Iowa RCO Asso. v. Ill. Commerce Commerce - 86 Ill. App. 3d 1116, 42 Ill. Dec. 582, 409 N.E.2d 77 (1980)

Rule:

The term "public utility" is defined in § 10.3 of the Public Utilities Act as including: every corporation that owns, controls, operates or manages, within this state, directly or indirectly, for public use, any plant, equipment or property used or to be used for: e. the conveyance of oil or gas by pipe line. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111 2/3, para. 10.3 (1977).

Facts:

Pursuant to section 55 of the Public Utilities Act, Northern Pipe Line Company of Delaware, Inc., filed a petition with the Illinois Commerce Commission on October 7, 1977, requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate a 200-mile-long crude-oil pipeline running from Wood River, Illinois, to Pine Bend, Minnesota. The Commission granted the petition and Iowa RCO Association (RCO), the only objector at the Commission hearing, appealed to the circuit court of Greene County which entered an order affirming the Commission on October 23, 1979. RCO appealed the order, asserting that the Commission erred because Northern Pipe Line Company was not a "public utility" under the Public Utilities Act and that the Commission failed to adequately address environmental issues and erred in ruling upon evidence concerning a Minnesota administrative decision.

Issue:

Did the Illinois Commerce Commission err in granting a certificate of public convenience in favor of the Northern Pipe Line Company of Delaware, Inc.? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment. The court stated that a sufficient showing was made that the pipeline would be for a public use. The court noted that the fact that the use of the pipeline would be almost entirely, if not entirely, interstate did not keep the pipeline company from being subject to the provisions of the Act, and it determined that the Commission could properly issue the certificate. The court found that the Commission supported its decision on the environmental issues with detailed findings that were neither unreasonable nor contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The court stated that the evidentiary issue was waived because it was not raised in a petition for rehearing before the Commission, that the decision was not binding upon the Commission and there was no indication that the Commission gave substantial weight to it, and that the ruling did not deprive the association of a fair hearing.