Commonwealth Edison Company v. Illinois Commerce Commission, No. 2-06-1284 (Ill. App. 9/17/2009)
| Decision Date | 17 September 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-06-1284,No. 2-07-0078,No. 2-06-1286,No. 2-07-0066,No. 2-07-0104,No. 2-06-1285,2-06-1284,2-06-1285,2-06-1286,2-07-0066,2-07-0078,2-07-0104 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, Petitioner, v. ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION; THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL; BLUESTAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO; BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO; CASTWELL PRODUCTS, INC.; CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY; CITIZENS UTILITY BOARD; THE CITY OF CHICAGO; COALITION OF ENERGY SUPPLIERS; COMMUNITY ACTION FOR FAIR UTILITIES PRACTICE; CONSTELLATION ENERGY COMMODITIES GROUP, INC.; CONSTELLATION NEW ENERGY, INC.; THE COOK COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; THE UNITED STATES ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C.; DOWNERS GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT; DYNEGY, INC.; ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF WASTEWATER AGENCIES; ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; DIRECT INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS (styled as such collectively from the following petitioners: Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Caterpillar, Inc.; Daimler Chrysler Corporation; CITGO Petroleum Corporation; Corn Products International, Inc.; Ford Motor Company; Merchandise Mart Properties, Inc.; Sterling Steel Company, L.L.C.; and Thermal Chicago Corporation); ISG RIVERDALE, INC.; MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY; MIDWEST GENERATION EME, L.L.C.; NORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAILROAD CORPORATION, d/b/a Metra; PEOPLE'S ENERGY SERVICES CORPORATION; UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS; and U.S. ENERGY SAVINGS CORPORATION, Respondents. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION; COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY; THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL; BLUESTAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO; BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO; CASTWELL PRODUCTS, INC.; CITIZENS UTILITY BOARD; THE CITY OF CHICAGO; COALITION OF ENERGY SUPPLIERS; COMMUNITY ACTION FOR FAIR UTILITIES PRACTICE; CONSTELLATION ENERGY COMMODITIES GROUP, INC.; CONSTELLATION NEW ENERGY, INC.; THE COOK COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C.; DOWNERS GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT; DYNEGY, INC.; ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF WASTEWATER AGENCIES; ILLINOIS INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS (styled as such collectively from the following petitioners: Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Caterpillar, Inc.; Daimler Chrysler Corporation; CITGO Petroleum Corporation; Corn Products International, Inc.; Ford Motor Company; Merchandise Mart Properties, Inc.; Sterling Steel Company, L.L.C.; and Thermal Chicago MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY; MIDWEST GENERATION EME, L.L.C.; Corporation); ISG RIVERDALE, INC.; NORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAILROAD CORPORATION, d/b/a Metra; PEOPLE'S ENERGY SERVICES CORPORATION; UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS; and U.S. ENERGY SAVINGS CORPORATION, Respondents. NORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAILROAD CORPORATION, d/b/a Metra, Petitioner, v. ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION; COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY; THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL; BLUESTAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO; BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO; CASTWELL PRODUCTS, INC.; CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY; CITIZENS UTILITY BOARD; THE CITY OF CHICAGO; COALITION OF ENERGY SUPPLIERS; COMMUNITY ACTION FOR FAIR UTILITIES PRACTICE; CONSTELLATION ENERGY COMMODITIES GROUP, INC.; CONSTELLATION NEW ENERGY, INC.; THE COOK COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C.; DOWNERS GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT; DYNEGY, INC.; ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF WASTEWATER AGENCIES; ILLINOIS INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS (styled as such collectively from the following petitioners: Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Caterpillar, Inc.; Daimler Chrysler Corporation; CITGO Petroleum Corporation; Corn Products International, Inc.; Ford Motor Company; Merchandise Mart Properties, Inc.; Sterling Steel Company, L.L.C.; and Thermal Chicago Corporation); ISG RIVERDALE, INC.; MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY; MIDWEST GENERATION EME, L.L.C.; PEOPLE'S ENERGY SERVICES CORPORATION; UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS; and U.S. ENERGY SAVINGS CORPORATION, Respondents. BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO, Petitioner, v. ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION; COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY; THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL; BLUESTAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO; CASTWELL PRODUCTS, INC.; CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY; CITIZENS UTILITY BOARD; THE CITY OF CHICAGO; COALITION OF ENERGY SUPPLIERS; COMMUNITY ACTION FOR FAIR UTILITIES PRACTICE; CONSTELLATION ENERGY COMMODITIES GROUP, INC.; CONSTELLATION NEW ENERGY, INC.; THE COOK COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; THE UNITED STATES ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C.; DOWNERS GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT; DYNERGY, INC.; ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF WASTEWATER AGENCIES; ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; DIRECT INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS (styled as such collectively from the following petitioners: Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Caterpillar, Inc.; Daimler Chrysler Corporation; CITGO Petroleum Corporation; Corn Products International, Inc.; Ford Motor Company; Merchandise Mart Properties, Inc.; Sterling Steel Company, L.L.C.; and Thermal Chicago Corporation); ISG RIVERDALE, INC.; MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY; MIDWEST GENERATION EME, L.L.C.; PEOPLE'S ENERGY SERVICES CORPORATION; UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS; and U.S. ENERGY SAVINGS CORPORATION, Respondents. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
These consolidated appeals arise out of the filing by Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) of an action with the Illinois Commerce Commission (Commission) in which ComEd sought to restructure and alter the rates it charged certain customers. The Commission entered an initial order on July 26, 2006, and a subsequent order on rehearing on December 20, 2006. Numerous parties are involved. Several of them object to various aspects of the Commission's order, and several appeals were filed, which are now consolidated here. The record is voluminous, and extensive briefs were filed. However, the issues raised are, for the most part, relatively discrete. Thus, we will treat the issues separately, discussing the pertinent facts as they are relevant to each issue we address.
ComEd's filing came in the wake of certain changes in Illinois's electric industry that occurred beginning in the late 1990s. In 1997, the General Assembly amended the Public Utilities Act (Act) (220 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. (West 2004)) by enacting the Electric Service Customer Choice and Rate Relief Law of 1997 (Rate Relief Law) (220 ILCS 5/16-101 et seq. (West 2004)). This law required electric utilities to open their formerly legislatively approved monopoly. See 220 ILCS 5/16-103
(West 2004). Utilities were required to offer delivery services in addition to existing services, at least until an existing service was either abandoned or declared competitive. 220 ILCS 5/16-103 (West 2004). Delivery services are "those services provided by the electric utility that are necessary in order for the transmission and distribution systems to function so that retail customers located in the electric utility's service area can receive electric power and energy from suppliers other than the electric utility." 220 ILCS 5/16-102 (West 2004).
The Rate Relief Law brought about a number of changes on both the retail and wholesale levels. Relevant here, utilities were required to offer delivery services in a nondiscriminatory manner to all customers. In response to the new law, ComEd divested itself of its electricity generating assets. See 220 ILCS 5/16-111(g) (West 2004). ComEd became an "integrated distribution company," which the parties refer to as a "wires company." As a "wires company," ComEd's costs are now driven by the requirement that it meet the needs of a maximum number of customers, "regardless of the nature of the usage of customers." Generation of electricity is no longer a consideration. ComEd's costs as a "wires company" do not vary appreciably over time, as they did when costs were driven by generating electricity. During a transition period that ended on January 1, 2007, residential rates were reduced by 20% and nonresidential rates were frozen. ComEd proposed to restructure its rates for the post-transition period, in which it will serve two types of customers — those that purchase a bundled electrical service product and those that purchase an unbundled product by which they can purchase electricity from suppliers other than ComEd and pay ComEd for delivery services. One goal was to "harmonize" customer class definitions between customers of unbundled service and customers of bundled service (customers who elected to continue under the scheme that preexisted the Rate Relief Law).
Under well-settled legal principles, we are required to give substantial deference to the decisions of the Commission, in light of its expertise and experience in this area. Alhambra-Grantfork Telephone Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 358 Ill. App. 3d 818, 821 (2005). Accordingly, on appeal from an order of the Commission, its findings of fact are to be considered prima facie true; its orders are considered prima facie reasonable; and the burden of proof on all issues raised in an appeal is on the appellant. United Cities Gas Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 163 Ill. 2d 1, 11 (1994). Though we are not bound by the Commission on questions of law (Business & Professional People for the Public Interest v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 136 Ill. 2d 192, 204 (1989)), we "will give substantial weight and deference to an interpretation of an ambiguous statute by the agency charged with the administration and enforcement of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial