Advertisement

May 25, 2013

Immediate Action Needed: New Law Impacts Municipal Water and Sewer Utility Rates for Users Outside the Municipality’s Boundaries: Governmental Services Alert

The Indiana legislature recently enacted House Enrolled Act No. 1126 (HEA 1126), a bill which permits customers who live outside a municipality’s boundaries (outside customers) and are charged higher rates than those who live within a municipality’s boundaries (inside customers) to petition the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) for review of their water and sewer rates and charges under certain circumstances. This process applies to municipal sewer utilities and water utilities that have withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the IURC. The petition process may occur if: 1) a municipal water or wastewater utility is outside the jurisdiction of the IURC; 2) the utility has outside customers; and 3) the outside customers are charged rates that exceed 15 percent more than the rates charged to inside customers.

Importantly for the purposes of this alert, there is a “grandfathering” provision built into the process. If a municipality had an outside rate in effect on March 31, 2012 that exceeds 15 percent but is less than 50 percent of the inside rate, a process has been established in which the municipality petitions the IURC for approval of the percentage difference in an abbreviated process. The IURC does not have discretion to deny the petition. This petition must be filed by Sept. 30, 2012. If it is not filed, then grandfather rights are lost.

For any municipality that wishes to adopt a rate ordinance that impacts inside and outside customers differently, new requirements are set forth in HEA 1126. After a rate ordinance has been introduced, the municipality must mail notice of a public hearing to the customers. The mailing must include information about the outside customer’s right to petition the IURC to review and adjust the rates. The ordinance must also clearly state the percentage difference between the rates charged to inside and outside customers. If the IURC receives a petition to review and adjust the rates, the municipality must continue to charge the rates currently in place until the IURC issues a ruling on the petition. In any proceeding before the IURC, the municipality has the burden to show the proposed rates are nondiscriminatory, reasonable and just. When determining whether the proposed rates pass this test, the IURC may consider the benefit and expense to all users of the utility to extend the utility outside the corporate boundaries of the municipality. During this review, the IURC may not consider connection fees or capital surcharges imposed on outside customers if those fees and charges are set to cover the costs associated with the main extensions. The bill does not allow the IURC to review or revise rates and charges for inside customers. It also does not return or subject municipalities to IURC jurisdiction for approval of rates and charges. The current law already provides a mechanism for customers to object to rates and charges by filing in court. If a petition is filed in the court system, a petition may not be filed with the IURC.

All municipalities should review their rate ordinances to determine whether they have grandfather rights and therefore must file a petition prior to the Sept. 30, 2012 deadline.

This Barnes & Thornburg LLP publication should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own lawyer on any specific legal questions you may have concerning your situation. 

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Staff Attorney

Emily A. Heimann is a staff attorney in Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Indianapolis, Indiana office. She is a member of the Governmental Services & Finance Department. Ms. Heimann concentrates her practice on a variety of legislative and procurement issues, including policy development, analysis and negotiations on local, state and federal levels.

Prior to her law firm career, Ms. Heimann worked for the City of Indianapolis from 2005 until 2007, last serving as the Procurement Manager, where she was responsible for the competition of high profile contracts. 

317-261-7934

About the Author

Partner

Nicholas K. Kile is a partner in Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Indianapolis, Indiana office. He practices primarily in the Governmental Services Department. He represents utilities and local governments in all facets of utility law, including utilities that are regulated in whole or in part by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission and those that are not. Mr. Kile’s practice includes rates and charges, bond issuances, acquisitions, privatizations, lobbying, environmental regulation, annexation, condemnation, territorial disputes, zoning, litigation, main extension agreements...

317-231-7768

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.