Lone Oak Solar Energy LLC v. Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor
24A-EX-00033
Ind. Ct. App.Oct 17, 2024Background
- Lone Oak Solar Energy LLC sought to construct a solar farm in Madison County, Indiana to sell electricity in the wholesale market, with no Indiana retail customers.
- In 2019, Lone Oak obtained a special use permit from the Madison County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) requiring operation by December 31, 2023, and concurrently requested the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) to decline jurisdiction over the project, shifting regulation to local authorities.
- The IURC agreed to decline jurisdiction, except for certain limited matters, based on a finding that it was not in the public interest to assert jurisdiction.
- Unable to meet the permit’s timeline due to COVID-19 and supply chain issues, Lone Oak sought a permit extension from the BZA, which the BZA denied; judicial review was sought in Grant Circuit Court.
- Simultaneously, Lone Oak petitioned the IURC to reassert jurisdiction and override the BZA’s refusal, but the IURC declined, reasoning public interest factors had not changed and Lone Oak had access to judicial review.
- On appeal, Lone Oak argued IURC jurisdiction was mandatory, the local ordinance unlawfully discriminated, and that the declination violated the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IURC Jurisdiction (Reassertion) | IURC must reassert jurisdiction and override BZA decision | IURC should not reassert; public interest factors unchanged | IURC not required to reassert jurisdiction |
| Regulatory Exemption | Project is exempt from local regulation under usual statutes | IURC already granted declination at Lone Oak's request | IURC's prior declination order stands |
| Discrimination by Ordinance | County’s ordinance unlawfully discriminates by fuel source | Adequate local regulation; no direct retail customers affected | Argument rejected; premise assumes IURC juris. |
| Dormant Commerce Clause | Declination order violates the Dormant Commerce Clause | Any error was invited—relief was granted at Lone Oak's own request | Court refused to consider; error was invited |
Key Cases Cited
- N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 907 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind. 2009) (establishes the standard for reviewing IURC findings; deference to agency expertise)
- City of Carmel v. Duke Energy Ind., LLC, 234 N.E.3d 816 (Ind. 2024) (outlines IURC’s authority and public interest review in utility regulation)
- Citizens Action Coal. of Ind., Inc. v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 485 N.E.2d 610 (Ind. 1985) (sets forth review standards for IURC orders)
- McClain v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1314 (Ind. 1998) (deference to administrative fact-finding)