More on the rate deal
Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Jack Darin of the Sierra Club describes a completely overlooked aspect of the electric rate deal…
…the General Assemlby is poised to approve a mandate that 25% of our electricity come from clean, renewable sources like wind by 2025; and to require that utilities plan for helping us customers use less energy.
The environmental benefits of the clean energy pieces of the rate deal are as significant as the shift in the politics of environmental protection in Illinois.
* Meanwhile, the Republicans are still complaining about the proposal, which cleared a House committee yesterday on partisan lines…
Republicans opposed the deal during Wednesday’s hearing, saying that the $1 billion wasn’t enough and that the state’s attorney general shouldn’t drop lawsuits against the utility companies.
Republicans also complained that Democrats kept them out of the negotiating process.
“It was my understanding that the door was open,” state Rep George Scully, D-Flossmoor, said.
Even though Democrats control the state House and Senate, Republican opposition could block the deal’s approval in the House.
* More…
Republican votes are needed to pass the plan if the [House] chamber votes, as planned, on Thursday. Republicans complained in committee that ComEd is helping to underwrite relief for Downstate consumers served by Ameren Corp. and they questioned how much the package would help individual consumers.
* And still more…
“It’s chump change,” said Rep. David Leitch, R-Peoria. “I get to tell all these constituents whose bills have doubled and tripled and quadrupled that they get eight bucks a month in relief?”
* And even more…
One controversial portion of the deal that’s unsettling to some is that the state would dismiss six lawsuits brought against the utilities and power companies as a result of the September power auction. That includes the case filed by Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office that alleged the power companies colluded to set electricity prices that robbed customers of an extra $4.3 million.
Rep. Jim Durkin, a Western Springs Republican, was one of the skeptics. “How’s the public protected by not following through and getting to the bottom of each one of these lawsuits instead of just dismissing them with the signing of this letter of understanding and the passage of this legislation? How in good faith can the state of Illinois settle those two cases when you have made serious allegations of manipulation and fraud upon the public?” He was the lone Republican to vote “present” in committee because he said he supported offering rate relief but didn’t like the process of coming to this deal.
Susan Hedman, senior assistant attorney general, justified the dismissal of the lawsuits by saying her office believed rate relief was needed now and that the procurement of power needed to be reformed for the future. “There’s a tradeoff between getting relief up front and waiting. If we do not get reforms in the procurement process now, it would mean that every year that we’re litigating that case, there could be another reverse auction with the danger of the same problems that we observed last time.” She later cut someone off and said, rather bluntly, that without dismissal of the lawsuits, “the deal falls apart.”
* But Speaker Madigan had a warning…
“I am told that there are some Republicans that plan not to vote for the rate relief for electric ratepayers,” said Madigan, who supports the deal. “And if there are Republicans, especially from the Ameren service territory, that are going to vote against rate relief, why, I welcome them to do it.”
Thoughts?
- bored now - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 9:39 am:
i wonder if it is an idle threat. madigan is the least aggressive party chair in the country, and i don’t know that he’d end his decade-old detente with republicans…
- Lula May - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 9:47 am:
I sure hope Madigan got something big from Jones for supporting this and kicking the working citizens to the curb. We all know what Jones motives are.
I said this the other day it is chump change for the utility companies.
- Highland Online - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 9:52 am:
I don’t think it’s that Speaker Madigan wants more Southern seats, it sounds more like Attorney General Madigan is running for Governor.
- Squideshi - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 10:06 am:
“Historically, whenever Illinois has passed major energy legislation, environmentalists have made good arguments about the impacts of energy production and consumption, worked long and hard to educate legislators, and then ended up with the table scraps from the real deal (studies, task forces, voluntary goals, some new dollars dwarfed by the boatloads sent to coal and nuclear power…..)”
Notice that nothing has actually yet changed in any of these arenas, yet year after year, we keep rewarding these same non-performers with votes.
