Hamilton Southeastern Utilities, Inc. v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission

101 N.E.3d 229 (Ind. 2018) · Indiana Supreme Court · June 27, 2018 · No. 18S-EX-49

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court held that the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission was a proper party to an appeal from its own utility-rate order. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the Commission and remanded to allow it to brief the exclusion of expenses related to an affiliated company. The court summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision concerning the inclusion of shareholder-paid income taxes in the utility's rate calculation.

Holdings

  1. The Commission is a proper party to an appeal from its own final order and may appear when it determines that its participation is necessary to defend the order.
  2. The Court of Appeals' ruling concerning the exclusion of SAMCO-related expenses must be reversed because the Commission was not given an opportunity to defend its order; the matter must be remanded to permit the Commission to brief that issue.
  3. The Court of Appeals' determination permitting HSE to include passed-through state and federal income-tax liability in its rates is summarily affirmed.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission is a proper party to an appeal from its own final order.
  2. Whether the Commission's dismissal as a party required reversal of the Court of Appeals' ruling concerning SAMCO-related expenses.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeals' determination allowing HSE to include shareholder-paid state and federal income taxes in its rate calculation should be affirmed.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (9)

  • Hamilton Southeastern Utils., Inc. v. Ind. Util. Regulatory Comm'n, 85 N.E.3d 612, 617, 625 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017)(followed in procedural history)
  • Winfield v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 118 N.E. 531 (Ind. 1911)(relied upon)
  • Kosciusko County Rural Electric Membership Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 77 N.E.2d 572 (Ind. Ct. App. 1948)(relied upon)
  • Sizemore v. Public Service Comm’n, 177 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 1961)(relied upon)
  • Stucker Fork Conservancy Dist. v. Ind. Util. Regulatory Comm’n, 600 N.E.2d 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992)(relied upon)
  • Nextel W., Corp. v. Ind. Util. Regulatory Comm'n, 831 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)(relied upon)
  • Filter Specialists, Inc. v. Brooks, 879 N.E.2d 558, 570 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), vacated in part and summarily affirmed in part, 906 N.E.2d 835, 845 (Ind. 2009)(relied upon)
  • Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. City of Indianapolis, 131 N.E.2d 308 (Ind. 1956)(relied upon)
  • N. Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 907 N.E.2d 1012, 1015 (Ind. 2009)(relied upon)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…