Utility
Litigation
Our utility litigators have extensive experience representing investor-owned,
not-for-profit and government-owned utilities before state and federal
courts, and before administrative boards and agencies. We regularly
represent and appear as lead counsel for clients before the Indiana
Utility Regulatory Commission. We provide a broad spectrum of utility-related
litigation services to energy, water, wastewater, storm water and
telecommunications clients by combining substantive utility knowledge
with extensive industry experience, particularly in Indiana.
Our work has included a full range of litigation services including
seeking and opposing injunctive relief, declaratory judgment actions,
seeking and opposing rate increases, discovery disputes, preparation
and examination of expert witnesses, and participating in hearings,
trials, appeals and mediations.
The issues we have addressed before courts and regulatory authorities
include rate setting issues, service territory disputes, valuation
of assets for rate setting purposes in connection with stock and
asset transactions, real estate condemnation, utility asset condemnation,
right-of-way acquisition and antitrust issues, among others. Clients
include AT&T (SBC); City of Carmel; City of Fort Wayne; Hamilton
Southeastern Utilities, Inc.; BP America; Dominion Resources; MCI/Verizon
Wireless; and IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.
Reported major decisions in which we
have been involved recently before the IURC and courts include:
- Utility Center, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, 868 N.E.2d
453 (Ind. 2007) (successful defense of municipal utility in action
by Utility Center challenging Ft. Wayne’s condemnation of
water and sewer utility);
- City of Fort Wayne v. Utility Center, Inc.,
840 N.E.2d 836 (Ind.App. 2006) (appeal of rates set by order of
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission in Cause No. 41968; represented
Fort Wayne in the underlying regulatory proceeding);
- In the Matter of the Petition of the City of Carmel,
IURC Cause No. 42725 (Order on Less Than All the Issues December
14, 2005; Dismissal Order July 19, 2006)(Represented Carmel in
takeover of Clay Township customers from City of Indianapolis);
- Nextel West Corp., et al. v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission,
et al., 831 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. App. 2005) (representation
of appellee, AT&T (then Indiana Bell Tel. Co. d/b/a SBC Indiana)
regarding Indiana’s universal service fund; represented
AT&T (then Indiana Bell Tel. Co. d/b/a SBC Indiana) in underlying
IURC Cause No. 42144 in negotiating and obtaining IURC approval
of settlement establishing Indiana’s universal service
fund).
- Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Jupiter Aluminum Corporation,
et al., Ind. Ct. App. Case No. 93A02-0505-EX-403 (2005)
(prepared and submitted brief on behalf of Amici Curiae Indiana
Energy Ass'n, Indiana Statewide Association of Rural Electric
Cooperatives, Inc. and Indiana Municipal Electric Ass'n, in case
of first impression arising from IURC order that electric utility
pay an industrial customer $2.5 million to purchase and own specialized
equipment, without cost recovery by the utility and against recognized
principles of "cost causation");
- Midwest Gas Services, Inc., et al. v. Indiana Gas Co., Inc.
and Proliance Energy LLC, 317 F.3d 703, 7th Cir. 2003 (affirming
dismissal of multiple Sherman Act claims);
- United States Gypsum v. Indiana Gas Co., Inc., Proliance
Energy LLC, et al., 735 N.E.2d 790 (Ind. 2000) (affirming
ruling by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission that client,
Proliance Energy LLC, a natural gas marketer, is not a public
utility subject to state regulation);
- Midwestern Gas Transmission Co. v. William D. McCarty, et
al., 120 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (S.D. Ind. 2000) (dismissing suit
against IURC Commissioners in their official capacities under Younger abstention
principles); rev'd, 270 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2001) (declining
to apply Younger and finding federal preemption under
Section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act for regulation of intrastate
connection between pipeline and industrial customers); cert.
denied, __ U.S. __ (2002); and
- IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. v. PSI Resources, Inc., 14
FFRD 604 (S.D. Ind. 1993) (discovery/privilege issues in merger/tender
offer dispute).
<< Previous Page |
|
