Utility must keep service hubs open - at least for now

A request by Northern Indiana Public Service Co. for the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to reconsider its ruling that ordered the utility to keep its local service hubs open was turned down.

In asking for reconsideration, NIPSCO alleged the commission exceeded its authority and ignored evidence.

“While NIPSCO may disagree with our specific findings and conclusions in this proceeding, there is no basis whatsoever to support a claim that the Commission ignored evidence presented by any party to this proceeding,” read the conclusion of Wednesday's five-page ruling.

“The Commission takes its role as a fact-finding body very seriously and recognizes the importance that the thorough review of testimony and evidence plays in allowing us to reach a considered determination on issues presented to us for resolution.”

The root of the complaint against NIPSCO dates to March 8, 2002, when the LaPorte County Commissioners and Michigan City filed a lawsuit to stop the utility from closing five of its 12 service hubs. Targeted for closing were hubs in LaPorte, Plymouth, Crown Point, Hammond and LaGrange.

Ever since, the issue has remained contentious, although the IURC in August ruled that NIPSCO's plan to close its service hubs “was not based on any evidence of benchmarking standards, best practices from other companies or any other utility.”

It was that decision that NIPSCO asked to have reconsidered.

Thomas Cuddy, a spokesman for NIPSCO, said Thursday, “Clearly we're disappointed. We will continue to review the order and assess what the options may be.”

Mary Beth Fisher, a spokeswoman for the IURC, said that should NIPSCO appeal, its next step would be to go to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Fisher said a request to reconsider an IURC decision is not uncommon.

“Any time somebody doesn't agree with one of our decisions, they ask us to reconsider.”

LaPorte County Commissioners President Marlow Harmon said Thursday, “It's time NIPSCO accept this decision, stop using ratepayer money to pay lawyers to try to overturn it and get back to the job of trying to improve service, rather than seeking to reduce it.”

Cuddy said NIPSCO would not react to Harmon's comments.

In its order, the IURC responded to NIPSCO's claim that it had overstepped its authority, by writing, “It is well settled in Indiana that the General Assembly created the Commission primarily as a fact-finding body with the technical expertise to administer the regulatory scheme devised by the legislature.

“In its Motion for Reconsideration, NIPSCO merely invites the Commission to allow the company to act as the trier-of-fact and substitute its conclusion - based on its own consideration of the evidence - for our own,” wrote the IURC. “We decline NIPSCO's invitation, and find that simply urging us to reweigh the evidence in a manner that supports arguments that were fully presented and rejected by the Commission in its Final Order does not justify reconsideration.”

Reporter Kristin Miller contributed to this report.

Contact City Editor Rick A. Richards at rrichards@thenewsdispatch.com.