Utility Law

October 29, 2018

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

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

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 response to a rehearing on the issue. The modified opinion is largely identical to the opinion issued in June. The TDSIC statute allows for periodic rate increases to cover 80 percent of the approved cost estimates for an improvement project without going through the traditional ratemaking process. The remaining 20 percent of improvement costs are recovered through the next general rate case filed by the utility with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“Commission”). The Supreme Court modified the June opinion to add a clause clarifying that any cost overruns incurred during a TDSIC improvement project that are “specifically justified by the utility and specifically approved by the Commission” are also recoverable during the next general rate case filed with the Commission in addition to the remaining 20 percent of improvement costs. 100 N.E. 3d at 244.

Jeremy Fetty is a partner in the law firm of Parr Richey with offices in Indianapolis and Lebanon. Mr. Fetty is current Chair of the Firm Utility and Business Section and often advises businesses and utilities (for profit, non-profit and cooperative) on regulatory, compliance, and transactional matters.

September 17, 2018

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)

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

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, six companies from Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi formed the Entergy Corporation, a publicly held utility company intended to share the costs and benefits of generating and transmitting power. The system agreement provided members the option to withdraw so long as the member gave an eight-year notice. Entergy Arkansas announced on December 19, 2005 that it intended to withdraw on December 18, 2013. In 2008, Entergy Arkansas settled state litigation against Union Pacific, which included a below-market rate for coal delivery as part of the settlement. Under the system agreement, all members realized some of the increased costs as a result of Union Pacific’s breach of contract, and they also realized the benefits of the reduced rate following the settlement.

In 2009, FERC approved both withdrawal notices, and held that neither Entergy Arkansas nor Entergy Mississippi should have to pay an exit fee to the other members. FERC held in subsequent proceedings that the settlement benefits should be allocated among the members and adopted a methodology for doing so.

September 6, 2018

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

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

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 completed. The TDSIC statute was enacted in 2013 to encourage utilities to replace aging infrastructure without having to undergo the full ratemaking process and to recover the costs of the improvements as they were completed.

There are two types of proceedings under the TDSIC statute—Section 9 and Section 10. The Section 10 proceeding is the initial proceedings where a seven-year plan for eligible improvements, including cost estimates, is submitted and reviewed by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“IURC”). Once the plan is approved by the IURC, the utility may petition under Section 9 for periodic rate adjustments to recover 80 percent of capital expenditures for eligible, completed improvements. As a part of the Section 9 proceedings, the utility must also update the seven-year plan with the IURC. Furthermore, if the utility seeks to recover additional costs above the initially approved cost estimates, the utility must provide justification for the increase, and the IURC must approve the additional cost recovery.

At issue in this case was a seven-year plan filed by the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (“NIPSCO”) seeking approval for an improvement to its gas system under the TDSIC statute from the IURC. The Section 10 petition identified specific improvement projects for the first year, but for the remaining six years, the plan described “project categories” rather than identifying specific projects, because NIPSCO knows from historical data that a certain percentage of its systems will fail annually and need replacing (referred to as “ascertainable criteria”), but it cannot identify exactly which parts of its system will fail. The IURC approved the Section 10 petition and subsequent Section 9 petitions. The NIPSCO Industrial Group (“Industrial Group”) intervened to oppose NIPCOS’s fourth Section 9 petition because it updated the gas plan with an increased cost of $20 million, but the IURC approved it because the petition further identified specific projects and asset replacements within the project categories approved in the Section 10 petition.

July 16, 2018

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

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

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 appeals of its orders without controversy until relatively recently, when parties began to challenge its standing to be a party in several appellate proceedings

This matter began in September 2015 when Hamilton Southeastern Utilities, Inc. (“HSE”) requested a rate increase from the Commission. HSE sought an 8.42% increase in rates, but the Commission only authorized a rate increase of 1.17%, partially because the Commission said that HSE should eliminate outsourcing expenses. Id. at *3-4. HSE appealed the order, initially naming the Commission as a party. HSE then moved to dismiss the Commission, claiming “it had mistakenly identified the Commission as a party” and that the Commission should not be a party because it had “acted as a fact-finding administrative tribunal.” Hamilton Se. Utils., Inc. v. Indiana Util. Reg. Comm’n., 85 N.E.3d 612, 617 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). The Court of Appeals granted the motion, reasoning that the Commission had adjudicated a rate case where the parties appearing before the Commission advocated for competing interests, and the Commission’s order “should speak for itself, without the need to further rationalize its decision.” Id. at 619. The Court of Appeals went on to affirm a number of the Commission’s decisions in calculating the 1.17% increase, but it held that the Commission arbitrarily excluded outsourcing expenses from that rate calculation. Id. at 626.

