Blog

In a positive development last December, the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) rejected the grid plans and slashed the rate hikes proposed by ComEd and Ameren, arguing that the companies had not proven that their plans would be affordable to consumers, as mandated by the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act (CEJA). The companies in March of this year came back with new plans–and rate-hike proposals.

ComEd, the largest electric utility in the state, is pushing for a $1.1 billion increase in delivery rates (ICC Docket No. 24-0181) and Ameren Illinois wants a $321 million delivery rate hike (ICC Docket No. 24-0238).  Some background: The rate-hike requests originally were meant to be spread out over four years. However, after the ICC rejected the grid pans last December, only partial rate hikes took effect in the new year. The utilities’ new rate-hike requests–$1.1 billion for ComEd and $321 million for Ameren–are connected to their new grid plans. These increases would take effect after the ICC issues a final ruling in December, and would be spread out over the remaining three years, through 2027.

In expert testimony filed this past summer, CUB found about $89 million in overcharges proposed by ComEd and about $101 million proposed by Ameren Illinois. CUB also filed briefs in August and September. To give you an idea of the scope of these cases, the utilities have proposed billions of dollars in spending, with a portion to be recovered through the current rate-hike requests, and the rest recovered over decades to come. A summary of CUB’s arguments across both utilities:  

• The Climate and Equitable Jobs Act (CEJA) requires a showing of cost-effectiveness for each project included in the companies’ grid plans. But ComEd and Ameren only applied cost-benefit analysis to projects representing roughly one-fourth and one-fifth of total costs, respectively.  CUB proposes to instead require the utilities to calculate benefits for every project it can and compare them to costs. Projects would only be approved if benefits exceed costs, or if they’re strictly legally or practically required.
• CEJA requires that delivery service rates be affordable. But Ameren and ComEd mislead about their huge rate-hike requests by comparing delivery service rate increases to total electric bills, or even total household energy costs (including volatile heating gas costs). By dividing the relevant number by a larger category of costs, the utilities make their proposed rate hikes look smaller than they actually are and try to skirt CEJA. CUB proposes that the ICC compare apples to apples and, if delivery service rates under the proposed grid plans would grow too fast relative to forecasted inflation, decrease the utilities’ rate hikes accordingly to slow the rate of spending.
• Urges regulators to make utility shareholders, not customers, foot the bill ($5.4 million for ComEd, $2.8 million for Ameren) for outside law firms and consultants to argue in favor of the utilities’ grid plans after their first attempt was deemed inadequate by the ICC last December. 

CUB also had recommendations specific to each utility: 

Regarding ComEd, CUB…

• Argues that the ICC should disallow about $29.5 million in additional IT expenses stemming from ComEd’s botched rollout of its new customer billing system, which resulted in customers’ bills being delayed or incorrect, and Community Solar subscribers not receiving bill credits, for several months. CUB says customers should not pay for ComEd’s mistakes.
• Challenges ComEd’s request that the ICC pre-approve more than $665 million in spending to serve new large customers based on speculative projections that massive data centers will be built. CUB argues that, instead of basing rates on guesswork, CEJA has a process for adding such costs if they arise.
• Recommends the ICC  reject proposed investments for the “System Visibility Program” (data collection equipment that might be redundant) and “One Mobile Dispatch Solution” (a work management app) projects, for which ComEd admitted the financial benefit to customers is less than the costs.  

Regarding Ameren, CUB…

• Proposes that Ameren limit its spending on reliability infrastructure to the forecasted rate of inflation. The utility proposes increasing certain projects faster than the rate of inflation, despite having already spent massive amounts of money under the old formula rate program for the last 10 years.
• Recommends rejection of three projects totaling more than $9 million that Ameren insists do not need a cost-benefit analysis because they are necessary. (The utility does not substantiate what this urgent need is.)
• Calls on the ICC to reject roughly $23.5 million for six projects in which the calculated benefits do not clearly exceed costs.
• Proposes disallowing about $800,000 in operations and maintenance expenditures the utility has failed to demonstrate it expects to actually incur.

“Under CEJA, the days of spending money first, answering questions later are over,” CUB General Counsel Eric DeBellis said “The law says that electric utilities need to prove their case that each investment of ratepayers’ money is strictly necessary, yields real, tangible benefits to ratepayers that exceed costs, or both. We as consumer advocates are fighting to rein in Ameren and ComEd, as they try to play fast and loose with consumers’ money. 

“This case extending into a second year has been exhausting, it has been costly, and it has been absolutely necessary to get this right. What the ICC decides in this case will shape Illinois policy on holding monopolies accountable to the rest of us for years to come.” 

Take action: 

• Sign our petition urging the ICC to rein in Ameren and ComEd. 
• File a public comment with the ICC about the new ComEd and Ameren grid plans. You can also call the ICC, at 1-800-524-0795.

The cases are set to be ruled on by the end of December, with any new rates taking effect shortly after.