Opinions May 31, 2024

The following opinions were published after IL’s deadline Thursday:
Indiana Supreme Court
The City of Carmel, Indiana v. Duke Energy Indiana, LLC, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, and Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor
23S-EX-129
Administrative. Affirms the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s order rejected Carmel’s complaint and finding the city’s utility ordinances unreasonable and void under Indiana Code section 8-1-2-101. Finds that based on Duke Energy’s evidence that it would seek recovery of the underground project’s costs, the commission, using its expertise and statutory authority, reasonably concluded the costs would be shifted to all Duke customers statewide because they would be included in Duke’s rates. Also finds that the evidence presented by Duke is substantial enough to support the commission’s findings that costs would be shifted and its ultimately reasonable conclusion that the Ordinances are unreasonable. Justice Geoffrey Slaughter concurs with separate opinion. Justice Christopher Goff concurs in result with separate opinion. Justice Derek Molter concurs in part and dissents in part with separate opinion.

Duke Energy Indiana, LLC v. City of Noblesville, Indiana
23S-PL-130
Civil plenary. Reverses the Hamilton Superior Court’s judgment in favor of the City of Noblesville and ordering Duke Energy to comply with the city’s unified development ordinance and obtain permits, as well as the imposition of a $150,000 penalty against Duke for starting demolition without required permits and the awarding to Noblesville $115,679.10 in attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs. Finds that whether the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission finds Noblesville’s unified development ordinance reasonable will dictate whether the trial court in turn grants Noblesville’s request to enforce its ordinance against Duke. Remands for further proceedings.