Commonwealth Edison Company v. Illinois Commerce Commission
2016 IL 118129
| Ill. | 2016Background
- FutureGen Alliance planned FutureGen 2.0, a retrofitted near‑zero‑emissions coal power plant in Illinois, and sought private investment and federal funding.
- The Illinois Commerce Commission (Commission) ordered Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), Ameren, and Area Retail Electric Suppliers (ARES) to include long‑term sourcing agreements (20 years) for FutureGen 2.0 in procurement plans.
- Illinois Competitive Energy Association and Illinois Industrial Energy Consumers (appellants) challenged the Commission’s authority to compel ARES to enter those sourcing agreements.
- The appellate court affirmed the Commission’s order; appellants sought leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.
- While the appeal was pending, federal funding for FutureGen 2.0 was suspended, project development ceased, and the contested sourcing agreements were terminated.
- The parties reported the matter moot; appellants urged the court to invoke the public‑interest exception to decide the underlying statutory question. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the appellate judgment without addressing the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot after project funding ended and agreements were terminated | Appellants acknowledged mootness but urged review under public‑interest exception | Respondents argued events made relief impossible and the case moot | Appeal dismissed as moot because events prevent effectual relief |
| Whether the public‑interest exception to mootness applies | Appellants: issue is public in nature, warrants authoritative guidance, and may recur | Respondents: Unique factual scenario; criteria for exception not met | Exception not met—none of the three required criteria (public nature, need for authoritative guidance, likelihood of recurrence) satisfied |
| Whether the Commission had authority under 20 ILCS 3855/1‑75(d)(5) to require ARES sourcing agreements | Appellants: Commission lacks authority to force ARES into such sourcing agreements | Commission/Appellees: statute authorizes sourcing agreements for retrofitted clean coal facilities | Not decided—court declined to reach the merits because case is moot |
| Whether appellate court judgment and portions of the Commission’s orders should be vacated | Appellants sought vacatur to prevent orders from having practical precedential effect | Respondents: Commission orders are nonpreclusive and the court should not vacate absent merits decision | Appellate court judgment vacated; Commission orders left intact (no vacatur of agency orders), and no opinion on merits was expressed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Shelby R., 2013 IL 114994 (describing public‑interest exception criteria for mootness)
- In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345 (explaining need for authoritative determination for guidance of public officers)
- Felzak v. Hruby, 226 Ill. 2d 382 (public‑interest exception requires clear showing of each criterion)
- Mississippi River Fuel Corp. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 1 Ill. 2d 509 (Commission is not judicial; its orders are not res judicata in later proceedings)
- Citizens Utility Board v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 166 Ill. 2d 111 (agency decisions are not controlling precedent in later proceedings)
- Bartlow v. Costigan, 2014 IL 115152 (vacatur principles where merits are not reached)