The Supreme Court granted transfer to review the question of whether the Commission was a proper party to the appeal of its order. The Court held that it was a proper party because it is a “long-standing custom and practice” to treat the Commission as a proper party to appeals of its orders, and the legislature had acquiesced to that practice. Hamilton Se. Utils., Inc, 2018 Ind. LEXIS 496, at *6.The Court noted that other “similarly situated executive branch agencies enjoy the ability to defend their decisions on appeal, both through explicit legislative directive” and through “legislative acquiescence to custom and practice.” Id. at *8. Furthermore, the Court said that public policy supports allowing the Commission to defend its orders on appeal in the interests of not disturbing a long-standing custom, promoting efficiency in the appeals process, and allowing the Commission to adequately represent its interests since opposing parties in a ratemaking case do not necessarily represent all of the Commission’s interests in defending its order. Id. at *10. Finally, the Court noted that the Commission’s role in the ratemaking case is administrative, not adjudicative, and therefore HSE’s argument that the Commission could not be a party because it adjudicated the proceedings failed. Id. at *11.

April 3, 2018

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

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

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 was $3 million, including a $1.1 million value for the substation equipment.

FERC determined that FPL’s application was unnecessary and that FERC lacked jurisdiction to review the application. Under section 203(a)(1) of the FPA, FERC only has jurisdiction to review applications where a public utility seeks to: (A) sell, lease, or dispose of the whole of its facilities which are valued above $10 million; (B) merge or consolidate facilities with another person; (C) purchase , acquire, or take a security of another public utility in excess of $10 million; or (D) purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire an existing generation facility valued over $10 million that is used for interstate wholesale sales over which FERC has jurisdiction for ratemaking. 16 U.S.C. § 824b(a)(1) (2017). Subsection (A) did not apply because the value of the assets to be transferred was under $10 million. Subsections (C) and (D) likewise did not apply.

FPL stated in its application that subsection (B) applied to transactions involving the acquisition of transmission facilities from non-jurisdictional municipal entities and that FERC had not yet addressed whether subsection (B) applied to the disposition of transmission facilities from a jurisdictional public utility to a non-jurisdictional municipal entity. FERC determined that subsection (B) did not apply to the sale or other disposition of jurisdictional facilities. Additionally, subsection (B) did not apply because the party acquiring the facilities is a municipal entity.

January 8, 2018

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

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

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 enacted to encourage the development of energy-efficient cogeneration and small power production facilities, requiring electric utilities to purchase energy from “qualifying facilities” at a regulation-specified cost rate. Under FERC regulations, the cost rate is the rate equal to the utility’s full avoided cost. A qualifying facility under PURPA is a “nontraditional” facility which produces energy from sources such as biomass, waste, renewable resources, or geothermal resources.

In Allco, the plaintiff was a qualifying facility that wanted to negotiate a purchase agreement with defendant National Grid, an electric utility. Instead of negotiating a purchase agreement, National Grid offered to purchase Allco’s energy under its standard power purchase contract. Allco petitioned the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (“MDPU”) to investigate the reasonableness of National Grid’s offer, which the MDPU denied. FERC subsequently denied Allco’s petition asking FERC to bring an enforcement action against MDPU, and Allco sued National Grid and other state defendants.

The court analyzed section 210 of PURPA to determine whether it created an express or implied private right of action allowing a qualifying facility to sue an electric utility. PURPA expressly authorizes FERC to bring enforcement actions against a state in federal court and allows a qualifying facility to sue the state utility regulatory agency in state court for PURPA violations—it does not authorize suits between qualifying facilities and electric utilities. The court also held that Congress did not implicitly authorize this kind of lawsuit because of the aforementioned express enforcement provisions. Additionally, the court invalidated MDPU regulations relating to calculating a utility’s avoided costs, but left the proper calculation to the MDPU since state utility regulatory agencies are responsible for implementing FERC’s regulations for rate determinations.

May 10, 2017

Changes to Indiana 811 Call Before You Dig Law

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

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 or excavation project. The amendments also establish procedures for Indiana 811 and operators once a design information notice is received.

A design engineer, consultant, or architect may voluntarily submit a design information notice to Indiana 811, which must include contact information for the person serving the notice, the person responsible for project planning activities, and the person planning to perform the excavation or demolition, if known. The notice must also include the scope and location of the proposed project and whether white lining will be performed. The person responsible for the project may not serve more than two design information notices for the same project within any 180-day period. Additionally, if the person serving the design information notice is unable to provide the physical location of the proposed excavation or demolition project with the location’s address or legal description, the person must perform white lining in the area affected by the proposed project. Indiana 811 must receive the notice at least ten working days, but not more than twenty calendar days before preliminary planning activities commence. Indiana 811 is required to adopt policies for processing design information notices, including alerting the operators of underground facilities that will be affected by the proposed project and providing this list of operators to the party serving the design information notice.

Once an operator or utility receives a design information notice, it must, within ten working days, contact the person serving the notice and inform them whether the operator has underground facilities located in the project area. If the operator does have underground facilities in the area, it must provide either a description of the location and type of facility affected by the proposed project, allow an inspection of the operator’s drawings or records for all of the operator’s underground facilities within the project area, or mark the location of the operator’s underground facilities within the project area with temporary markers. The operator must also, where applicable, provide the person serving the notice with the necessary maps or information to describe the location of all facility markers marking the underground utility. An operator may reject a design information notice where there are security considerations or the operator would be placed at a competitive disadvantage by producing the information. An operator who rejects a design information notice must provide notice to the person serving the design information notice and may request additional information.

