Ind. Code » Title 8

Ind. Code § 8-1-27-8

Order approving plan; conditions

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 8. The commission shall issue an order approving an environmental compliance plan if the commission:

(1) finds that the environmental compliance plan:

(A) is reasonably designed to meet or exceed the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990;

(B) constitutes a reasonable and least cost strategy over the life of the investment consistent with providing reliable, efficient, and economical electrical service;

(C) is in the public interest; and

(D) either:

(i) provides for continued or increased use of Indiana coal in the coal-consuming electric generating units owned or operated by the public utility and affected by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; or

(ii) if the plan does not provide for continued or increased use of Indiana coal, such nonprovision is justified by economic considerations including the effects in the regions of Indiana in which the mining of coal provides employment and in the service territory of the public utility; and

(2) approves the cost and schedule estimate for developing and implementing the environmental compliance plan.

As added by P.L.76-1991, SEC.1.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1995–1995 · leading case: General Motors Corp. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
General Motors Corp. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. (1995) indctapp · cites it 34× “§ 8-1-27-8(1), and argue that because the four criteria are joined by the conjunction "and," the commission must find that each criterion has been satisfied.”
Alliance for Clean Coal v. Bayh (1995) insd · cites it 10× “Ind.Code Ann. § 8-1-27-8 (Burns 1991). Rejection of plan — Modified plan.”
— Ind. Code § 8-1-27-8(1) — 2 cases
Alliance for Clean Coal v. Bayh (1995) insd “Ind.Code Ann. § 8-1-27-8 (Burns 1991). Rejection of plan — Modified plan.”
General Motors Corp. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. (1995) indctapp “§ 8-1-27-8(1), and argue that because the four criteria are joined by the conjunction "and," the commission must find that each criterion has been satisfied.”
— Ind. Code § 8-1-27-8(1)(A) — 1 case
General Motors Corp. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. (1995) indctapp “§ 8-1-27-8(1), and argue that because the four criteria are joined by the conjunction "and," the commission must find that each criterion has been satisfied.”
— Ind. Code § 8-1-27-8(1)(B) — 1 case
General Motors Corp. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. (1995) indctapp “§ 8-1-27-8(1), and argue that because the four criteria are joined by the conjunction "and," the commission must find that each criterion has been satisfied.”
— Ind. Code § 8-1-27-8(1)(C) — 1 case
General Motors Corp. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. (1995) indctapp “§ 8-1-27-8(1), and argue that because the four criteria are joined by the conjunction "and," the commission must find that each criterion has been satisfied.”
— Ind. Code § 8-1-27-8(1)(D) — 1 case
General Motors Corp. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. (1995) indctapp “§ 8-1-27-8(1), and argue that because the four criteria are joined by the conjunction "and," the commission must find that each criterion has been satisfied.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.