Eye On Illinois: Utilities need cooperation from lawmakers and regulators to remain profitable

Nothing in government is ever as simple as it seems – an axiom especially relevant in federal courtrooms – but a two-week-old 20-word quote perfectly illustrates the takeaway lesson from the ongoing corruption trial of former House Speaker Michael Madigan.

With the usual acknowledgment of substantial abridgment, the basic allegations are Madigan, who cultivated nearly unassailable control over Statehouse litigation, was only willing to force through bills of major financial significance to Commonwealth Edison if there was something in it for him on the side.

In court on Dec. 19, according to Capitol News Illinois’ Hannah Meisel, was sitting First District Appellate Court Justice David Ellis, a defense witness testifying in his capacity as Madigan’s former chief legal counsel. (You also might remember him from successfully prosecuting Gov. Rod Blagojecvich’s impeachment trial, or as an award-winning crime novelist.)

Ellis told jurors about his work on legislation expected to affect people like utility customers and said whether dealing with ComEd or a different big business, the idea was consumer protection. The quote I can’t shake referred specifically to a 2011 bill about the so-called smart grid:

“I don’t mean this as insulting, but I don’t trust ComEd to write anything that isn’t in their best interest,” Ellis said.

That law is relevant largely because of its procedural history. It earned bipartisan approval in May 2011. Gov. Pat Quinn vetoed the bill. Lawmakers overrode that veto in the fall. Federal prosecutors allege that final step only happened because ComEd gave a no-work contract to someone close to Madigan and also hired a law firm belonging to a Democratic party fundraiser.

This is a sliver of the complaint against Madigan. The legal strategies deployed at trial as well as a federal judge’s take on recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent are far too expansive to adequately summarize. Ellis’ remark doesn’t presage the ultimate verdict. But it reminds us again of how the entire prosecution illuminates the challenges of ever having what might be considered an ethical government.

Ellis wasn’t insulting at all. ComEd would never propose legislation that isn’t in its best interest. It’s a power provider, but it’s also the largest subsidiary of a publicly traded Fortune 100 parent company worth several billion dollars. The best interests in mind here are those of executives, employees and shareholders.

Even taking Ellis at his word, that Madigan’s team worked opposite ComEd, the unshakeable reality is the utility needs cooperation from lawmakers and regulators to remain profitable. Consumers’ concerns are at best something to be negotiated. The General Assembly’s power concentration structure further cloisters average ratepayers, generating influence ripe for peddling.

Of course, the company acts in its best interest. But how can ComEd’s customers ever do the same?

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. Follow him on X @sth749. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.