It`s unlikely that many people come home at night, flick a light switch and offer a ”thank you” to Commonwealth Edison Co.
Nor do most people recall, when they sit down to pay the electricity bill in September, that air conditioning is a comfort during a sultry August.
More likely, if people think at all about Commonwealth Edison, it is to complain about high rates or peak-season electric bills or how long the power was out during the last thunderstorm.
Area residents, it sometimes seems, have a Dr. Commonwealth and Mr. Edison perception of the giant utility that provides electricity to 3.2 million customers in northern Illinois.
And last week provided a vivid example of that.
For most of the week, the public perception was unusually positive as 500 to 600 Edison workers logged thousands of hours of overtime in an effort to restore electricity to downtown buildings whose basements were flooded when the Chicago River began leaking into an old freight tunnel.
At media briefings during the week, Edison Vice President Don Petkus often appeared alongside Mayor Richard Daley, describing the herculean efforts the utility was making to restore power.
But a ruling Thursday by the Illinois Supreme Court reminded people that Edison is also a company that has been embroiled in controversy over rate increases and criticized for the way it managed its nuclear building program during the 1980s.
The ruling by the state high court will require the utility to pay $225 million to $260 million in refunds and could result in a $40 to $50 credit on the electric bills of typical residential customers before the end of the year.
These are the two faces of Commonwealth Edison:
On one hand, Edison is a company that employs about 20,000 workers, says it will absorb the costs-estimated at $300,000 a day for staffing alone-for restoring power to downtown buildings and pays healthy dividends to 200,000 stockholders, many of whom live in Illinois.
On the other, Edison is a company that has sought-mostly unsuccessfully-more than $1 billion in rate increases since the mid-1980s for nuclear generating plants, which critics say cost too much and may not be needed.
The contrast between Edison`s flood efforts and the state Supreme Court ruling was noted by Edison officials who voiced frustration at the length of time it takes for rate increases to work their way through the courts.
More Top Picks Black Plusdecker Professional Ir1350s T
”The dilemma is always being expected to be there-like our slogan says-when we don`t have the resources,” Petkus said. ”It`s become more and more difficult to deliver what our customers deserve.”
That assessment is met with some skepticism by Howard Learner, a public-interest lawyer frequently at odds with Edison over its rate increase requests.
”Edison is neither all good nor all evil,” said Learner, general counsel of Business and Professional People for the Public Interest. ”They do certain things well and some not so well. When they mismanage their nuclear construction program, build more power plants than are needed with cost overruns, then they ought to be criticized and ought not be permitted to pass along those costs to consumers.”
For the most part, though, the flooding last week showed Edison in a favorable light.
One of the reasons probably was that unlike rate increase controversies or the massive power outage on Chicago`s West Side during the summer of 1990, the problems last week were inflicted upon Edison by outside forces.
Another reason may have been Petkus himself, a high-ranking corporation executive who became the utility`s press spokesman. It was a public-relations statement that the top guys in the company were personally involved in the crisis.
At the media briefings, he never took off his tie, never appeared in shirtsleeves and never got flustered when asked about when the lights would go back on.
Providing computer-drawn maps on a daily basis, Petkus outlined which Loop buildings were without electricity, what the utility was doing about it, and, most importantly, predicted when power would be restored. His predictions were nearly always on target or, in some cases, were accomplished an hour or two earlier than expected.
In less than four days, most of the city`s downtown was returned to power, though there were some big exceptions-for example, the block-square Marshall Field`s department store was shut down with water in its
subbasements.
Then there was that state Supreme Court ruling.
The court upheld a determination by the Illinois Commerce Commission that $291 million of the cost of building the first nuclear unit at the Byron power plant, south of Rockford, was unreasonable and should not have been figured into a rate increase granted in 1985. The court also ordered the commerce commission to reconsider its rejection of an additional $81 million in disputed costs challenged by consumer and public-interest groups.
The ruling was a reminder of the controversy over cost overruns and construction problems at Byron I, which was denied an operating license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission`s licensing board in January 1984.
”Quality assurance and control problems plagued Edison throughout the construction of Byron I,” Justice Michael Bilandic noted in the court`s opinion.
The state high court also has twice in recent years refused to approve rate increases granted by the commerce commisson for Edison`s three newest nuclear power plants, including the second unit at Byron and the twin-reactor Braidwood generating station.
That request is now before the rate-setting agency for the third time.
Edison came under criticism in an audit released this month that suggested the utility expand its energy-conservation programs and improve its maintenance and nuclear-plant operations.
Maintenance of the company`s transmission and distribution system was a touchy subject after fires in two West Side substations in 1990 caused blackouts of 7 1/2 hours and three days and also during negotiations with the city over a new franchise agreement.
Learner noted that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has strongly criticized Edison for its maintenance practices and procedures.
”What happened in the 1980s is that Edison grossly underestimated construction costs for its new plants and grossly overestimated the demand for power,” Learner said. ”It had several unneeded nuclear reactors that cost far more than had been planned and that strained Edison`s financial resources. Other utilities cut or omitted dividends, which reflects the reality that shareholders and not customers should pay for mismanagement.”