- Justice - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 10:06 am:
The last I checked we are still working in a free enterprise system with a supply, demand economy. It isn’t a wise thing for the state to regulate an industry for ten years then not expect a hit to the consumer. Then again, it isn’t good planning for individuals and businesses to rely on a lifetime of artificially cheap energy, while they waste it through poor conservation and operations methods. The part of the legislation I like best is the clean, renewable energy sources of 25%. The part I least like is letting someone who manipulated the system and committed fraud off the hook. I think that should be taken off the table.
- HoosierDaddy - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 10:19 am:
The “chump change” argument for Republicans who vote against this bill will resonate downstate in Ameren land. People are really unhappy about the electric bill increases. If they sense that the Dems sold them short, it won’t be a good thing for the Dems. I could almost write the ads myself.
“After big energy stuck consumers with rate increases of up to 150 percent, the voters demanded relief… but Representative Homer Simpson and the House Democrats voted to dismiss the state’s lawsuit against big energy. And what did consumers get in exchange? Eight dollars a month. Eight bucks. That’s not rate relief, Representative Simpson. That’s an insult.”
- Team Sleep - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 10:19 am:
Yes, it certainly appears to me that Lisa is gearing up for something bigger than her current post. If Obama were to run for governor in 2010, Lisa would be a good choice for the state Dems to prop up for the U.S. Senate.
Watch the state GOP bungle this to the point where we will again screw up our chances to regain or overtake some seats. I’m beginning to wonder if Tom Cross is the best person to lead the House GOP.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 10:23 am:
Hoosier Daddy, the “chump change” argument, may indeed resonate, but it’s completely dishonest.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 10:32 am:
It is easier to remember that our electric rates went up, the Democrats did nothing for seven months, then got the utilities to cough up chump change in return.
It might be dishonest in your opinion, but it is an easier sell on the campaign trail. The mood out here is very anti-government, and it would be red meat to voters.
The bottom line challenge the Democrats face is that they didn’t do enough soon enough to pull their nuts from the fire. After the public seethed, shouted and cursed the General Assembly, any rate relief would be looked upon grudgingly.
Voters will remember that the Democrats became a part of the problem, not the solution. It is in the Republican’s political interest to shoot this thing down.
- So Ill - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 10:43 am:
VanillaMan, I don’t completely agree.
I think the electric rate issue is much more of an individual legislator issue than a party issue. There are certain legislators, mainly from southern Illinois, who really led the rate relief charge (Bradley, Claiborne, Forby, etc). There are others who did not bring the issue to the forefront. Against those legislators, the “only $8.00″ thing might work. But for the ones that pushed…the turnaround is “Well, you didn’t even help us get THAT much”.
Maybe it’s idealistic, but I wish people would throw ‘political interest’ out the window and vote their conscience. There are a couple legislators I’ll really be eying today.
- A Non - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 10:46 am:
Rich is right. And, Leitch is being dishonest when he says that customers whose rates tripled and quadrupled are only going to get $8/month. Relief is proportional to how much more they are paying. Someone whose rates went up that much would see far more than $8/month.
- Leroy - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 10:47 am:
“…General Assemlby is poised to approve a mandate that 25% of our electricity come from clean, renewable sources like wind by 2025;”
Great…how much is this fiasco going to force up rates?
But it’s OK, Americans should be using less power anyway. People these days have these industrial sized clothes dryers in their basement that will dry a soaking wet towel in 20 minutes. Back in my day, we used a clothesline and had to wait all day.
- Captain America - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 10:59 am:
I think Madigan’s warning is right on the money.
My best guess is if Republicans successfully obstruct this rate relief package, it would be a self-destructive move that would offset the damage the dysfunctional Democratic leadership has inflicted upon themselves the last few months.
Frankly,if I were a Republican in a marginal or competitive District, I’d be very worried if I voted against the rate relief package.
- Bill - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 11:11 am:
Team Sleep,
Why would the President of the United States run for Governor of Illinois?
- Esteban - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 11:15 am:
So, Ameren gets away with the various alleged
violations of the law by rolling back their
rates. A sweet deal, me thinks.
- ids - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 11:17 am:
A bone is thrown to the Sierra Club and they praise a deal no matter how dirty. Nothing says Ill Enviro more than fat subsidy for coal. If not for the corrupt ICC, this wind mandate w’ve been done a long time ago.
