UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION 

 

CITIZENS UTILITY BOARD, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, 

an Illinois corporation, 

 

Defendant. 

 

 

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Citizens Utility Board (“CUB” or “Plaintiff”) brings this lawsuit in its capacity 

as statutory representative of Illinois utility consumers, 220 ILCS 10/1 et seq., against Defendant 

Commonwealth Edison Company (“ComEd” or “Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges as follows upon 

personal knowledge as to itself and its own acts and experiences, and, as to all other matters, 

upon information and belief. 

PARTIES 

1. Plaintiff Citizens Utility Board is a nonprofit corporation created by the Illinois 

Citizens Utility Board Act (“Act”) to represent the interests of utility consumers in Illinois. 

2. To carry out its statutory mandate, the Act provides CUB with the authority and 

power to “intervene as a party or otherwise participate on behalf of utility consumers in any 

proceeding which affects the interest of utility consumers” and to “represent the interests of 

utility consumers before the Illinois Commerce Commission . . . the courts . . . and other public 

bodies.” 220 ILCS 10/5(d), (e). The Act further states that the representation of utility consumers 

in Illinois is a “statewide interest and not a private or special concern.” 220 ILCS 10/2. 

3. CUB takes its statutory mandate seriously. Since it was established thirty-six 

Case: 1:20-cv-04405 Document #: 61 Filed: 10/29/20 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1266
2

years ago, CUB has initiated or intervened in countless proceedings on behalf of Illinois utility 

consumers and, through litigation and advocacy before public bodies and the courts, CUB has 

secured more than $20 billion in savings and refunds for utility consumers in Illinois. 

4. Defendant Commonwealth Edison Company is a corporation organized and 

existing under the laws of Illinois with its principal place of business located at 440 South 

LaSalle Street, Suite 3300, Chicago, Illinois 60605. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

5. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331 because they arise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 

(“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. This Court may exercise jurisdiction over the remaining 

claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

6. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant ComEd because it is a 

corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois and has its 

headquarters in this District. Further, Defendant purposefully directed its conduct at Illinois and 

such conduct was designed to create an injury in Illinois and this District. 

7. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant both 

maintains its headquarters and conducts significant business in this District. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. On July 17, 2020, Defendant ComEd entered into a Deferred Prosecution 

Agreement (“DPA”) with the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, which 

is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, inclusive of its Attachments A-C. 

9. Attachment A to the DPA contains a Statement of Facts; ComEd “agree[d] and 

stipulate[d]” that the information stated therein was “true and accurate.” See DPA at A-1. The 

Case: 1:20-cv-04405 Document #: 61 Filed: 10/29/20 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:1267
3

Statement of Facts further states that “ComEd admits, accepts, and acknowledges that it is 

responsible for the acts of its current and former officers, directors, employees, and agents as set 

forth below.” Id. Those stipulated facts, contained in pages A-1 through A-12 of the DPA, are 

expressly referenced and incorporated as if set forth fully herein. 

10. While utility consumers would always have been harmed by unfairly high rates, 

the harm is particularly acute this year, as hundreds of thousands of Illinoisans have lost their 

jobs due to the coronavirus pandemic. Many Illinois residents and businesses have fallen behind 

on their utility bills. ComEd, meanwhile, continues to reap the benefits of its nearly decade-long 

scheme—even after admitting what it has done. 

11. Based upon this course of conduct, Plaintiff CUB, in its capacity as statutory 

representative of all Illinois utility consumers, brings this complaint against Defendant ComEd 

for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c)–(d), civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment. 

COUNT I 

Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) 

12. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

13. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) provides that “[I]t shall be unlawful for any person employed 

by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate . . . 

commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s 

affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. . . .” 

14. Defendant is capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property, and, 

therefore, is a “person” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3). 

The RICO Enterprise

15. At all relevant times, as described in the DPA, ComEd (through its executives, 

employees, and agents), lobbyists, public officials, and consultants were associated in fact and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04405 Document #: 61 Filed: 10/29/20 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:1268
4

constituted an “enterprise,” as defined by18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). See DPA at A-3 to A-4. 

16. This enterprise was engaged in activities that affected interstate commerce. This 

enterprise shall be referred to here as the “ComEd Enterprise.” The ComEd Enterprise 

constituted an ongoing organization whose members functioned as a continuing unit for a 

common purpose of achieving the objectives of the enterprise: a nine-year-long “quid pro quo” 

scheme. Id. 

