Supreme Court hears arguments in ordinance disputes
The Indiana Supreme Court held oral arguments in two appeals last week, both involving Duke Energy Indiana. The Court heard arguments in City of Carmel, Indiana v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, et al.1, and Duke Energy Indiana, LLC v. City of Noblesville. Both cases involve disputes over local regulations regarding construction and maintenance of utility equipment.
In City of Carmel, Indiana v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, et al., the primary contention revolves around the relocation of Duke Energy's facilities. The Commission previously ruled that Duke was not obligated to move some of its facilities underground or bear the associated costs. Counsel for the City of Carmel argued that local municipalities have the right to regulate utility operations within their jurisdictions. Duke's counsel contended that Carmel’s request that facilities be buried underground would lead to substantially higher costs that the city was unwilling to pay. The company was similarly unwilling to socialize the increased costs amongst their customers, many of whom do not live in or around Carmel. The core of this dispute traces back to two ordinances Carmel adopted in 2019, which the Commission found to be "unreasonable and void." The case essentially boils down to who should bear the costs associated with the relocation of utilities for reasons other than safety or reliability. You can listen to the oral arguments for this case here.
The second case, Duke Energy, Indiana, LLC v. City of Noblesville, is centered on a disagreement over a project Duke initiated in 2020 in Noblesville. The project required the demolition of a property for new utility equipment. Noblesville regulations require certain permits for the demolition and construction work; however, Duke did not comply with those regulations. Noblesville subsequently filed a complaint in the Hamilton Superior Court, leading to a legal tussle over who had the authority to enforce permit requirements. The court sided with Noblesville, imposing penalties on Duke. On Thursday, counsel for Duke argued that municipalities must utilize the Commission to enforce local ordinances or address non-compliance. In contrast, counsel for Noblesville maintained that Duke must comply with local regulations, emphasizing that the Commission doesn’t have unlimited authority and is an improper venue for a civil action such as the current matter. You can listen to the oral arguments for this case here.
1 As a Commissioner at the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, I was directly involved in the deliberation and decision-making process of the Carmel case. Consequently, I am listed as a named appellee in the official court documents related to this matter.