Don’t worry Leroy, taking the enviro into consideration, renewable energy is a bargain. & As Crains pointed out this week, the plan is already in place to pour money at the utilities in hopes they’ll use it for renewables.
Power oligarchy has consumers in a choke hold and Ill pol’s in their pockets- bottom line.
- Down in Egypt - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 11:54 am:
The 25 percent requirement for expensive wind and solar energy is enough to vote against the plan. All it will do is raise the cost of electricity, completely opposite of what rate payers are wanting.
It will also hurt efforts to use Illinois coal - wiping out chances to create thousands of additional jobs.
That’s two good reasons to vote against the plan. The third is Durkin’s point. If Ameren colluded to fix the auction process and break the law they need to be held accountable.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 12:06 pm:
Mandating that 25% of our energy comes from renewable sources by 2025 is similar to mandating that crime go down by 25% by 2025.
In both cases, no one has a clue how to attain these ad hoc numbers, and the mandate is nothing but political bunk that makes greenies feel happier about themselves.
By 2025, China will have increased it’s energy demands to a point where our little mandates will be laughable, if even attainable. And China will do it by burning coal - a new coal plant goes on line in China every WEEK.
So, as old hippies pat themselves on the back and toke up doobies to celebrate their break from our industrial past - their victories come only at the economic expense of their grandchildren.
Face it, Prius drivers are nothing more than tomorrow’s Buick Century drivers with Gore 2000 bumper stickers fading on the back of them.
No real solutions, but feel-good politics for the feel-good generation.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 12:16 pm:
If Republicans want to vote against $1 billion in rate relief, after voting against a complete rate rollback and rate freeze, have at it.
Its been nice knowing you, Aaron Schock. Farewell, Bill Mitchell. Adios, Mike Bost. Via con Dios, Ron Stephens.
P.S. Don’t expect Tom Cross to come to your defense:
Cash-on-hand, all Committees:
Tom Cross: $331,069
Mike Madigan: $1,057,042
- Don't get the politics? - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 12:19 pm:
Anybody notice that Lisa Madigan’s office yesterday came out against that proposed clean coal plant in Taylorville? Why would an AG who wants to run for governor come out against putting up a clean coal plant downstate? Is she trying to lose labor and everyone south of I80?
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 12:22 pm:
FYI, Vanillaman, China recently announced plans to develop a city of 500,000 that runs completely on renewable energy.
Once again, you base your argument on old talking points from the Republican Party.
Furthermore, even if it were true that China weren’t breaking its addiction to coal, that would be MORE of an argument for us to move to renewable energy. Just as China’s consumption of steel and copper have driven up prices (Copper is now $4/lb at the scrapyards), Chinese consumption of coal would drive up prices in the US market, and we can’t afford tripling coal prices.
- Labor lover - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 12:25 pm:
That’s a good question. I’m in Decatur and had heard she was for that thing. That’s a big friggin deal down here so I hope someone msunderstood. I can’t imagine why she would oppose something the locals, enviros, coal folks and labor all like.
- Paul Revere - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 12:30 pm:
YDD,
It’s not a Republican talking point that China is putting up an old dirty coal plant a week. It’s a fact. Think about that for a second. We’re all worried over here about potential little changes around the margin, but in the meantime China will pass us in greenhouse emissions within two years and put up another 100 coal plants in that time.
It’s a disaster for the planet unless we can show them another way. Renewables are nice and make everyone feel good, but they can never replace your basic power needs. They are also expensive.
You know it’s classic “have your cake and eat it too” stuff. Everyone wants clean power right up to the moment you tell them it’s going to raise your electric bills.
- Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 12:32 pm:
For what it’s worth “Don’t get the politics”, I also heard the AG came out against that Taylorville project. Not sure I get why she would do that.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 12:33 pm:
So, China has to be “shown another way” but the “other way” is fruitless? I don’t get it.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 12:41 pm:
Renewables isn’t the other way. Clean coal that allows you to capture carbon is the other way. It’s the same stuff they’re proposing for Taylorville.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 12:44 pm:
It’s also what they’re trying to show with FutureGen. If we can find a way to use coal relatively cleanly, it will be huge for IL, the coal industry and the fight against global warming.
