Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Blackmun, joined by unanimous. Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Company, 493 U.S. 203 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court addressed whether customer deposits constituted taxable income to a public utility company.
AES Indiana. AES Indiana, formerly known as Indianapolis Power & Light Company (also known as IPL or IPALCO), is an American utility company providing electric service to the city of Indianapolis. It is a subsidiary and largest utility of AES Corporation, which acquired it in 2001. AES Indiana provides electric service to more than 500,000 ...
The commission was established by the Indiana General Assembly as the Railroad Commission in the late 1800s to regulate the railroads in the state. [1] On March 4, 1913, Governor Samuel M. Ralston signed the Shively-Spencer Utility Act giving it the additional authority to regulate electric, natural gas, water, private sewer, and telephone utilities along with common carriers (trucking) and ...
Brandon Yosha (born May 26, 1993) is an American trial lawyer known for his role in securing a $20 million damages verdict against Indianapolis Power & Light Co. in 2021, and for his efforts in changing Indiana's move over law (i.e. "Norah's Law") [1] to protect more vehicles when they have pulled off on the sides of highways.
Power outages across Indianapolis overnight. For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
You can find instant answers on our AOL Mail help page. Should you need additional assistance we have experts available around the clock at 800-730-2563.
A power purchase agreement (PPA), or electricity power agreement, is a long-term contract between an electricity generator and a customer, usually a utility, government or company. [1][2] PPAs may last anywhere between 5 and 20 years, during which time the power purchaser buys energy at a pre-negotiated price. Such agreements play a key role in ...
Indianapolis Power & Light Co. (1990) that a deposit differs from an advance payment because the depositing party has dominion over the funds and retains the right to insist upon repayment in cash. On the other hand, the party making an advance payment retains no right to insist upon the return of the funds as long as the recipient fulfills the ...