« Law - IRS forfeiture issue, involving "structuring" deposits, in the news again | Main | Ind. Decisions - State to argue before 7th Circuit a ruling against Marion Co. Circuit Court for failure to provide sign language interpreter »

Wednesday, April 05, 2017

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 opinion(s) today (and 10 NFP memorandum decision(s))

For publication opinions today (1):

In Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., Indiana Association for Community and Economic Development, Indiana Coalition for Human Services, et al. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Company, et al., a 33-page opinion, Judge Bailey writes:

Indianapolis Power & Light Company (“IPL”) petitioned the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“the Commission”) for approval of an increase to its base rates for provision of electricity, which had been in effect since 1995. The Commission granted requests for intervention by Citizens Action Coalition, Indiana Community Action Association, Indiana Coalition for Human Services, Indiana Association for Community Economic Development, National Association of Social Workers Indiana Chapter, and Indiana State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (collectively, “Joint Intervenors”), and by IPL Industrial Group (“IPL Group”), The Kroger Company, and the City of Indianapolis. The proposed rate increase was approved by the Commission. After the denial of various petitions for reconsideration, Joint Intervenors appealed. We affirm.

Joint Intervenors articulate four issues claiming that the order lacks adequate support, particularly challenging (1) the lack of findings specifically addressing the impact of a particular rate component, a declining block rate (“DBR”), upon energy conservation, (2) the lack of findings specifically addressing the effect of DBR on elderly and African-American customers, (3) the rejection of a proposal for 25% low-income customer subsidies, and (4) the rejection of mandatory reporting by IPL of interruption-in-service data. We consolidate and restate the issues to conform to our standard of review, that is, a Commission order will stand unless no substantial evidence supports it or it is contrary to law, 3 and address the following issue: Whether the Commission’s rate approval order is not conclusive and binding due to a lack of specific findings on factual determinations material to its ultimate conclusions. * * *

Joint Intervenors have not shown that the Commission decision approving a rate design that includes DBR is unsupported by requisite findings. Joint Intervenors have not shown that the rate approval order is non-binding due to a lack of more extensive factual findings on matters introduced by Joint Intervenors which were not directly material to components of the approved rate design.

NFP civil decisions today (4):

Debra K. Ford, Personal Representative of the Estate of Darlene M. Welsh v. Indiana Heart Hospital (mem. dec.)

In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of T.H. (Minor Child), and J.H. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

In re the Marriage of: Tina Marie Perry v. William N. Perry, III (mem. dec.)

S.H. v. Marion County Department of Child Services, et al. (mem. dec.)

NFP juvenile and criminal decisions today (6):

Joshua Conn v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Luke Paul Eckrich v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

David C. Franks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Paris LaPriest Powell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

George A. Foote v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Joseph Miller v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 5, 2017 12:02 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions