Indiana Gas Company, Inc. and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company v. Indiana Finance Authority and Indiana Gasification, LLC

999 N.E.2d 63, 2013 WL 6632118, 2013 Ind. LEXIS 985
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 17, 2013
Docket93S02-1306-EX-407
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 999 N.E.2d 63 (Indiana Gas Company, Inc. and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company v. Indiana Finance Authority and Indiana Gasification, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Indiana Gas Company, Inc. and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company v. Indiana Finance Authority and Indiana Gasification, LLC, 999 N.E.2d 63, 2013 WL 6632118, 2013 Ind. LEXIS 985 (Ind. 2013).

Opinion

*65 DICKSON, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission ("the IURC") approving a contract for the purchase of substitute natural gas ("SNG") and directing the procedure for resolving future related disputes. After the Court of Appeals voided the contract because a definitional term deviated from the required statutory definition, the contracting parties amended the contract to correct the error. We hold that the contract, as amended, renders the definitional issue moot and summarily affirm the Court of Appeals as to all other claims.

In 2009, the Indiana General Assembly passed the Substitute Natural Gas Act, authorizing the Indiana Finance Authority ("IFA") to contract for the purchase of SNG to be delivered to "retail end use customers" ("REUCs"). Under the SNG Act, purchase contracts must provide a guarantee of savings to REUCs and be approved by the IURC. In January 2011, IFA executed a contract with Indiana Ga-sification, LLC ("Indiana Gas") 1 for the purchase of SNG ("the Contract"). 2 IFA and Indiana Gas petitioned the IURC for its approval. Several regulated gas utilities ("the Utilities") were joined in the proceeding. Industrial transportation companies ("the Industrial Group") and consumer advocacy groups ("the Citizens Group") intervened. After an evidentiary hearing, the IURC found the Contract guarantees the required savings and approved the Contract, but declined to decide the scope of REUC as used in the Contract ("the Order").

The Utilities, Industrial Group, and izens Group appealed the IURC's Order. On October 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued its decision holding that "(1) the Utilities and the Industrial Group's claims are justiciable," and (2) "the Commission did not exceed its jurisdiction when it approved the Contract.". Indiana Gas Co. v. Indiana Fin. Auth., 977 N.E.2d 981, 1003 (Ind.Ct.App.2012). But the court reversed the IURC's approval of the Contract because the Contract's definition of REUC applies to industrial transportation customers. Id. By December 13, 2012, IFA and Indiana Gas entered into an "Amended Contract" that deletes from. the Contract the language the Court of Appeals found improper. 3 In all other aspects, the Contract remains unchanged. Even though presented with the Amended Contract, the Court of Appeals denied rehearing. We granted transfer, thereby vacating the reversal of the IURC's Order pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A). We hold that the Amended Contract defines REUC compatible with the SNG Act and renders the definitional issue moot.

"The General Assembly created the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission primarily as a fact-finding body with the technical expertise to administer the regulatory scheme devised by the legisla *66 ture." N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. United States Steel Corp., 907 N.E.2d 1012, 1015 (Ind.2009) [hereinafter NIPSCO]. The Indiana Code authorizes judicial review of IURC orders as follows:

An assignment of errors that the decision, ruling, or order of the commission is contrary to law shall be sufficient to present both the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision, ruling, or order, and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of facts upon which it was rendered.

Ind.Code § 8-1-3-1 (2012). This amounts to a multiple tiered review. NIPSCO at 1016. First, the order must contain specific findings on all the factual determinations material to its ultimate conclusions. Id. We review the conclusions of ultimate facts, or mixed questions of fact and law, for their reasonableness, with greater deference to matters within the IURC's expertise and jurisdiction. Id. (citing McClain v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dept. of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1814, 1317-18 (Ind.1998)). Second, the findings of fact must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses and consider only the evidence most favorable to the IURC's findings. Id. (quoting McClain, 693 N.E.2d at 1317). Finally, we review whether IURC action is contrary to law, "but this constitutionally preserved review is limited to whether the Commission stayed within its jurisdiction and conformed to the statutory standards and legal principles involved in producing its decision, ruling, or order." Id.

Definition of "Retail End Use Customer"

On transfer, IFA and Indiana Gas concede that the Contract's definition of REUC is incompatible with the SNG Act, but they argue the Court of Appeals majority erred in reversing the IURC's Order. IFA and Indiana Gas do not simply ask this Court to follow Chief Judge Robb's dissent, 4 but instead ask this Court to

affirm the [IURC's] approval of the Contract regardless of the addition of the 37 words, and in doing so the Court may also take note that the definitional issue is now moot because the offending 37 words have been removed by the IFA/[Indiana Gas] Contract amendment{.] ‘

Appellees Trans. Pet. at 14 (emphasis added). IFA and Indiana Gas explain that, under Section 15.5 of the Contract, 5 "[the Contract permits [IFA and Indiana Gas] to amend their agreement." Id. To this point, the Utilities respond that "[alny assertion that the [Amended Contract] moots the issue of the Contract's defective definition of 'retail end use customer' and negates the need for further proceedings before the Commission is not well taken" because "[plursuant to Section 15.2 of the Contract, 6 the Contract became void and *67 unenforceable in its entirety" when the Court of Appeals found the Contract's definition of REUC deviated from the statutory definition. 7 Appellant Utilities Joint Response to Trans Pet. at 9-10. Because the Amended Contract's definition of REUC is compatible with the SNG Act and our grant of transfer vacated the reversal of the IURC's Order, we dismiss the definitional issue as moot and affirm the IURC's approval of the Contract.

The Amended Contract's definition of REUC is compatible with the SNG Act. The Commission has the authority to approve a final purchase contract so far as the contract comports with the statutory requirements of the SNG Act. See Ind. Code § 4-4-11.6-14. The SNG Act defines an REUC as "a customer who acquires energy at retail for the customer's own consumption" from a gas utility or through a program approved by the IURC with rates subject to approval by the IURC. Ind.Code §

Related

Jeana M. Horner v. Terry R. Curry
125 N.E.3d 584 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
999 N.E.2d 63, 2013 WL 6632118, 2013 Ind. LEXIS 985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indiana-gas-company-inc-and-southern-indiana-gas-and-electric-company-v-ind-2013.