City of Elgin v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n
2016 IL App (2d) 150047
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- ComEd sought an expedited certificate under 220 ILCS 5/8-406.1 to build a 345 kV transmission line (Grand Prairie Gateway) from Byron to Wayne; petition included a primary route (~60 miles) and an alternate for ~80% but provided no alternate for the ~12-mile segment through the City of Elgin.
- Elgin intervened, opposed the Elgin routing (proximity to residences and an elementary school; aesthetic, land-use, and health concerns), and requested the Elgin segment be placed underground; Elgin did not propose alternate surface routes or produce cost estimates.
- PJM and ComEd witnesses testified the Byron–Wayne solution best addressed regional congestion; ComEd’s consultant (ERM) described an extensive routing study and public outreach; ComEd claimed no viable alternate through Elgin without excessive length, cost, or residential displacement.
- Staff performed field inspection, conducted a cost–benefit analysis estimating net benefits of $121.1M–$324.6M, and recommended approval; ALJs initially recommended denial, finding insufficient showing of least-cost and good cause for no Elgin alternate.
- The Illinois Commerce Commission reversed the ALJs, found ComEd showed good cause to omit an alternate through Elgin, concluded undergrounding was not a viable alternate (cost ~ $31M/mile; ~$396M for 12 miles), and held the Project was the least-cost means overall and equitable to customers; Elgin appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Elgin) | Defendant's Argument (ComEd/ICC/Staff) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ComEd showed "good cause" for not providing an alternate right-of-way through Elgin | ComEd’s showing was conclusory and did not identify rejected alternate surface routes or supporting data in the filing | ERM/ComEd presented routing study, public process, and testimony that no viable alternate avoided displacement or excessive length/cost; Staff agreed | Commission’s good-cause finding upheld; record evidence (testimony, inspections) is substantial and not against manifest weight |
| Whether proposing undergrounding in the same strip satisfies the statutory alternate right-of-way requirement | Elgin: undergrounding should have been proposed as an alternate and full routing criteria must be considered | ComEd/Staff: alternate must be a different route; undergrounding of same ROW does not meet statutory alternate-route requirement; even if considered, undergrounding is cost-prohibitive | Court affirmed Commission: undergrounding would more than double project cost (~$396M) and is not a viable least-cost alternative |
| Whether ComEd proved the Project is the "least-cost" means to satisfy statutory objectives and is equitable to customers | Elgin: Commission lacked comparisons and did not meaningfully apply the 12 routing criteria to show least-cost | ComEd/Staff: PJM evaluated multiple alternatives; Staff cost–benefit shows net consumer benefits; routing considered multiple factors and existing ROW reduced cost | Commission’s least-cost and equity determinations upheld; supported by PJM analysis, Staff cost–benefit, and routing evidence |
| Whether the Staff failed to adequately investigate good cause and least-cost (CURED argument) | Elgin: Staff did not sufficiently investigate, so Commission’s finding is unsupported (invoking CURED) | ComEd/Staff: Staff performed discovery, field inspection, cost–benefit analysis, and provided testimony supporting findings; ComEd bears project costs and has incentive to minimize cost | CURED distinguished; record shows Staff investigation and independent analysis; Commission’s reliance on Staff was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 327 Ill. App. 3d 768 (2002) (Commission as factfinder entitled to deference on credibility and weight of evidence)
- Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 268 Ill. App. 3d 471 (1994) (standards for appellate review of Commission orders)
- Illinois Power Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 111 Ill. 2d 505 (1986) (Commission has broad discretion under public-convenience standard)
- City of Chicago v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 264 Ill. App. 3d 403 (1993) (ratepayers should not be required to fund costly undergrounding absent justification)
- Citizens United for Responsible Energy Development v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 285 Ill. App. 3d 82 (1996) (insufficient Staff investigation/cost analysis can require reversal)