Ameren v. Illinois Commerce Commission
967 N.E.2d 298
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Ameren Illinois sought large rate increases for electric and gas delivery and proposed a Revenue Act tax rider in 2009.
- ICC granted a $44 million base-rate increase and approved a Revenue Act tax rider to be collected as a line item.
- IIEC challenged the ADR and ADIT pro forma adjustments and appealed the related orders; Ameren challenged the Revenue Act tax allocation.
- The court addressed the rate-base/ADR-ADIT issues and the Revenue Act tax issues, and consolidated appeals Nos. 4-10-0962, 4-10-0976, and 4-11-0075 for review.
- The court concluded the 4-11-0075 appeal lacked jurisdiction and affirmed the Commission’s decisions on the other two appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADR/ADIT adjustments valid under 287.40 and 9-211 | Ameren argues the Commission misapplied pro forma ADR/ADIT, violating test-year rules | IIEC/Commission contend adjustments are allowed and consistent with law | Adjustments upheld; consistent with 287.40 and 9-211 |
| Applicability of section 10-101 to policy changes | Ameren contends the Commission’s shift constitutes an improper rulemaking without notice | Commission says it can decide case-by-case without a formal rulemaking; no improper abandonment | Section 10-101 not violated; Commission properly addressed issues with deference to its interpretation of statutes/rules |
| Revenue Act tax allocation method | IIEC asserts kWh-based allocation violates cost-causation and 16-108; invested capital basis should apply | Commission correctly allocated tax by kWh in light of 1998 amendments and legislative intent | Allocation by kWh-based method approved; pass-through/line-item treatment upheld as consistent with Act and cost-based charges |
| Jurisdiction and consolidation of appeals | IIEC sought review of multiple orders; questioned timeliness under 10-113 | Agency and appellate rules allow consolidation; second appeal (4-11-0075) dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | 4-11-0075 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; 4-10-0962 and 4-10-0976 affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 405 Ill. App. 3d 389 (2010) (ADR/ADIT and rate-base considerations; 9-211 interpretation)
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 405 Ill. App. 3d 389 (2010) (rate-base/9-211; overstatement when post-test-year ADR not matched)
- Citizens Utilities Co. of Illinois v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 124 Ill. 2d 195 (1988) (rate-base recovery and prudence principles)
- BPI I (Business & Professional People for the Public Interest v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n), 136 Ill. 2d 192 (1989) (departure from past practice; 10-101 evidentiary constraints)
- BPI II (Business & Professional People for the Public Interest v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n), 146 Ill. 2d 175 (1991) (test-year/pro forma adjustments; deference standards)
- Lakehead Pipeline Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 296 Ill. App. 3d 942 (1998) (agency discretion to address matters; no res judicata in rate cases)