17. The primary purpose of the ComEd Enterprise was mutual enrichment at the 

expense of Illinois utility consumers: to produce undue influence over the Illinois General 

Assembly for the financial and political benefit of ComEd, and the enrichment of ComEd 

Enterprise associates. See DPA at A-12. 

18. Defendant and other members of the ComEd Enterprise willfully and intentionally 

violated numerous state and federal laws with the goal of obtaining money and political power, 

directly and indirectly, through a pattern of racketeering activities composed of numerous 

offenses, including, but not limited to, acts of bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1), 720 

ILCS 5/33-1, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1346. See DPA at A-3 to A-12. 

19. The ComEd Enterprise had a clear decision-making hierarchy, with ComEd 

executives at the top. ComEd admits that it participated in and controlled the ComEd Enterprise 

by providing financial benefits to ComEd Enterprise associates in exchange for favorable 

legislation, and that it directed what that legislation should be. See DPA at A-3, A-12. 

20. The pattern of racketeering activity conducted by members of the ComEd 

Enterprise is distinct from ComEd itself, as ComEd could not have reached its purpose of 

exercising power over the Illinois General Assembly without cooperation from other members of 

the ComEd Enterprise. See DPA at A-6, A-9, A-12. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04405 Document #: 61 Filed: 10/29/20 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:1269
5

21. This continuous scheme was successful, realizing multiple legislative feats in the 

Illinois General Assembly: the passage of the Energy Infrastructure and Modernization Act 

(“EIMA”) in 2011, amending EIMA in 2013, and renewing the formula rate structure in both 

2014 and 2016. See DPA at A-2. 

22. Moreover, there exist unnamed parties who are current or former members of the 

ComEd Enterprise. Although they likely maintain discoverable records and will be called upon 

as witnesses, they are not necessary parties where the court could not accord complete relief 

among Illinois utility consumers and ComEd. 

Effects on Interstate Commerce 

23. The ComEd Enterprise conducted its racketeering activity, in part, using interstate 

wire communications, including by use of telephones and by electronic transfers of funds, as 

discussed below. Further, the ComEd Enterprise impacted electric line systems, which are 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce. Instrumentalities of interstate commerce need not 

stretch across state lines. 29 C.F.R. § 776.29(b); see DPA at A-3 to A-9. 

24. Defendant, along with the ComEd Enterprise, conspired to act together, and, in 

association with others, knowingly and repeatedly committed the criminal acts in furtherance of 

and for the purpose of enriching ComEd both financially and politically and to otherwise further 

the ends of the ComEd Enterprise. 

Predicate Acts of Racketeering Activity 

25. Defendant and other members of the ComEd Enterprise willfully and intentionally 

violated numerous state and federal laws with the goal of obtaining money and political power, 

directly and indirectly, through a pattern of racketeering activities composed of numerous 

indictable offenses, including, but not limited to, acts of bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

Case: 1:20-cv-04405 Document #: 61 Filed: 10/29/20 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:1270
6

201(b)(1), 720 ILCS 5/33-1, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1346. See DPA at A-3 to A-12. 

26. To further the purpose of the ComEd Enterprise, which was to pass legislation 

that garnered substantial financial benefits and political power to ComEd, Defendant agreed to 

and did conduct and participate in the conduct of the ComEd Enterprise’s affairs through a 

pattern of racketeering activity. 

Predicate Acts Under 18 U.S.C. § 201 

27. 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1) prohibits a person from “directly or indirectly, corruptly 

giv[ing], offer[ing] or promis[ing] anything of value to any public official or person who has 

been selected to be a public official . . . with intent . . . to influence any official act[.]” 

28. During each of the twelve-month calendar years from 2011 to 2019, Illinois 

received federal benefits in excess of $10,000, and the ComEd Enterprise includes agents of the 

State. See DPA at A-2. 

29. In furtherance of the ComEd Enterprise’s purpose, Defendant made indirect 

payments to Enterprise associates—who performed little or no work for ComEd—totaling 

approximately $1,324,500 from 2011 to 2019 so that they would influence legislation beneficial 

to ComEd. See DPA at A-3 to A-12. 

