statutory authority; prior appellate disposition did not decide the update‑scope issue on the merits | Court: Vectren waived full res judicata argument and, on the merits, collateral estoppel does not apply because the specific issue was not previously adjudicated (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- NIPSCO Indus. Group v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 31 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (Section 10 requires sufficient seven‑year plan detail; Section 9 updating cannot substitute for Section 10 designation of eligible improvements)
- N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 907 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind. 2009) (Commission is a fact‑finding regulatory body; its statutory authority is limited to that conferred by legislature)
- U.S. Gypsum, Inc. v. Ind. Gas Co., 735 N.E.2d 790 (Ind. 2000) (agencies possess implicit powers necessary to effectuate statutory regulatory schemes)
- Jay Classroom Teachers Ass'n v. Jay School Corp., 55 N.E.3d 813 (Ind. 2016) (agency statutory interpretations are given great weight)
- MicroVote Gen. Corp. v. Ind. Election Comm’n, 924 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (collateral estoppel does not apply to matters not expressly adjudicated on prior review)