Court Opinion

ID: 9876778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 15:33:19.249134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:14.704476
License: Public Domain

Barnes, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Given the outline and structure articulated in NIPSCO Industrial Group v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., 31 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), I see no basic difference here. The “plan” that NIPSCO says it has for the future and the “update” it says it needs run afoul, in my opinion, of Indiana Code Chapter 8-1-39, the TDSIC statute.
We recognized in NIPSCO Indus. Group that the “legislature anticipated the necessity of flexibility when it enacted the updating process of Indiana Code Section 8-1-39-9.” NIPSCO Indus. Group, 31 N.E.3d at 8. “Allowing for flexibility in a plan is not the same thing as not having a plan at all.” Id. Here, NIPSCO’s inclusion of broad categories of unspecified “multiple unit projects” does not comply with the statutory requirements. Allowing the utility to include broad categories of unspecified projects defeats the purpose of having a “plan.”
It is also important to note that, even if NIPSCO does not receive rate increases for a project through the TDSIC process, NIPSCO still may be reimbursed for unexpected issues in the way it did before TDSIC was enacted through general rate making cases. The TDSIC statute requires a specific plan, and it was not designed to deal with those unexpected issues. Rather, it was intended for planned projects. Of course, those projects might cost more than projected, and the annual “update” provisions allow the utility to address those issues.
No one expects NIPSCO to anticipate with pinpoint clarity what its needs and requirements may be years in the future. What can and should be expected, though, is that there be an ampunt of specificity in anticipated projects and needs and that the utility simply not get carte blanche to “update” its plan while exploring a rate increase. I understand that any utility, and NIPSCO in particular, has a right to enjoy a profit. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the overall vagueness and almost sleight of hand NIPSCO is using to justify the TDSIC rate increase.