30. As ComEd has admitted, this scheme included multiple forms of bribery. See id. 

31. These activities occurred from 2011 until 2019. See id. 

Predicate Acts Under 720 ILCS 5/33-1 

32. Under Illinois law, “A person commits bribery when: (a) With intent to influence 

the performance of any act related to the employment or function of any public officer, public 

employee, juror or witness, he or she promises or tenders to that person any property or personal 

advantage which he or she is not authorized by law to accept[.]” 720 ILCS 5/33-1. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04405 Document #: 61 Filed: 10/29/20 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:1271
7

33. Furthermore, “bribery is a Class 2 felony,” id., where “[t]he sentence of 

imprisonment shall be a determinate sentence of not less than 3 years and not more than 7 years.” 

730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-35(a). 

34. As discussed in the previous section and stated in the DPA, Defendant, in concert 

with the ComEd Enterprise, bribed elected officials in order to influence the passage of 

legislation beneficial to ComEd in the Illinois General Assembly. 

35. This occurred through retaining paid “subcontractors” for little or no work, 

appointing board members, retaining a law firm, and hiring interns, all done with the intent to 

persuade elected officials to protect ComEd’s interests in the Illinois General Assembly. See 

DPA at A-3 to A-12. 

Predicate Acts Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346 

36. Defendant, through the ComEd Enterprise, intentionally used acts of artifice or 

deceit to deprive utility consumers of honest services. At all times, it was reasonably foreseeable 

that interstate wires would be used to further acts of bribery. 

37. Defendant ComEd knew that it would use emails and interstate phone calls to 

further its bribery scheme, thereby transmitting electronic signals and oral communications 

across interstate wires to communicate. Arranging and paying a “quid-pro-quo” bribe as 

described in the DPA is exactly the type of conduct honest services fraud is meant to capture. 

38. Specifically, Defendant ComEd made indirect payments to ComEd Enterprise 

associates—who performed little or no work for ComEd—totaling approximately $1,324,500 

from 2011 to 2019. See DPA at A-3 to A-12. 

39. Certain former ComEd executives designed these payment arrangements in part to 

conceal the size of payments made to the associates of elected officials, and to assist ComEd in 

Case: 1:20-cv-04405 Document #: 61 Filed: 10/29/20 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:1272
8

denying responsibility for oversight of these associates, who performed little or no work for 

ComEd. See DPA at A-5. 

40. These payments undoubtedly took place over interstate wires. Discovery will 

allow the exact dates, times, and places to be uncovered. 

41. These bribery payments were used to circumvent the Illinois General Assembly’s 

democratic process and deny ComEd users a fair and honest electricity delivery rate-setting 

procedure. 

Pattern of Racketeering Activity 

42. These predicate acts were related to one another as part of the common scheme to 

pass legislation that yielded both profit and political power for ComEd, while enriching other 

ComEd Enterprise members who furthered this purpose. 

43. A pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two predicate acts. Here, 

Defendant, along with the ComEd Enterprise, has committed dozens (if not hundreds) of acts 

over nine years, thereby establishing a pattern. 

44. Not only did the ComEd Enterprise commit at least dozens of predicate acts, but 

through both bribery and Honest Services Wire Fraud, the ComEd Enterprise was also able to get 

legislation passed—including EIMA and its amendments—with provisions beneficial to ComEd. 

See DPA at A-12. 

45. EIMA, its amendments, and the favorable formula rate structure are still in effect 

today, continuing to benefit Defendant ComEd at the expense of utility consumers in Illinois. 

46. This unlawful conduct constituted a continuous pattern of racketeering activity 

beginning in or around 2011 through 2019 and would have continued but for the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation’s investigation into ComEd and the July 2020 Deferred Prosecution Agreement. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04405 Document #: 61 Filed: 10/29/20 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:1273
9

47. Utility consumers have been the victims of this conduct since the passage of 

EIMA in 2011. They were, and continue to be, injured by the ComEd Enterprise’s racketeering 

activities. 

Injuries to Utility Consumers’ Business and Property 

48. The described racketeering activities and violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and 

the described conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) directly and proximately caused 

utility consumers to be injured in their business and property. 

49. The ComEd Enterprise’s racketeering activities secured the enactment of EIMA 

and its amendments, thereby directly resulting in and proximately causing Illinois utility 

consumers being compelled to pay—at the least—in excess of $150 million more for their 

electricity delivery from 2011 to the present. EIMA and its amendments were passed out of 

committee only with cooperation from the ComEd Enterprise, and were passed into law with 

narrow vote margins which could not have been obtained without the support of ComEd 

Enterprise members, obtained through ComEd’s bribery. See DPA at A-2, A-12. 

50. The injuries to utility consumers were a foreseeable consequence of Defendant’s 

and the ComEd Enterprise’s racketeering activities and violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and 

their conspiracy in furtherance of those racketeering violations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

1962(d). 