- Greg - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 12:44 pm:
The problem is that funding renewable energy is lose-lose for the innovative country. The energy is more expensive (if it weren’t, industry wouldn’t need the incentives and/or requirements to employ it), and is a rounding error compared to the effects of global economic development. Further, it lessens commodity demand, which makes it all the more appealing for developing countries to use coal, etc.
Vanilla Man is correct to the extent that one should look at the rate of economic growth in the developing world, and then determine the requisitie reduction that Western countries would need to accomplish. Again, it’s a rounding error, unless you get all the countries growing at 9% to eliminate it, not just the countries growing at 2.75%.
- Team Sleep - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 12:48 pm:
Bill, Obama won’t be president. Sorry to burst your bubble. I just have a guy feeling on this one.
YDD is right. The issue is HUGE in Peoria, the Herrin-Carbondale-Marion corridor and the Metro East. The GOP just spent a ton of money to re-elect Brad Cole, and throwing him into the fire of Ameren-related politics would be stupid. I think Stephens is safe, but Schock needs to be careful. He’s lucky Bill Spears wasn’t as good of a candidate as advertised. Remember, West Peoria might go bankrupt because of utility rate. Any relief in that area would be welcomed.
- Lisa Lisa - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 1:03 pm:
I have been pleasantly surprised and pleased with Lisa Madigan’s job as AG over the years and I am a Republican. But allas she finally succumbed to politics when she dropped the lawsuits. Shame shame. Also although daddy dearest wants Lisa to be the first woman governor I’ve always heard she wants U.S. Senate
- Sage - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 1:14 pm:
It is not dishonest to say that 17 cents on the dollar is chump change. Especially when Madigan’s candidates last year went on and on and on about a total 3 year freeze and beat all Republicans over the head about it. Now they settle for 17 cents on the dollar and let the utilities off the hook for illegaly conspiring to continue to advertise for all-electric discounts until just before they ended the discounts.
The larger part of relief included in the “agreement” which all-electric customers will benefit from will happen even if the agreement is voted down. Yes, even the dysfunctional ICC has things ready to roll back the extra increases that all-electric customers were hit with last January 1st.
All in all, the rate hikes amounted to $6 billion over three years. The rate relief is a mere one million of that. After grandstanding on the issue of a total freeze in last year’s campaigns, Madigan has sold out for chump change…a few nickels on the dollar. And the full rate increase gets shepherded in when all is said and done.
For utilities to forgo one billion to get 6 billion, end lawsuits against the utilities by the Attorney General, and allowing the utilities to end up eventually getting the full increase in rates permanently…then it is not dishonest to say Madigan, Madigan and Jones sold out for chump change.
- A Non - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 1:23 pm:
Sage,
And what would you say about the fate of a rate freeze in the courts? Those advocating the strongest for a freeze were doing so last year, before the new rates went into effect. Once they did, thanks to the governor, Sen. Pres, Sen. Minority Leader and House minority leader, all of whom were actively opposed to a freeze or MIA on the issue, it was a whole different ball game. This is a deal crafted on the strength of one caucus, the House Dems, against all others. That’s the reality.
- ids - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 1:27 pm:
It seems AG has heard of global warming. Nice! Taylorville is not planning carbon sequestration, which doesn’t reduce GHG, it buries it and the amount that can be buried is a small % of what is necessary. China is putting up new coal plants (one a month) to produce all the crap exported to US- we the cause of more GHG than we produce at home. & coal mining jobs have to be the worst jobs in the world, anybody who craves them has their head in a hole.
- Dollar USA - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 1:34 pm:
I’ve owned CIPS/Ameren stock for 32 years and have never missed receiving a dividend. Their stock price is good. Some people just enjoy getting hit in the eye. In 1945 Americans loved being winners, today to many people enjoy being losers.
