Village of Bolingbrook v. Illinois Commerce Commission
Rule 23 Civil Administrative Law
Holdings
- Arguments not fairly raised in a rehearing application before the ICC are forfeited on appeal, with no discretion to excuse noncompliance.
- Public comments and unaffordability claims alone do not render Commission-approved utility rates unjust, unreasonable, or unlawful under the Public Utilities Act.
- Useful for utility/administrative law attorneys challenging ICC rate orders or briefing forfeiture and substantial-evidence standards on appellate review.
Summary
This case arose from Illinois-American Water Company's proposed general rate increase for water and sewer service, which the Illinois Commerce Commission approved in modified form after public forums, an evidentiary hearing, and a 250-page order. The Village of Bolingbrook sought rehearing, which was denied, and then petitioned the Third District Appellate Court for review, prompting motions to strike portions of its brief for raising arguments not preserved in its rehearing application.
The court first addressed forfeiture under section 10-113(a) of the Public Utilities Act, striking the Village's constitutional and foreign-jurisdiction arguments because they were not genuinely raised in the rehearing application—strict compliance is required, and courts lack discretion to excuse forfeiture given the Act's special statutory review scheme. The substantial-evidence argument, however, survived because it remained within the scope of the rehearing application. On the merits, the court held the Commission adequately considered public comments and affordability concerns as required by section 8-306(n), but that affordability is only one factor balanced against a utility's right to cost recovery and a reasonable return; the Village's reliance on a small, non-representative sample of billing statements did not establish that the rates were unjust or unreasonable. Finally, applying the substantial-evidence standard, the court found the Village merely sought improper reweighing of favorable evidence rather than showing the Commission's findings lacked record support.
The court affirmed the Commission's orders in full, underscoring the deference given to ICC rate-design determinations and the strict procedural requirements for preserving issues for appellate review.
In short
Arguments not adequately raised in an application for rehearing are forfeited under section 10-113(a) of the Public Utilities Act, and courts have no discretion to excuse this forfeiture.
Public comments and affordability concerns must be considered under section 8-306(n), but they are not dispositive of whether approved rates are just and reasonable.
A small, non-representative sample of billing statements is insufficient to prove systemic rate unaffordability or an Act violation absent rebuttal of the utility's affordability analysis.
Under substantial-evidence review, appellants must show the entire record lacks adequate support for the Commission's findings; highlighting favorable evidence to seek reweighing is improper.
This summary was drafted by AI and verified against the slip opinion. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — always read the original before relying on it.