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

jurisdictionstatutehearingregulation
jurisdictionstatute

Related Cases

Gorman v. City of Phoenix, 152 Ariz. 179, 731 P.2d 74
View Case »
Wayte v. Rollins International, Inc., 169 Cal.App.3d 1, 215 Cal.Rptr. 59
View Case »
Beeck v. Aquaslide ‘N’ Dive Corp., 350 N.W.2d 149
View Case »
McNeil v. Sonoco Products Company, Not Reported in Fed. Rptr., 2017 WL 3725360
View Case »
Lewis v. Time Inc., 710 F.2d 549, 36 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1320, 9 Media L. Rep. 1984
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. Opponents, including customers and the OUCC, argued that ProLiance was an attempt to circumvent state regulation and petitioned the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to disapprove the agreements. 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.

Issue

Did the Utility Regulatory Commission have the authority to disapprove the supply agreements between the natural gas utilities and ProLiance Energy?

Did the Utility Regulatory Commission have the authority to disapprove the supply agreements between the natural gas utilities and ProLiance Energy?

Rule

The Commission's authority is limited to that conferred by statute, and it may only exercise jurisdiction over public utilities as defined by law.

The Commission's authority is limited to that conferred by statute, and it may only exercise jurisdiction over public utilities as defined by law.

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed whether the Commission had jurisdiction over ProLiance and determined that it did not, as ProLiance did not operate as a public utility under the relevant statutes. The Court also found that the agreements did not require preapproval under the Alternative Utility Regulation Act and that the Commission's findings were entitled to substantial deference.

The Supreme Court analyzed whether the Commission had jurisdiction over ProLiance and determined that it did not, as ProLiance did not operate as a public utility under the relevant statutes.

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 authority.

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

Who won?

The prevailing party was the Indiana Gas Company and Citizens Gas & Coke Utility, as the Supreme Court upheld the Commission's decision in favor of the supply agreements.

The prevailing party was the Indiana Gas Company and Citizens Gas & Coke Utility, as the Supreme Court upheld the Commission's decision in favor of the supply agreements.

You must be