Close

Articles Posted in Utility Law

Updated:

Indiana Utility Law – Ind. Office of Utility Consumer Counselor v. Duke Energy Indiana, LLC, 21A-EX-2702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023)

On February 21, 2023, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed an Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“Commission”) order granting Duke Energy Indiana (“Duke”) recovery of costs pursuant to federal Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) rules for treating coal ash and remediating ash ponds because the Commission had not yet approved the project,…

Updated:

Renewable Energy/PURPA Law – Solar Energy Industries Association v. FERC, No. 21-1126 (D.C. Cir. 2023)

On February 14, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld an order from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission”) granting Broadview Solar, LLC’s (“Broadview”) application for its Montana facility to be a qualifying facility under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (“PURPA”),…

Updated:

Indiana Utility Law – Bender Enterprises, LLC v. Duke Energy, LLC, 22A-PL-1230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022)

On October 21, 2022, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that objections to condemnation proceedings must state specific facts that support the assertions raised by the objections, noting that the special statutory character of eminent domain proceedings and inaction by the Indiana General Assembly necessitate greater factual specificity than what…

Updated:

Indiana Utility Law – Ind. Office of Utility Consumer Counselor v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co., 22S-EX-00166 (Ind. 2023)

On January 4, 2023, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s (“IURC”) approval of Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company’s (“Vectren”) new instantaneous netting method (“Rider EDG”) of determining the amount of credit Vectren customers receive for their excess distributed generation of electricity, overruling the Indiana Court…

Updated:

Indiana Utility Law – NIPSCO Industrial Group, and Office of the Utility Consumer Counselor v. Northern Indiana Public Service Company, and Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, 22A-EX-187 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022)

On December 28, 2021, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“Commission”) approved a Transmission, Distribution and Storage System Improvement Charge (“TDSIC”) plan submitted by Northern Indiana Public Service Company (“NIPSCO”). Part of NIPSCO’s TDSIC plan included certain system deliverability projects, specifically NIPCO’s need to upgrade its Marktown substation and improve the…

Updated:

Indiana Utility Law – Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor v. Duke Energy Ind., LLC, 21S-EX-00432 (Ind. 2022)

On March 10, 2022, the Indiana Supreme Court concluded that a utility cannot be reimbursed for a deferred asset, even if it is properly accounted for, without violating Ind. Code § 8-1-2-68 bar against retroactive ratemaking. The case involved the utility regulation commission’s approval of Duke Energy Indiana’s (“Duke”) 2019…

Updated:

Indiana Utility Law – 2020 Report to the 21st Century Energy Policy Development Task Force

Indiana Code §8-1-8.5-3.1(b) in 2019 ordered the Indiana Utility Regulatory Utility Commission (IURC) to conduct a study of statewide impacts of: Transitions in the fuel sources and other resources used to generate electricity by electric utilities; and New and emerging technologies on local grids or distribution infrastructure; on electric generation…

Updated:

Indiana Utility Law and Pipeline Safety – Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Approves Highest Fine in State History Against NIPSCO

On August 5, 2020, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) approved $1,110,000 in civil penalties for pipeline safety violations in 2018 for Northern Indiana Public Service Company, LLC (NIPSCO).  NIPSCO failed to locate or mark its pipelines in the two days required by safety procedures.  Mr. Boyd, the Division’s Director,…

Updated:

Indiana Court of Appeals Decision Addresses Unreasonable Interference Protection for Easement Owners – Duke Energy Indiana v. J. & J Development Company

On February 5, 2020, the Indiana Court of Appeals handed down an opinion that will have landowners thinking twice before interfering with easement owners’ rights. In Duke Energy Indiana v. J & J Development Company, J & J bought a piece of land with the intent of developing a residential…

Updated:

“Denied! Rural California Telephone Companies Requests for Higher Cost of Capital are Refused” – Ponderosa Telephone Co., et al v. California Public Utilities Commission

A California court of appeals recently held that utility companies operating in rural areas of the state do not collect a higher cost of capital, also referred to as a rate of return, than other utility companies. In Ponderosa Telephone Co. v. California Public Utilities Commission, several small, rural, privately-owned…

Contact Us