ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
November
20, 1986
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
SITE—SPECIFIC RULEMAKING FOR
)
R85—7
CENTRAL ILLINOIS LIGHT COMPANY
)
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.C.
Flemal):
This matter comes before
the
Board upon the October 16,
1986
Motion
for Rehearing filed by Central
Illinois Light
Company
(“CILCO”).
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency filed a
response
to the motion on October
31, 1986.
CILCO contends that the Board’s September 11,
1986 decision
denying
the site—specific relief requested by CILCO “appears
to
be based
on a misunderstanding
or mis—application of the
structure
and requirements of the Environmental Protection Act
and
a misunderstanding
or unwarranted
inference from
the evidence
in the record”
(“Motion
for Rehearing”,
p. 1).
The Agency argues that
the Board’s Procedural Rules
do not
provide,
in the context of regulatory proceedings,
for motions
to
the
Board for
rehearing or reconsideration.
The Agency therefore
urges that CILCO’s motion be dismissed (“Agency Response
to
Motion for Rehearing”, pgs. 1—3).
Alternatively,
the Agency
states that
if the
Board rules on the merits of CILCO’s motion,
the motion should
be denied since
the Board correctly applied
the
statutory criteria of the Act and properly found that the
requested relief was not justified by the record
(Id. at 8).
The
Board
notes that,
contrary to the Agency’s assertion,
motions
for
rehearing
or
reconsideration
may
appropriately
be
considered
by
the
Board
in
rulemaking
proceedings.
The
authority
to
hear
such
motions
is
implicit
in
the
general
rulemaking
authority
delegated
to
the
Board
by
the
Act.
Nevertheless,
in
this
instance
the
Board
concludes
that
the
Motion
for Rehearing
must
be
denied.
The
Board
believes
that
its
September
11,
1986
decision
in this matter was not based
on any misunderstanding!
misapplication of the Act, or on any misunderstanding of the
record.
Rather, the Board
affirms that the Opinion and Order
adopted on September
11 was well founded on the record
in this
proceeding
as
it was developed by the participants.
The Board wishes
to
take special note of CILCO’S arguments
concerning
the Board’s reference
in
its Opinion
to
the
“goals of
equitable and fair treatment”.
(Op. p.
8, CILCO Motion for
Rehearing,
p. 7—10).
CILCO misconstrues the Board’s statement,
as well as the weight this matter carries
in the determination
that CILCO’S petition must be denied.
74-129
—2—
The Board determined,
based
on the record presented
to
it by
CILCO, that CILCO
failed
to adequately demonstrate why
it should
be
treated
differently
than
others
subject
to
the
general
rule.
Such
consideration
of
equitable
and
fair
treatment
is
inherent
in
all Board
rulemakings, whether general
rulemakings or
site—
specific rulemakings.
Therefore,
the Board has not,
in the
instant matter,
introduced
“an entirely new, and unjustified
test”, as adduced by CILCO (CILCO Motion
for Rehearing,
p. 10).
Finally, CILCO errs
in
its interpretation of the weight
accorded
the
matter
of
equitable
and
fair
treatment.
The
Board
has
also
determined
that
CILCO
failed
to
demonstrate
that
compliance
with
the
general
rule
is
technically
infeasible
and
economically
unreasonable.
This
determination,
in
itself,
required that the petition be denied.
The October
16,
1986 Motion for Rehearing
filed
by Central
Illinois Light Company
is hereby denied.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify, that the above Order
was adopted on
the
‘~c’~-
day
of
~
,
1986,
by
a
vote
of
~“
-
C
~
//
/
~
-
I
~
~
Dorothy
M.
Gzinn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
74.130