APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION
UTILITY PRACTICE, NATIONAL PEOPLE'S ACTION and SOUTH AUSTIN
536 N.E.2d 724, 180 Ill. App. 3d 899, 129 Ill. Dec. 674 1988.IL.1920
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION, DOCKET NO. 86-0128
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, BUCKLEY and MANNING, JJ., concur.
DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE O'CONNOR
In this consolidated case, Commonwealth Edison Company is petitioning for a review of the order by the Illinois Commerce Commission of April 27, 1988 (Docket No. 86-0128) previously stayed by this court. That order reduced the seasonal differential for residential rates by decreasing summer charges and increasing non-summer charges. The Citizens Utility Board , Community Action for Fair Utility Practice , National People's Action , South Austin Coalition Community Council and the People of the State of Illinois by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois (hereinafter collectively referred to as CUB) are petitioning for review of the order of June 8, 1988 (Docket No. R. 18712) in which the Commission subsequently granted Edison's petition for special permission to revise its seasonal rate differential without providing 45 days' notice to the Commission and the public as required by Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 111 2/3, par. 9-201. The Cook County State's Attorney on behalf of the People of Cook County, filed a brief supporting the Commission's April 27, 1988 order. The Office of Public Counsel, on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, filed briefs supporting the Commission's April 27, 1988 order and supporting reversal of the Commission's June 8, 1988 order.
The principal questions raised on review are whether this court has jurisdiction to review the Commission's action and whether the Commission's June 8 decision in Docket No. R. 18712 was arbitrary and capricious and is therefore void.
Commonwealth Edison, petitioner in case No. 88-1437, filed a revised residential rate schedule with the Illinois Commerce Commission, the intended purpose of which was to reduce between summer and non-summer residential rates the differential which had been the cause of substantial customer dissatisfaction. Hearings were held over a period of approximately two years in an effort to determine the appropriate level of Edison's seasonal rate differential and extensive testimony was introduced by Edison, the Commission and the consumer intervenors. The proposal was designed to be revenue neutral in that the loss of revenue caused by the decrease in summer rates would be offset by the gain from increased non-summer rates.
On April 23, 1988, the Commission served its final order in Docket No. 86-0128, reducing the summer charges and increasing non-summer charges. The Commission's order instituted the following set of rates for Edison's residential service: