Court Opinion

ID: 9714030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:29:03.076067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:22.774854
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McLAREN, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in the portion of the opinion that finds error when the Commission relied on and applied section 9 — 230 of the Act. I dissent because I believe the cause should be remanded for further proceedings to allow the Commission to reconsider its judgment without the application of section 9 — 230 and to set forth its reasoning and findings of fact so that a meaningful review, if necessary, may be accomplished. ComEd claims that the Commission did not properly apply the balancing test. The majority agrees with ComEd that the Commission’s order does not explicitly balance the individual benefits and costs which the parties asserted would result from ComEd’s provision of energy support services. However, the majority then determines that a broad statement made by the Commission indicates that it did apply the test and that the test was applied properly. The majority concludes that the statement “that ComEd did not even meet a lesser public convenience standard” establishes that the Commission properly applied the balancing test. The former statement, taken at face value, indicates that the Commission was aware of the need for applying the balancing test. It does not establish that the balancing test was applied properly. The latter statement is simply a non sequitur. A little boy when asked why he did not like another little boy responded by saying, “because I don’t like him a lot.” Finally, the majority determines that the Commission determined that ComEd’s petition did not satisfy the public convenience standard based upon the following: “1 “Permitting ComEd to enter the energy services market with a monopolist’s advantage over an important element of potential services, remotely generated energy, in that market will not convenience the public. In fact, the public will be harmed by such permission. [(Emphasis added by the majority.)] ^ ^ ^ Denying ComEd’s petition will not exclude Unicom from the energy services market. As an unregulated entity, Uni-com may enter the energy services market at its pleasure.” ’ For these reasons, we conclude that the Commission would have decided to deny ComEd’s petition even if it had not relied on section 9 — 230.” Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 320, quoting the Commission’s order. The above extract might prove that left to its own devices the Commission would repeat its decision. However, it sets forth neither the rationale nor the facts that we must review in order to determine if the Commission properly fulfilled its duties. First, I submit the emphasized portion of the extract above is a conclusion, not a fact as characterized by the Commission. Second, on review, when we ask “why” this does not serve the public convenience, the Commission’s answer is essentially “because.” Third, what Unicom may or may not do is irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of the public convenience standard. What Unicom does or does not do, unless it is established that Unicom can do it better, is meaningless. In addition, the Commission’s position appears internally inconsistent in that it contends that ComEd, with all its monopoly powers, can drive competitors out of the market and make inordinate profit, while the Commission simultaneously contends that under section 9 — 230 consumers could be at risk and have to subsidize the nonprofitable endeavor. Based upon the lack of a finding in the record and the Commission’s erroneous reliance on section 9 — 230, I am not convinced, as is the majority, that a different result may not reasonably occur if the cause is remanded. The Commission may realize that conclusions are not facts, that the other entities that may enter the market are relevant only if there are greater benefits or fewer burdens that the Commission has not placed in the record. Finally, the Commission may wish to point out how, with deregulation, ComEd will still have a monopoly, or, if there is a partial monopoly, how that will adversely affect consumers. I therefore believe that this cause should be remanded for further proceedings consistent with this dissent.