Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor v. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company, d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana, Inc. (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Jun 11 2015, 10:01 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE A. David Stippler Robert E. Heidorn Randall C. Helmen P. Jason Stephenson Lorraine Hitz-Bradley Joshua A. Claybourn Indianapolis, Indiana Vectren Corporation

Evansville, Indiana Mark J. Crandley Barnes and Thornburg, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Indiana Office of Utility June 11, 2015 Consumer Counselor, Court of Appeals Case No.

93A02-1409-EX-668 Appellant-Statutory Representative,

Appeal from the Indiana Utility v. Regulatory Commission; The

Honorable Loraine L. Seyfried, Administrative Law Judge; The

Southern Indiana Gas and Honorable Carol A. Stephan, Electric Company, d/b/a Commission Chair;

IURC Cause Nos.: 44429 and 44430 Vectren Energy Delivery of (Consolidated) Indiana, Inc., Appellee-Plaintiff.

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1409-EX-668 | June 11, 2015 Page 1 of 4 [1] The Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (“OUCC”) appeals a determination by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission that Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana, a gas utility, is not obliged to reduce its rate recovery for certain infrastructure improvements based on the value of assets it retires from service.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In 2013 Vectren petitioned the Commission to recover costs for improvements to its system. Specifically, it petitioned to recover for system upgrades required by federal mandates and for costs of projects that improve or replace features of its gas transmission and distribution system. The Commission entered an order authorizing the cost recovery. The order had the effect of permitting Vectren to charge its ratepayers for both a new plant and a plant that was replaced and would no longer be used to serve customers.

Discussion and Decision

[4] The OUCC argues on appeal Vectren should not have been permitted to recover costs for retiring an asset unless it also reduced the return attributable to the retired asset in its existing rate base. We recently resolved this question in Vectren’s favor in NIPSCO Indus. Grp. v. N. Indiana Pub. Serv. Co., No. 93A02- 1403-EX-158 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2015). There, as in the case before us, the Commission rejected the OUCC’s argument that a utility company should be Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1409-EX-668 | June 11, 2015 Page 2 of 4 required to reduce its return and depreciation so that it was not recovering on both replaced assets and the new replacement assets.

[5] We affirmed the Commission’s decision to allow NIPSCO to recover for certain projects without subtracting for returns or depreciation already being recovered for the assets being replaced: “Although we have significant concerns over the allegedly inconsistent treatment of this subject by the Commission, in light of the deference owed to the Commission, we cannot say that its methodology is erroneous given the lack of specificity in the statutes regarding this calculation.” Id. at *10.

[6] The OUCC concedes the issue before us is “the identical issue” addressed in NIPSCO. (Br. of Appellant Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor at 11 n.4.). We decline to revisit the NIPSCO analysis and accordingly affirm the Commission’s order. 1

[7] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1409-EX-668 | June 11, 2015 Page 4 of 4