## Facts

- Enbridge Pipelines (Illinois), L.L.C. sought ICC approval to build and operate a 170-mile crude-oil pipeline extension from Pontiac, Illinois, to Patoka, Illinois, as part of a larger expansion project.
- Enbridge applied for a certificate in good standing as a common carrier by pipeline under § 15-401 of the Illinois Public Utilities Act and for eminent-domain authority under § 8-509.
- ICC proceedings included testimony from Enbridge personnel and experts regarding project need, corporate structure, and financing; an ICC financial analyst also addressed Enbridge’s access to capital.
- The ICC found Enbridge was fit, willing, and able to construct, operate, and maintain the extension and that a public need supported the project.
- The ICC relied in part on Enbridge’s relationship with its parent company, including creditworthiness and a financing plan involving intercompany support, and conditioned approval on needed financial support being provided or arranged.
- Landowner intervenors challenged the order, arguing the applicant lacked a sufficiently independent financial commitment and that the ICC used an overly broad conception of “public need.”

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the ICC’s finding that Enbridge was fit, willing, and able to construct, operate, and maintain the pipeline extension, given reliance on parent-company financial support.
2. Whether the ICC reasonably interpreted and applied the “public need” requirement in approving the extension and granting eminent-domain authority.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the ICC’s order.
- The court held the ICC reasonably found Enbridge fit, willing, and able, and that substantial evidence supported the financing and capability determination.
- The court upheld the ICC’s public-need finding as a reasonable statutory interpretation supported by record evidence of benefits to Illinois and the broader region.
- A dissent would have reversed, concluding the evidence of financial capability was insufficient without a clearer, binding funding commitment by the applicant.

## Legal Principles

- ICC factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence; a reviewing court does not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the agency’s.
- When statutes use broad terms such as “public need,” the ICC may interpret and apply them reasonably, and courts generally defer if the interpretation fits the statutory framework and is supported by the record.
- The Public Utilities Act does not require an applicant to prove financing wholly independent of its corporate parent; the ICC may consider credible evidence of parent-subsidiary financing arrangements and may condition approval on financial support.
- Public-need determinations for pipeline projects may consider regional, national, or international energy-market effects when the record supports resulting benefits to the public in Illinois.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the ICC’s authorization of Enbridge’s Illinois pipeline extension and associated eminent-domain power, concluding that substantial evidence supported the ICC’s fitness and financial-capability findings and that the ICC permissibly interpreted “public need” broadly in approving the project.


Pliura Intervenors v. Ill. Commerce Comm’n, 405 Ill. App. 3d 199, 942 N.E.2d 576 (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 2010)