51. Specifically, in influencing the passage of EIMA, the ComEd Enterprise secured 

the formula which allows ComEd to annually increase the delivery rates it charges consumers for 

electricity with reduced regulatory oversight. 

52. Since the passage of EIMA, ComEd gained additional formula benefits which 

have increased and continue to increase consumer delivery prices. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04405 Document #: 61 Filed: 10/29/20 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:1274
10

53. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), utility consumers are entitled to treble their damages, 

plus interest, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT II 

Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) 

54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein. 

55. 18 USC § 1962(d) states that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to 

violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.” 

56. As described throughout, and in detail above, even if it did not direct or manage 

the affairs of the ComEd Enterprise, Defendant conspired to commit the outlined predicate acts 

in violation of § 1962(c), including acts violating 18 U.S.C. § 201, 720 ILCS 5/33-1, and 18 

U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1346. 

57. Defendant acted knowingly at all times when agreeing to facilitate the activities of 

the ComEd Enterprise and its directors. 

58. Utility consumers were deprived of money and property that they would not 

otherwise have lost. As direct and proximate result of Defendant’s racketeering activities, utility 

consumers have been injured in their business and property by paying increased delivery charges 

to Defendant. 

59. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), utility consumers are entitled to treble their damages, 

plus interest, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT III 

CIVIL CONSPIRACY 

60. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

61. Defendant conspired and agreed with Enterprise members to exchange no-show 

Case: 1:20-cv-04405 Document #: 61 Filed: 10/29/20 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:1275
11

jobs for ComEd Enterprise associates and other benefits for those ComEd Enterprise members’ 

aid in passing EIMA and its amendments into law. 

62. The direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conspiracy with ComEd 

Enterprise members, including its unlawful conduct in furtherance of that conspiracy, was to 

deprive utility consumers of their business and property, mainly in the form of ComEd’s delivery 

service rate increases. 

63. Utility consumers paid higher rates as a result of EIMA and the formula rate 

amendments being passed by the Illinois General Assembly, which was due to Defendant’s 

bribery scheme as described in the DPA. 

COUNT IV 

UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

64. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

65. From 2011 to the present, ComEd has unjustly retained delivery rate charges from 

its consumers. The retention of these charges is unjust due to ComEd’s illegal efforts in the 

passage of EIMA and its amendments. 

66. ComEd’s retention of these illegally conferred benefits violates fundamental 

principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff CUB respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its 

favor and enter an order: 

A. Declaring that Defendant has engaged in unlawful conduct in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 1962(c); 

B. Declaring that Defendant has engaged in unlawful conduct in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 1962(d); 

C. Declaring that Defendant has been unjustly enriched by its conduct; 

Case: 1:20-cv-04405 Document #: 61 Filed: 10/29/20 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:1276
12

D. Directing Defendant to pay restitution of all benefits and disgorge all profits 

unjustly retained to utility consumers; 

E. Declaring that Defendant has engaged in an unlawful civil conspiracy; 

F. Directing Defendant to pay all damages caused by their civil conspiracy to 

utility consumers; 

G. Awarding treble and punitive damages as appropriate; 

H. Awarding injunctive relief as necessary to protect the interests of utility 

consumers; 

I. Awarding Plaintiff its costs and expenses in this litigation, including 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert fees; and 

J. Awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

Dated: October 29, 2020 /s/ Jay Edelson 

 One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys 

 

Julie Soderna

jsoderna@citizensutilityboard.org 

CITIZENS UTILITY BOARD

208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1760 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Tel: (312) 263-4282 

Jay Edelson 

jedelson@edelson.com 

Ari J. Scharg 

ascharg@edelson.com 

J. Eli Wade-Scott 

ewadescott@edelson.com 

Michael Ovca 

movca@edelson.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-04405 Document #: 61 Filed: 10/29/20 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:1277
13

EDELSON PC

350 North LaSalle, 14th Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60654 

Tel: (312) 589-6370 

Fax: (312) 589-6378 

Pat Quinn 

Attorney at Law 

216 N Jefferson, Suite 200 

Chicago, Illinois 60661 

Jonah Orlofsky 

jorlofsky@orlofskylaw.com 

Law Offices of Jonah Orlofsky 

302 Grove Street 

Glencoe, Illinois 60022 

Tel: (312) 566-0455 

Case: 1:20-cv-04405 Document #: 61 Filed: 10/29/20 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:1278