Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (mem. dec.)
93A02-1604-EX-914
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 7, 2017Background
- Vectren South sought Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission approval of its 2016-2017 Electric DSM Plan under Indiana Code 8-1-8.5-10.
- The Plan proposed energy-efficiency programs, budgets, costs, and lost revenues, with a DSMA mechanism for recovery if approved.
- The Commission found the Plan reasonable but limited lost-revenue recovery to four years or the life of the measure (whichever shorter) or until rates in the next base rate case, whichever occurred earlier.
- Vectren South challenged the four-year cap as arbitrary and unsupported by the statute; CAC and OUCC participated and opposed full lost-revenue recovery.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed under Indiana Code 8-1-8.5-10 and applicable APA standards, focusing on whether the four-year cap could be reconciled with the statute.
- The court reversed and remanded, directing the Commission to make explicit factual findings supporting the cap or reconsider the Plan as a whole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the four-year cap on lost revenues is lawful under Section 10 | Vectren South argues cap unconnected to measure life or rate-case timing fails Section 10(j)(8) and 10(o). | The Commission reasoned cap aligns with limiting pancaking and with policy of less frequent rate cases. | Cap invalid; remand allowed for explicit rationale. |
| Whether the Commission’s remand options sufficiently justify the Plan's reasonableness | Vectren South contends the four-year cap precludes reasonable lost revenues; need concrete findings. | Commission could either justify the cap with findings or deem the Plan not reasonable and allow a modified plan. | Remand permitted for specific factual findings to support either validity of cap or overall reasonableness. |
Key Cases Cited
- N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 907 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind. 2009) (statutory review framework; substantial evidence standard; agency deference)
- Sadler v. State ex rel. Sanders, 811 N.E.2d 936 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (interpretation of statute and deference to agency interpretations)
- In re Dunn, 848 N.E.2d 310 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (consider statute in its entirety; legislative intent interpretation)
- Best Ever Cos., 495 N.E.2d 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (agency rules cannot be inconsistent with statutes)
- NIPSCO Indus. Grp. v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 31 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (context of rate cases and regulatory proceedings)