Both sides see victory in ruling on ComEd's Grand Prairie Gateway plan

Is an early recommendation on ComEd's $200 million infrastructure upgrade a potential death knell or a near-endorsement of the project? Depends on who you talk to.

Opponents of the Grand Prairie Gateway don't want the new power lines and towers running through or near their property.

While ComEd proposed many alternate routes to avoid wooded areas, downtowns and natural obstacles, roughly 20 percent of the 60-mile route offered only one option for the placement of the new infrastructure.

And a recent nonbinding ruling by a panel of administrative law judges agreed with opponents that an alternate route for the entire plan is a necessary element of ComEd's petition. Without proposing a possible remedy, the plan should not go forward, the judges said.

But opinions diverge on how damaging that suggested ruling is to ComEd's quest for approval from the Illinois Commerce Commission.

ComEd Senior Consultant David O'Dowd read the ruling as almost entirely positive for ComEd's petition.

"ComEd is encouraged by the administrative law judge's proposed order recommending the Illinois Commerce Commission approve 80 percent of the Grand Prairie Gateway transmission line route," O'Dowd said. 'The order recognizes the value of the project, which will save customers $250 million, reduce greenhouse gasses and create 500 jobs. We will work with the ICC to address concerns related to the balance of the line."

The balance of the line, the 20 percent without an alternate route, is the segment that runs from the Byron substation up to and including Elgin and its Bowes Creek, Mulberry Grove and Cedar Grove neighborhoods.

Chris Beck, assistant corporation counsel for Elgin, said the ruling is "a positive development for Elgin" in that the judges said at least posing an alternate route for the Elgin segment is an element ComEd must include in its proposal.

"That was the city's focus in its opposition, and it will continue to be," Beck said. "That's a statutory requirement. ComEd was required to either propose an alternate route to the project or demonstrate good cause as to why that would not be feasible. They did neither, and the judges recognized that."

Beck said the fight is far from over. The ICC isn't required to accept the judges' proposed order. He expects ComEd will try to modify the proposed order to remove the need for an alternate route.

"If that happens, I would fully expect the city will file its own motion in response," Beck said. "We'll keep fighting."

John Hoscheit, president of the Kane County Forest Preserve District, said he thinks ComEd has bigger problems than providing alternate routes. He says the order also mentions the project might not provide "adequate and efficient service."

Hoscheit said those are significant reasons to deny the gateway.

"The primary issue is whether they could substantiate the need for it, and the order says they could not," Hoscheit said. "So that kills the whole thing. The question is if they can come back with a revised petition on the need issue. They are going to have to go back to the drawing board, but I don't think it's necessarily a done issue. People who are opponents need to remain diligent."

Kane County continues to be an opponent, as are more than 50 other taxing bodies and neighborhood groups. They and ComEd are now in a waiting game for the ICC to make its final ruling on or before Oct. 27.