"A public utility is entitled both to recover in its rates certain operating costs and to earn a return on its rate base (i.e., the amount of its invested capital)." Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 322 Ill. App. 3d 846, 849 (2001) (citing Citizens Utilities Co. of Illinois v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 124 Ill. 2d 195, 200 (1988)). ¶ 5 In exchange for this legislative guarantee of payment, the utility must commit to making very substantial investments in updating and improving its facilities, and in hiring new employees. 220 ILCS 5/16-108.5(b) (West 2012).
Our review is limited to the following matters: (1) whether the Commission acted within its authority; (2) whether it made adequate findings to support its decision; (3) whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence; and (4) whether state or federal constitutional rights were infringed. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 322 Ill. App. 3d 846, 849 (2001). "Substantial evidence" means more than a mere scintilla; however, it does not have to rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence.
Traditionally, a retail electric customer purchased several different services, including the electricity itself, from the local electric utility as a single "bundled" service. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 322 Ill. App. 3d 846, 848 (2001). Bundled service consisted of the electricity as well as all services related to the distribution and delivery of electricity.
The Customer Choice Law introduced competition for the first time into the Illinois electricity market and moved the Illinois electric industry from a heavily regulated world toward a competitive marketplace. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 322 Ill. App. 3d 846, 848 (2001); Illinois Power Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 316 Ill. App. 3d 254, 257 (2000). The Customer Choice Law opened the electricity market to participants other than the existing, vertically integrated utilities, and it allowed for the creation of entities called alternative retail electric suppliers.
On review, we are limited to considering whether (1) the Commission acted within its authority, (2) adequate findings were made to support the decision, (3) the decision was supported by substantial evidence, and (4) state or federal constitutional rights were infringed. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 322 Ill. App. 3d 846, 849, 751 N.E.2d 196, 199 (2001). The Commission's interpretation of its own rules is considered to be prima facie reasonable, and a reviewing court may not interfere with its interpretation unless the administrative construction is clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or unreasonable.
United Cities Gas Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 163 Ill.2d 1, 12 (1994). When reviewing the Commission's orders, this court is limited to considering whether (1) the Commission acted within its authority; (2) adequate findings were made to support the decision; (3) the decision was supported by substantial evidence; and (4) state or federal constitutional rights were infringed.Commonwealth Edison Co. v.Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 322 Ill. App.3d 846, 849 (2001). Where the issue on appeal involves the Commission's interpretation and application of the provisions of the Act, reviewing courts must give substantial weight to the Commission's interpretation.MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 168 Ill. App.3d 1008, 1012 (1988).
" In any event, it is well established that an administrative agency lacks the authority to adjudicate the legality of agency regulations. See Carpetland , 201 Ill. 2d at 397, 267 Ill.Dec. 29, 776 N.E.2d 166 (an administrative agency lacks the authority to invalidate a statute or question its validity); Mefford v. White , 331 Ill. App. 3d 167, 171, 264 Ill.Dec. 555, 770 N.E.2d 1251, 1254 (2002) (vehicle driver asserted constitutional challenge in administrative hearing, thus preserving dispute regarding legality of administrative rule for its subsequent adjudication in the circuit court); Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n , 322 Ill. App. 3d 846, 849, 256 Ill.Dec. 143, 751 N.E.2d 196, 199 (2001) (on electric utility's appeal from agency's order, court was permitted to address whether administrative rule infringed on the utility's state or federal constitutional rights). Therefore, there is no legal basis for Williams's conclusion that the hearing officer's ruling should be "voided or vacated," that the defendant agency should be ordered "to comply with federal statutes," or that the case should be remanded "so that violations" of federal statutes can be addressed.
¶ 55 In sum, the Commission rejected REACT's interpretation of section 16–108(c), and this rejection is reasonable and consistent with the broad language of the Act as a whole. See also Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 322 Ill.App.3d 846, 854, 256 Ill.Dec. 143, 751 N.E.2d 196 (2001) (generally holding that the term “cost based” was susceptible to more than one interpretation and, therefore, affording deference to the agency's reasonable interpretation of the term). Moving forward with deference to the Commission's broader reading of the Act, we address REACT's remaining arguments that: (1) the current ECOSS results in an inaccurate, or unfair, allocation of costs; and (2) the study proposed by REACT is necessary to obtain greater precision in the itemization of costs.
220 ILCS 5/1-102(d)(iv) (West 2011). ¶ 55 In sum, the Commission rejected REACT's interpretation of section 16-108(c), and this rejection is reasonable and consistent with the broad language of the Act as a whole. See also, Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 322 Ill. App. 3d 846, 854 (2001) (generally holding that the term "cost based" was susceptible to more than one interpretation, and, therefore, affording deference to the agency's reasonable interpretation of the term). Moving forward with deference to the Commission's broader reading of the Act, we address REACT's remaining arguments that: (1) the current ECOSS results in an inaccurate, or unfair, allocation of costs; and (2) the study proposed by REACT is necessary to obtain greater precision in the itemization of costs.
The Commission's findings are considered prima facie reasonable and the burden of proof is on the appellant on all issues raised in the appeal. 220 ILCS 5/10-201(d) (West 2012). In reviewing the Commission's orders, a court is limited to determining whether (1) the Commission acted within its authority; (2) it made adequate findings to support its decision; (3) substantial evidence supports its decision; and (4) any constitutional rights were violated. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 322 Ill. App. 3d 846, 849 (2001). ¶ 15 ComEd and ICEA/IIEC contend that the Commission's approval of the procurement plan, which compels ComEd to enter into a sourcing agreement with FutureGen 2.0 on behalf of ARES, exceeded its statutory authority.