ILA’s witnesses and its many other members have expressed repeatedly their uniform opposition to the Project, routing and treatment of landowners and their concerns. The Order’s granting of a CPCN to Rock Island will permit Rock Island to force its way onto landowner property to “make land surveys and land use studies” (220 ILCS 5/8-510), a significant and unwarranted intrusion upon affected landowners for a project that is so speculative and tenuous.

Throughout this proceeding RI has claimed that Illinois customers will not pay the
Project’s costs. Because this fact is critical not just to protect customers, but also underlies RI’s economic case, the Order includes a condition stating that RI must seek Commission approval “prior to recovering any Project costs from Illinois retail ratepayers through PJM or MISO regional cost  allocation[.]”  While ComEd agrees fully with the Commission’s intent, this condition cannot be relied upon to protect customers, for several reasons.

FERC has exclusive authority over  transmission rates under federal law. It is far
from clear that FERC or a federal court would find that Illinois can require an applicant to waive the ability to petition FERC to approve any specific type of transmission rate, or could enforce such a waiver against a FERC finding that it was “just and reasonable” to pass costs on to customers. 

Even if the Commission could void the CPCN if RI (or a successor) made such a request to FERC, it is not clear what effect that “remedy” would have on customers’ rates. By then, the costs would be incurred and the line would be transmitting power in interstate commerce.

The Order’s condition does not apply to other parties (e.g., generators, shippers) who
could ask FERC to modify the rate to shift costs to customers, even if RI never did.

Similarly, the Order does not limit the  authority of FERC itself, which could sua
sponte revise RI’s rates, either in a RI-specific or a more broadly based investigation
proceeding. FERC has the power to “determine the just and reasonable rate … to be
thereafter observed” (16 U.S.C § 824e (2012)) in response to such a complaint or
upon its own motion, not just a filing by RI.

At a minimum, given the critical importance of shielding Illinois customers from Project
costs, the viability of this condition as a means of protecting customers – and potential
alternatives including financial security – warrants deeper examination on rehearing.

As multiple intervenors have pointed out in this docket that Rock Island’s failure to produce a needs analysis from PJM and/or MISO hurts all of the stakeholders, it seems like this problem could have easily been avoided. The absence of this global analysis produces increased unpredictability and either slows or jeopardizes other legitimate transmission projects. This risk to the consumers could have easily been prevented.

Now, other potentially viable and successful transmission projects will have to wait on the sidelines to see if Rock Island can get its act together by, among other things, finding money, qualified employees, suppliers, and numerous regulatory approvals. None of this benefits Illinois consumers, the market, or the reliability of the electric system. Instead, it puts everything at greater risk.

...provide the regulatory and other government review needed to move the project forward.

I note that, while Clean Line might represent an option for TVA and its stakeholders' future, only the TVA Board has the authority to  approve exercise of such an option. That Board to-date has not undertaken such an approval. That consideration process will focus on the statutory requirements of least cost, need for the resource, and other matters within the purview of the TVA Board.

For the unrecovered the companies may account, undepreciated investment.  
Balances in the 2012 deactivated power plants (albright, rivesville, and willow.  
Island) in any manner the companies deem appropriate, with gaap in accordance.  
And regulatory accounting.  Not, the parties agree that such accounting does.  
To recover these costs or amortization expenses in future rate establish a right.  
Proceedings, and this joint stipulation shall prevent the parties from nothing in.  
To recovery of these taking whatever position they deem appropriate in relation.  
Amounts in future proceedings.  Herh herh herh.

The proposed increase to the customer charge for residential and small commercial
customers shall remain at $5.00 per month.

The Courier & Press began investigating this issue after receiving a call from a local business owner on Friday concerned that her bill had tripled without warning.

Vectren initially said that more bills than usual were estimated over the summer because the company switched meter reading contractors, and it was changing the readers’ routes.

“Without getting into specifics, there are challenges that happen with any contractor transitions,” Hedde said Tuesday morning. She added that the anonymous caller’s high bill was likely atypical.

“I don’t want to give the impression that that is normal,” Hedde said. “She is experiencing something hopefully that is an anomaly.”

But response to a Courier & Press’ Facebook post showed the issue was widespread. Hundreds of people replied to the post with stories of bills that were several times what they expected.

But mistake or no, customers whose bills were underestimated must pay up, said the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

“They are responsible for it,” said Natalie Derrickson, a spokeswoman for the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. “At this point, if a customer feels like their bill was estimated and they have larger bills than they were expecting, their first step should be to contact Vectren. If the customer feels like the issue is not resolved, they should contact us.”