Wade v. Illinois Commerce Commission
91 N.E.3d 383
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- ComEd obtained Commission approval to deploy advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) smart meters across its service territory; a tariff (Rider NAM) approved in 2014 imposed a $21.53 monthly charge on customers who refused smart-meter installation to recover non-AMI meter costs.
- Wade refused installation; ComEd added a separate bill line-item labeled “Smart Meter Refusal Charge” and she deducted $21.53 from each monthly payment; ComEd assessed late fees for unpaid balances.
- Wade filed a complaint with the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) challenging the legality of the refusal charge, sought summary judgment, and complained about late fees; ComEd moved to dismiss saying the tariff mandated the charge.
- The ICC denied Wade’s summary-judgment motion, granted ComEd’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice; rehearing was denied.
- On review, the appellate court considered (1) whether customers can refuse smart-meter installation without paying a refusal fee, (2) a procedural due-process challenge for lack of an evidentiary hearing, and (3) whether ComEd improperly charged late fees while the complaint was pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to refuse smart meter without fee | Wade: cannot be forced to accept additional metering; refusal fee conflicts with 220 ILCS 5/16-124 | ComEd: tariff-authorized AMI upgrade; refusal fee reimburses meter-reading costs and is authorized under AMI statute and approved tariff | Court: Wade may refuse installation but must pay the tariff-mandated $21.53 fee; fee lawful and reasonable |
| Due process — need for evidentiary hearing | Wade: denial without hearing violated due process | ICC/ComEd: matter was legal, fully briefed; no factual dispute requiring hearing | Court: no hearing required; parties had notice and opportunity to present; issue was legal, not factual |
| Federal preemption / constitutionality | Wade: absence of federal mandate means state/utility cannot impose smart meters or fees; charge conflicts with federal law | Respondents: FERC/Federal Power Act allocates distribution regulation to states; no conflicting federal law | Court: no preemption; state regulation and ICC-approved tariff govern; fee not unconstitutional |
| Late fees assessed while complaint pending | Wade: ComEd charged late fees in violation of 83 Ill. Adm. Code 280.220(g)(1) (no late fees on disputed amounts) | ComEd/ICC: did not address on the merits in briefs/order | Court: record shows at least one late fee charged while dispute pending; ICC failed to resolve this factual refund/credit issue — remanded to ICC to quantify improper late fees and order credit |
Key Cases Cited
- Kreutzer v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 404 Ill. App. 3d 791 (timely petition for review vests jurisdiction in appellate court)
- City of Chicago v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 264 Ill. App. 3d 403 (Commission findings and orders afforded deference; treated as prima facie reasonable)
- Paszkowski v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, 213 Ill. 2d 1 (statutes should be construed, if possible, to avoid conflict)
- Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill. 2d 32 (an approved tariff governs the utility-customer relationship)