Corporate Counsel
  • Home
  • News
  • Surveys
  • Resources
  • Lawjobs
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Bookstore
  • Contact

Topics » IP Insider | Labor & Employment | From the Experts | On the Job | Moves | DC Watch | International

Home > Duke Energy Loses Again in Indiana Ethics Case

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Duke Energy Loses Again in Indiana Ethics Case

By Sue Reisinger Contact All Articles 

Corporate Counsel

January 3, 2013

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •      
 
Scott Storms

Scott Storms

The ethics scandal involving Scott Storms, the former general counsel of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, has cost Duke Energy Corp. nearly $12 million.

The IURC originally ruled in July 2010 that Duke’s Indiana subsidiary could pass more the $11.6 million in repair costs incurred during a 2009 ice storm onto its customers, despite the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor recommending against it.

But then the state learned that Duke had offered Storms an in-house counsel job—while he was still GC at the commission and serving as an administrative law judge overseeing hearings on Duke rate requests.

In October 2011 the IURC reversed its decision to grant the relief, and Duke appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals. Friday the appeals court ruled against the energy company [PDF].

The state was represented by deputy attorney general David Steiner and Beth Krogel Roads, assistant GC for the IURC, as well as two attorneys from the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, A. David Stippler and Randall Helmen.

Duke’s lawyers were Jon Laramore and Jane Dall Wilson, from Faegre Baker Daniels in Indianapolis, and Melanie Price, assistant GC at Duke Energy Indiana Inc. The Indiana Energy Association, represented by Frost Brown Todd, had filed an amicus brief on behalf of Duke.

The state consumer counselor argued that the 2009 ice storm was not an “extraordinary” event that required granting special relief to Duke. The energy company should be expected to weather such storms in the ordinary course of business, it said.

Duke’s lawyers argued that the IURC had been “arbitrary and capricious” in changing its mind when reviewing basically the same evidence, and had offered no reason for its reversal.

But the appeals court said the IURC had considered “substantial” updated evidence. “Although the better practice would have been for the IURC to clearly articulate why it reached different conclusions, we find that the updated evidence . . . justified the IURC’s decision to deny Duke relief,” the court’s opinion states.

Duke told the Associated Press it was considering appealing the court’s decision.

The 20-page opinion rehashed the scandal that started this chain of events, and ended with Duke firing Storms and the company president who hired him.

Also fired was David Lott Hardy, then chairman of the IURC, who knew that Duke and Storms were negotiating while the rate hearings were ongoing and didn’t ask Storms to recuse himself.

Last October the state appeals court ruled that Hardy must stand trial for helping Storms set up the new job while working on Duke’s cases. The case is pending.

Storms already received his punishment. Besides the firing, the Indiana Ethics Commission in 2011 ruled that he had violated state laws.

It fined him $12,000 and barred him from future state employment. He has not returned calls seeking comment.

See also: “Ex-Indiana Utility Chief to Stand Trial for Aiding GC,” CorpCounsel, October 2012.



Subscribe to Corporate Counsel

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Find similar content

Firms mentioned

    
  • Baker & Daniels
  • Frost Brown Todd

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission
  • Duke Energy Indiana
  • Indiana Ethics Commission
  • Associated Press
  • The Indiana Energy Association
  • David Steiner and Beth Krogel Roads
  • Indiana Court of Appeals
  • Indiana Office
  • Duke Energy Corporation

Key categories

    
  • Corporate & Business Law
  • Energy & Natural Resources
  • State and Local Courts

Most viewed stories

    
  1. What to Look for in a Board's Risk Director
    •      
  2. Big Changes at the Company? Expect Employee Misconduct
    •      
  3. Are GCs More Than Just Legally Trained Executives?
    •      
  4. Patent Board's SAP Ruling is First Under New AIA Rules
    •      
  5. Google, Facebook, Microsoft Talk Surveillance
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

Corporate Cyberattacks Come Out of the Shadows

Minority-Owned Firm Makes Microsoft's Premier List

Proskauer, Former CFO Settle Bias Suit

Global Firms Cope With Istanbul Unrest

D.C. Circuit Nominations a Defining Moment

D.C. Circuit Nominees Widely Respected Within the Bar

iPad Competition Heats Up

Discovery on Discovery Demands Cost-Shifting

The Recorder 25: California Golden Again for Many Firms
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Capital Accounts: Judicial Branch's Brothers Don't See Eye to Eye
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Miami Photographer Sues Pop Star Justin Bieber
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Jeremy Alters Settles With Argentinian Firm For $1 Million
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Sets Down Procedure for Discovery in Child Porn Cases
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fixes Urged for Jury Questions in Complex Medical Malpractice Suits

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

NYLJ 100

Circuit Orders Return of Child to Singapore
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Pa. Justices Uphold Mandatory Judicial Retirement

Senate Mulling Bill Aimed at Redefining Child Abuse

Sorry, Charlie, Your Wife Won't Support You

Top Reasons to Take Your Husband's Name

DA Rosemary Lehmberg Faces Second Removal Suit
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Upholds Disqualification of Bickel & Brewer
  •      
    • Subscription Required

'Gideon's Army' Rallies Its Troops For Justice

Kia Case To Put New Open Records Act To Test
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Chimp Attack Victim Is Denied $150M State Lawsuit

Auto Body Case May Lead To CUTPA Reassessment
  •      
    • Subscription Required

  • About Corporate Counsel   |
  • Contact Corporate Counsel   |
  • Advertise with Us   |
  • Sitemap
  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy (updated 6/14/13) |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media