Update on recent Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission orders applying the Regulated Territories Statutes, Indiana Code ch. 8-1.5-6

The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“Commission”) has recently issued several decisions on municipality requests for approval of regulatory ordinances. Regulatory ordinances are ordinances passed by an Indiana city or town purporting to grant it the exclusive right to provide water or wastewater service to customers within an area no more than four miles outside its corporate boundaries.¹ A regulatory ordinance is not enforceable by a municipality until it has been approved by the Commission. A municipality seeking approval of a regulatory ordinance must comply with several filing requirements and also prove to the Commission that enforcement of the regulatory ordinance would be in the public interest.²

The Commission’s recent orders on regulatory ordinances clarify its reasoning and the facts it considers in determining whether to grant a municipality’s request under Indiana Code ch. 8‑1.5‑6. These orders, summarized below, show that requests for approval of regulatory ordinances are carefully scrutinized by the Commission, and the Commission favors collaboration between interested parties in cases involving multiple stakeholders.

 

Cause No. 46239 – decided December 17, 2025

On May 9, 2025, the Town of Monrovia, Indiana filed a petition with the Commission seeking approval of a regulatory ordinance stating Monrovia’s intention to be the exclusive provider of wastewater service to areas within four miles of its corporate boundaries.³ Monrovia had argued that approval of its regulatory ordinance would be in the public interest because, among other things, it would have a positive impact on economic development by providing certainty to customers, avoiding duplication of facilities, and supporting planning for future development.⁴ Intervenors in the case argued, however, that approval of the regulatory ordinance would have a chilling effect on economic development, and they raised concerns about the extent to which Monrovia was supportive of a proposed data center to be built within the exclusive territory.⁵ The Commission ultimately found that the public interest would not be served by approving Monrovia’s regulatory ordinance, but it allowed Monrovia to resubmit for approval an amended regulatory ordinance modified to remove the proposed data center from Monrovia’s exclusive territory.⁶

 

Cause No. 46221 – decided April 22, 2026

On April 16, 2025, the City of Mishawaka, Indiana filed a petition with the Commission seeking approval of a regulatory ordinance to exclusively provide both water and wastewater service within four miles of its corporate boundaries.⁷ As in Monrovia, Mishawaka’s proposed exclusive service area encompassed a site for a proposed data center. St. Joseph County, through its Board of Commissioners, and the St. Joseph Regional Water and Sewer District also intervened in the case. The parties reached a settlement reflecting a mutual agreement to apportion utility service within the service territory originally proposed by Mishawaka.⁸ The Commission approved the settlement agreement, finding it in the public interest because, among other things, it promoted the coordination of improvements that will help avoid duplicative infrastructure and minimize the risk of stranded assets.⁹ The Commission emphasized that a mutual agreement is the preferred way of resolving disputes involving competing service-territory interests.¹⁰

 

Cause No. 46314 – decided April 29, 2026

On October 27, 2025, the Town of New Carlisle, Indiana petitioned the Commission for approval of a water regulatory ordinance.¹¹ St. Joseph County and St. Joseph Energy Center, LLC (“County Parties”) intervened. The Commission found favorable that New Carlisle has the current capacity to serve the territory delineated in its regulatory ordinance and that it had a plan in place to construct and finance future improvements, if needed. The parties in this case also reached a settlement agreement. The County Parties agreed not to oppose New Carlisle’s petition in exchange for New Carlisle’s agreement to use commercially reasonable efforts to provide water service to projects supported by the County Parties within New Carlisle’s proposed exclusive territory. The settlement agreement also provided that if New Carlisle is unable to serve such a project, the County Parties may seek water service from another provider, and New Carlisle will allow the other provider to serve the project. The Commission approved the settlement agreement and New Carlisle’s regulatory ordinance.

 

Taft is monitoring the Commission’s application and interpretation of the Regulated Territories Statutes and will provide updates on future significant developments.

---

¹ Ind. Code § 8-1.5-6-3.
² I.C. § 8-1.5-6-9.
³ Monrovia, Cause No. 46239 (IURC Dec. 17, 2025).
⁴ Id. at 21.
⁵ Id. at 21, 23.
⁶ Id. at 24.
⁷ Mishawaka, Cause No. 46221 (IURC Apr. 22, 2026).
⁸ Another intervenor, Granger Water Utility, LLC, opposed the settlement agreement.
⁹ Id. at 31.
¹⁰ Id. at 27.
¹¹ New Carlisle, Cause No. 46314 (IURC Apr. 29, 2026).