March 15, 2017

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

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

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 owners within the boundaries of the city, regardless of whether a particular property owner contributed to the city’s storm water runoff.

The City of Richmond adopted an ordinance in 2007 which created a Stormwater Management District in Richmond, which was financed by imposing a Stormwater Fee on all property within the city that directly or indirectly contributed to Richmond’s stormwater system. Four property owners whose stormwater runoff did not directly or indirectly drain into the city’s stormwater system sued, requesting a declaratory judgment that they were not required to pay the fee and a reimbursement of the fees already paid. The trial court granted summary judgment to the city, finding that the definition of “user” under the ordinance included the property owners.

The Court of Appeals agreed, finding that there would be “an irrational and disharmonizing interpretation” of the ordinance if the definition of “user” and statutory language was not taken into account. Specifically, the Stormwater Act under the Indiana Code (section 8-1.5-5-7) allows a stormwater management district to collect user fees “from all of the property of the storm water district” without exceptions. The Court found the ordinance also used language which encompassed all property owners within the city’s boundaries. Further, the court noted that the stormwater system benefitted everyone who uses any sewer infrastructure, so the property owners did directly or indirectly contribute to the stormwater system.

January 5, 2017

Utility Easement Not Materially Impaired by Intersection Expansion

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

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 area of the City of Franklin’s proposed traffic plan, which would connect a four-lane state road to two city streets. Duke, believing that the plan would unreasonably interfere with its easement rights, filed for a preliminary injunction. The trial court denied the request, finding that Duke failed to establish unreasonable interference, and therefore, failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success at trial. Duke asserted that the increased volume and speed of traffic proceeding past the utility pole, located adjacent to and just northwest of the proposed intersection, would increase the hazard to maintenance and repair crews. The trial court found that Duke did not show material impairment, unreasonable interference, or irreconcilable conflict. Instead, the trial court found that Duke essentially argued that to repair and maintain the utility pole and transmission lines, Duke’s crews would interfere with the public’s use of the road. While the court found this concern valid, it did not address the issue of Duke’s use, and the need for additional traffic measures was not found to equate unreasonable interference with Duke’s easement. Duke appealed.

The Court of Appeals addressed Duke’s two claims related to its contention of a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits at trial: (1) the City should not be able to expand the intersection because it does not have adequate property interests in portions of the land and (2) the proposed expansion of the intersection unreasonably burdens its rights pursuant to the easement. The Court of Appeals found that the first claim was essentially a trespass action. However, as an easement holder, Duke lacked standing to maintain an action for trespass for invasion of a right of way or easement. As for the second claim, the Court found that the proposed intersection was a reasonably necessary use of the City’s right-of-way, as it will beautify the corridor, enhance safety, and spur growth. Duke would still be able to repair and maintain the transmission lines and utility poles by simply using additional traffic measures. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding that the reasonable necessity of the expansion outweighed the injury to Duke’s enjoyment of its easement.

Jeremy Fetty is a partner in the law firm of Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse with offices in Lebanon and Indianapolis. He often advises businesses and utilities (for profit, non-profit and cooperative) on organizational, human resources, and transactional matters and drafts and reviews commercial contracts.

May 10, 2016

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.

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

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 of State Revenue completed an audit of Hamilton Southeastern Utilities, Inc. proposing URT assessments on receipts from sewer system development charges and connection fees. Hamilton Southeastern protested, and after an administrative hearing denied the protest, Hamilton Southeastern appealed.

In determining that the sewer system development charges and connection fees paid by a developer or builder and not by the retail customer were not subject to the URT, the court examined I.C. 6-2.3-1-4 and I.C. 6-2.3-3-10. Under I.C. 6-2.3-1-4, the court determined that ‘utility services for consumption’ simply refers to the removal of sewage and does not give indication of a broader definition. The Department of State Revenue argued that because the fees are necessary, they should be included in the URT; however, the court found that was not grounded in the words of the statute. Under I.C. 6-2.3-1-10, gross receipts “are: 1) received for an enumerated service, 2) the enumerated service is provided to a consumer, and 3) the enumerated service is directly related to the delivery of utility services to the (same) consumer.” At 1288 (emphasis in original). In the case of system development and connection fees, the charges are not paid by the retail consumer, but by the developer and builder.

The court granted summary judgment to Hamilton Southeastern under I.C. 6-2.3-1-4 and I.C. 6-2.3-1-10, but decided the issue of needing to separate receipts on records and returns of the taxpayer under I.C. 6-2.3-3-2 separately. Later, the court determined that the system development and connection fees were separated from the taxable receipts in accordance with the statute. Hamilton Southeastern Utils., Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, Cause No. 49T10-1210-TA-00068 (Ind. Tax April 29, 2016). Although Hamilton Southeastern did not report the amount of fees that was not required – simply separating the fees from the taxable receipts was sufficient. This was accomplished by only reporting the taxable receipts.