Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n
16 N.E.3d 713
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Consolidated Illinois review of ICC rulings in ComEd's 2012 Rate Case under Energy Infrastructure Modernization Act (EIMA) 16-108.5.
- Issues include billing determinants, allocation of common costs between interstate transmission and intrastate distribution, and denial of 2011 Rate Case expenses.
- 2011 Rate Case established weather-normalized billing determinants and allowed adjustments for projected new business plant additions; earlier decisions informed 2012 update.
- Act permits recovery of actual costs and requires prudence, reasonableness, and protocols for common-cost allocations.
- Court applies collateral estoppel to bar relitigation of the same legal issues decided in the 2011 Rate Case; deference to ICC findings maintained.
- Final holding: Commission order affirmed; ComEd failed to show error in contested rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Billing determinants adjustment for new business | ComEd argues Commission erred by not allowing new-business growth effects beyond weather normalization. | ICC argues 2011 Rate Case controls; same issues; permissible under Act; collateral estoppel applies. | Collateral estoppel bars relitigation; billing determinants upheld. |
| Allocation of common costs | ComEd seeks FERC-consistent allocation for general/intangible plant and real estate taxes to avoid ‘trapped’ costs. | ICC upheld prior allocation methodologies; ComEd fails to prove changes necessary or existence of trapped costs. | No reversible error; allocation methodologies upheld. |
| Recovery of 2011 Rate Case expenses | ComEd seeks recovery of 2011 rate-case attorney/expense amounts as part of the rate formula. | Record inadequate; Section 9-229 requires specific proof of reasonableness; Commission properly denied. | Denied; evidence insufficient to prove justness and reasonableness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 322 Ill. App. 3d 846 (2001) (great deference to ICC in rate setting)
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 398 Ill. App. 3d 510 (2009) (deference to ICC; cost recoverability standards)
- People ex rel. Madigan v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 2011 IL App (1st) 101776 (2011) (specific findings required for rate-case fees under 9-229)
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 2014 IL App (1st) 122860 (2014) (controls on billing determinants and growth factors; collateral estoppel)
- Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U.S. 953 (1986) (Filed rate doctrine preemption scope; pass-through of FERC costs)
- General Motors Corp. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 143 Ill. 2d 407 (1991) (state rate-setting deference; cost allocations)