Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse
Call 317-269-2500 For A Consultation
Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse
Email

CALL

Experienced Litigators And Advocates Serving Clients Across Indiana

Utility Law

INDIANA SUPREME COURT MODIFIES DECISION TO ALLOW RECOVERY OF COST OVERRUNS DURING RATEMAKING CASE

| Oct 29, 2018 |

On June 20, 2018, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld a narrow interpretation of the Transmission, Distribution and Storage System Improvement Charge (“TDSIC”) statute in NIPSCO Industrial Group v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., 100 N.E.3d 234 (Ind. 2018). A summary of that case can be found here: https://www.indianabusinesslawyerblog.com/nipsco-industrial-group-v-northern-indiana-public-service-co-100-n-e-3d-234-ind-2018/. On September 25, 2018, the Indiana Supreme Court reissued their opinion in…

FERC Legal — Arkansas Public Service Commission v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission US Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit No. 16-1305 (Argued 1/19/18)

| Sep 17, 2018 | ,

On June 1, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to review an order issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) holding that an operating company that withdrew from a “multi-state energy system” had to continue sharing benefits from a settlement with the other system members, even after it withdrew from the system. In 1951,…

NIPSCO Industrial Group v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., 100 N.E.3d 234 (Ind. 2018)

| Sep 6, 2018 |

On June 20, 2018, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld a narrow interpretation of the Transmission, Distribution and Storage System Improvement Charge (“TDSIC”) statute, which allows utility companies to seek approval from the Indiana Utilities Regulatory Commission (“IURC”) for specific transmission, distribution and storage system improvements and to raise rates periodically to recover the costs of the improvements as they are…

INDIANA SUPREME COURT HOLDS IURC IS A PROPER PARTY TO APPEALS OF IURC ORDERS

| Jul 16, 2018 | ,

On June 27, 2018, the Indiana Supreme Court issued an opinion establishing that the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“Commission”) is a proper party to an appeal of a Commission order. Hamilton Se. Utils., Inc. v. Indiana Util. Reg. Comm’n, No. 93A02-1612-EX-2742, 2018 Ind. LEXIS 496, at *1-12 (Ind. June 27, 2018).  Interestingly, the Commission had participated as a party in…

FERC Legal – FERC Determination in Docket No. EC17-131-000

| Apr 3, 2018 |

In June 2017, Florida Power and Light (“FPL”), a rate-regulated electric utility, filed an application with FERC requesting authorization to transfer its ownership interests in substation equipment and other assets to JEA, the largest community-owned electric utility in Florida. FERC dismissed FPL’s application for lack of jurisdiction. The net book value of the retained assets to be given to JEA…

Allco Renewable Energy, Ltd. v. Mass. Elec. Co.

| Jan 8, 2018 | ,

The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion finding that the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (“PURPA”) does not authorize lawsuits between cogeneration facilities and electric utilities because there is no express or implied private right of action in the statutory language. Allco Renewable Energy, Ltd. V. Mass. Elec. Co., 875 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2017). PURPA was…

Changes to Indiana 811 Call Before You Dig Law

| May 10, 2017 | ,

The Indiana General Assembly recently made changes to the Indiana Underground Plant Protection statute (Indiana Code § 8-1-26) which will take effect July 1, 2017. S.B. 472, 120th Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (Ind. 2017). The main change in this chapter is the creation of a new voluntary “design information notice” which applies to advance planning efforts relating to a demolition…

Indiana Stormwater Act: Municipalities May Assess Fee on Property Owners Even When Property Does Not Cause Runoff

| Mar 15, 2017 | ,

On February 15, 2017, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a published opinion affirming a municipality’s ability to charge a Stormwater Fee to all property owners within the boundaries of the city. Mint Management, LLC v. City of Richmond (No. 89a01-1603-PL-496, decided February 15, 2017). The Court of Appeals found the definition of “user” under the statute included all property…

Utility Easement Not Materially Impaired by Intersection Expansion

| Jan 5, 2017 | ,

On December 16, 2016, the Court of Appeals found that “the reasonable necessity of an intersection expansion outweighed whatever injurious effect that expansion would have on an electric utility’s enjoyment of its easement.” Duke Energy Indiana, LLC v. City of Franklin, 41A01-1607-CT-1549, at 23. Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (“Duke”) had an easement for the transmission of electrical energy in the…

Developer And Builder Payments For Extension Of New Utility Infrastructure May Be Excluded From Gross Utility Receipts For Purposes Of Assessing Indiana Utility Receipts Tax.

| May 10, 2016 |

In 2015, the Tax Court of Indiana ruled that sewer system development charges and connection fees that are paid by a developer or builder and not by the retail customer are not gross receipts subject to the utility receipts tax (URT). Hamilton Southeastern Utils., Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 40 N.E.3d 1284 (Ind. Tax 2015). The Indiana Department…

Archives

Categories

RSS Feed

Subscribe To This Blog’s Feed