United States Steel Corp. v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1009
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- U.S. Steel Gary Works sits within NIPSCO’s electric/gas territories and uses NIPSCO-supplied energy plus U.S. Steel cogeneration.
- ArcelorMittal acquired the Plate Mill inside Gary Works in 2003; ownership swap placed ArcelorMittal with the Plate Mill, while U.S. Steel retained Gary Works real estate.
- ArcelorMittal began consuming electricity and gas at the Plate Mill via a sub-metered NIPSCO arrangement and ongoing U.S. Steel distribution.
- In 2007–2007, NIPSCO sought formal action; complaints were filed; CAD recommended formal action and the Commission consolidated actions.
- The Commission ultimately held that U.S. Steel acted as a public utility in several respects, and dismissed or remanded other claims as to NIPSCO, leading to this appeal.
- On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals revises the Commission’s determinations, vacates some findings, and remands with instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether U.S. Steel’s electricity to ArcelorMittal made it a public utility under 8-1-2-1(a). | Steel producers argue service to ArcelorMittal was private, not to the public. | NIPSCO argues the Commission’s public-utility status determination should be given deference. | Public utility status not established; remanded to vacate related finding. |
| Whether U.S. Steel violated the Service Area Assignments Act by selling electricity within NIPSCO’s service area. | Steel producers contend no unlawful retail service within assigned area. | NIPSCO contends there was a violation. | Not supported; remanded to vacate the violation finding. |
| Whether U.S. Steel’s gas transportation to ArcelorMittal renders it a public utility under 8-1-2-87.5(b)(2). | Steel producers claim the gas transport falls outside 8-1-2-87.5(b). | U.S. Steel’s transport within Indiana on behalf of ArcelorMittal fits the statute. | Public utility status established under 8-1-2-87.5(b)(2); affirmed as to gas transport. |
| Whether U.S. Steel’s resale of gas to ArcelorMittal violated NIPSCO’s tariff. | NIPSCO contends resale was allowed under tariff; not a tariff violation. | Tariff bans resale; conduct violated the tariff. | Tariff violation established; upheld. |
| Whether the Commission properly dismissed the Steel Producers’ complaint against NIPSCO. | Steel Producers argue Commission failed to address merits; CAD/Commission process should compel action. | Discretionary nature of investigation allowed; dismissal proper. | Dismissal proper; remand unnecessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States Steel Corp. v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 482 N.E.2d 501 (Ind.Ct.App.1985) (limits on Commission jurisdiction over steel producers; not a public utility)
- United States Steel Corp. v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 486 N.E.2d 1082 (Ind.1990) (read back omitted phrase to interpret 8-1-2-1(a) public utility; constitutional concerns)
- Panhandle E. Pipeline Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Ind., 71 N.E.2d 117 (Iowa/Indiana 1947) (public utility status tied to serving public; competition concerns)
- Foltz v. City of Indianapolis, 130 N.E.2d 650 (Ind.1955) (public use and public interest standard for utilities)
- BP Products North America, Inc. v. Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, 947 N.E.2d 471 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (private selectivity vs. public utility; BP re: spécial circumstances)
- Public Service Comm’n v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co., 332 U.S. 507 (U.S.1957) (federal perspective on public utility status and bypass arrangements)