Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractjurisdictionstatutehearingregulation
contractjurisdictionstatutehearingregulation

Related Cases

George v. Caton, 93 N.M. 370, 600 P.2d 822, 1979-NMCA-028
View Case »
In re Disciplinary Action Against Edin, 697 N.W.2d 727, 2005 ND 109
View Case »
Keck and Associates, P.C. v. Vasey, 359 Ill.App.3d 566, 834 N.E.2d 486, 295 Ill.Dec. 905
View Case »
Silverman v. Clark, 35 A.D.3d 1, 822 N.Y.S.2d 9, 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 06814
View Case »
KPMG LLP v. United States, 166 Fed.Cl. 588
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States Gypsum, Inc. v. Indiana Gas Co., Inc., 735 N.E.2d 790, Util. L. Rep. P 26,756

Facts

Indiana Gas Company, Inc. and Citizens Gas & Coke Utility, both natural gas utilities, created ProLiance Energy to procure wholesale natural gas supply. The Commission received petitions from customers and the OUCC opposing the ProLiance agreements, arguing they circumvented state regulation. After a five-day hearing, the Commission found the agreements to be in the public interest, which was later challenged in court.

Indiana Gas Company, Inc. and Citizens Gas & Coke Utility, both natural gas utilities, created ProLiance Energy to procure wholesale natural gas supply. The Commission received petitions from customers and the OUCC opposing the ProLiance agreements, arguing they circumvented state regulation. After a five-day hearing, the Commission found the agreements to be in the public interest, which was later challenged in court.

Issue

Did the Utility Regulatory Commission exceed its authority in approving the supply agreements between the natural gas utilities and ProLiance Energy?

Did the Utility Regulatory Commission exceed its authority in approving the supply agreements between the natural gas utilities and ProLiance Energy?

Rule

The Commission has the authority to review and approve contracts involving public utilities and their affiliates, ensuring they are in the public interest, and it must operate within the jurisdiction defined by statute.

The Commission has the authority to review and approve contracts involving public utilities and their affiliates, ensuring they are in the public interest, and it must operate within the jurisdiction defined by statute.

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed whether the Commission had jurisdiction over ProLiance and Citizens Gas, concluding that ProLiance did not qualify as a public utility under the relevant statutes. The Court also determined that the Commission was not limited to considering the agreements solely under the Alternative Utility Regulation Act, affirming that the agreements could be evaluated under traditional regulatory practices.

The Supreme Court analyzed whether the Commission had jurisdiction over ProLiance and Citizens Gas, concluding that ProLiance did not qualify as a public utility under the relevant statutes. The Court also determined that the Commission was not limited to considering the agreements solely under the Alternative Utility Regulation Act, affirming that the agreements could be evaluated under traditional regulatory practices.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's order, concluding that the agreements were in the public interest and that the Commission acted within its jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's order, concluding that the agreements were in the public interest and that the Commission acted within its jurisdiction.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the Utility Regulatory Commission, as the Supreme Court upheld its decision to approve the ProLiance agreements, finding them in the public interest.

The prevailing party was the Utility Regulatory Commission, as the Supreme Court upheld its decision to approve the ProLiance agreements, finding them in the public interest.

You must be