![]() |
Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
Utility rates: The heat is on THE BATTLE between ratepayers and electric utilities heated up this summer when the Governor's Office of Consumer Services and the Attorney General, acting on behalf of consumer organizations and ratepayers, filed masses of testimony with the Illinois Commerce Commission (IlCC), including an independent forecast of future growth in Commonwealth Edison's energy
Experts from both sides acknowledge the uncertainty in predicting energy demand, and utilities are sticking to their contention that excess capacity is a short-term problem that can be alleviated by selling power to other utilities. They will also undoubtedly argue that some of the testimony on behalf of ratepayers is more far-out than far-reaching. Nevertheless, this is the first time the ILCC has considered such extensive evidence from sources outside the utilities challenging the need for new power plants and the practice of making ratepayers pay for them. The load growth forecast for ComEd was filed with the ILCC June 22 by the Governor's Office of Consumer Services (GOCS) on behalf of the Senior Citizens Advisory Council of Cook County Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc. According to GOCS director Al Grandys, this is the first time in the state's history that anyone other than a utility has attempted to forecast loads. The forecast predicts an 0.5 percent annual growth in ComEd's peak load over the next decade, much less than ComEd's own projection of 2 percent annual growth. GOCS wants the ILCC to resolve the differences into a "mutually agreeable" forecast and then to consider the financial feasibility of ComEd's construction program. GOCS also wants the commission to order ComEd to make changes in its forecasting methods. A recommendation that ComEd sell or cancel one or more of its nuclear generating units now under construction was part of the testimony filed June 24 by Atty. Gen. Tyrone Farmer on behalf of ratepayers in ComEd's pending request for an $800 million rate hike. (Possible purchasers of the units might be Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric or Northern Indiana Public Service Company, according to Paul Zemitsch of the Attorney General's Office.) Fahner's experts also challenged ComEd's ability to carry out its construction plans without dramatic rate increases and questioned the benefits of the new plants to ComEd's customers. Fahner urged the ILCC and Illinois utilities to formally coordinate their construction, load forecasting and utilization of existing plants to provide the state with a more efficient energy system. An independent evaluation of Central Illinois Public Service Company's (CIPS) reserve margin was filed by GOCS and the Attorney General June 21 on behalf of the Southern Counties' Action Movement which is fighting CIPS' pending request for a $93.6 million rate hike. The testimony concludes that the entire generating capacity of CIPS' Newton II generating plant (a 575,000-kilowatt, coal-fired unit which will go on line in December) should be considered excess capacity and that ratepayers should not have to pay all the costs of the unit. Two plans are offered for recovering the costs of Newton II; both would eliminate most of CIPS' rate request. GOCS and the Attorney General will file testimony in July challenging Illinois Power Company's (IP) pending request for a $141.1 million electric rate hike, much of which would be used to cover construction costs for the Clinton I nuclear plant. Testimony to be filed by GOCS on behalf of the Village of Buffalo will also recommend new methods of treating Clinton I construction costs which, according to GOCS's energy consultant, would provide relief to ratepayers and tax breaks to IP. The ILCC must rule on the ComEd and CIPS rate hike requests in December and on the IP request in January 1983. There is no deadline for action on the independent load growth forecast for ComEd. August 1982 | Illinois Issues | 39 |
|