- Anon - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 2:07 pm:
The AG opposes the Taylorville LEGISLATION for two reasons: 1. it sets a price for the output of the plant (which would distort the market for energy) and 2. it doesn’t capture carbon.
The rate bill, from a consumer perspective, is a huge win. The utilities have been browbeaten into giving rate relief when they were under NO legal obligation to do so. The auction, as a method of procurring power, was legal. The power contracts were legal. If the utilities in this state didn’t have legacy relationships with legislators, ratepayers would have gotten nothing at all and it would have all been legal.
The best evidence of this is Midwest Generation. They own about 20% of the generation in the state but are owned by a California company who could care less about IL. They ended up giving 25 million to the relief fund but in return, got a provision in the bill that bars home rule units from carbon taxation. If ComEd is sold to say, a Texas company or a North Carolina company and rate go up again, for any reason, don’t expect a refund.
- Sage - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 2:18 pm:
A non…regarding the rate freeze in the courts, this is the first time I have sensed ANY concern about that from Madigan & Co. Even after the rate hikes took effect, Madigan had votes on it in the House again. Now he is all of a sudden being pragmatic. Humm.
The single most important fact remains that if the combined state leadership which is all democrat had its act together this would have been dealt with long ago and on more favorable terms to consumers.
Madigan, Madigan and Jones have now jointly sold out to the utilities. This is a poor agreement and they ought to take GOP concerns into consideration and renegotiate. Lisa Madigan at the minimum would have won in court on the all electric rate issue with punitive damages for deception. Why does a party with all the power in state government settle for such a lousy agreement?
Madigan presided over the ultra-flawed dereg of 1997. Now we are supposed to trust him that this is a good deal. Illinois citizens are paying for his mistake in 1997 and now to cover himself, his daughter, and his vulnerable members he has latched onto chump change for political cover. Apparently Madigan’s world class negotiating skills with other government leaders are left in his desk drawer when he negotiates with utilities.
- Ghost - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 2:20 pm:
I am told that there are some Republicans that plan not to vote for the rate relief for electric ratepayers,” said Madigan, who supports the deal. “And if there are Republicans, especially from the Ameren service territory, that are going to vote against rate relief, why, I welcome them to do it.”
Translation: I triple dog dare you
- HoosierDaddy - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 2:29 pm:
Fair enough, Rich. But since when has ‘honesty’ been a criterion for a campaign commercial in Illinois?
I obviously need to read a little more about the rate deal.
- Greg - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 2:30 pm:
“Lisa Madigan at the minimum would have won in court on the all electric rate issue with punitive damages for deception.” - Sage
What are you talking about? It would have gone to federal court, where a temporary restraining order would have been immediately filed. At issue would be takings by the govt following a state-approved auction. This isn’t a Madison County jury trial we’re talking about.
- Paul Revere - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 2:47 pm:
Anon 207.
If that’s why she opposes the bill, then she doesn’t understand it. As I understand it, it doesn’t “set a price”. it sets a cost-based rate that is subject to numerous regulatory reviews. That means the power is sold at cost plus a rate of return that is regulated, just like power is sold elsewhere.
The whole idea was pushed by CUB because they knew it would be the best deal for consumers. So does this now mean the AG is against CUB too, as well as the unions?
- Sage - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 2:48 pm:
Greg
So what is your point? That Lisa Madigan was out of her league when she filed the suit? Or that she files frivolous lawsuits? That she filed the suit knowing it had no chance in court? That she doesn’t understand the difference between federal and state courts? Or that she is not good enough to prevail on a lawsuit? Or that the only reason she filed the suit was for political image knowing that the case was futile on the merits? Or did she really think she had a great chance to win the case? I actually believe the latter in her favor.
Even when a temporary restraining order was filed, the case would go on for ultimate resolution. Either Lisa didn’t know what she was doing when she filed the suit, or she filed it for political cover knowing it was futile, or the case had a good chance of being won. Which was it?
- Scooter - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 2:51 pm:
The giveback is a win for consumers, but this whole bill including the IPA is a disaster in the making. Rep. Reis asked in the hearing yesterday, “{paraphrasing} if the state doesn’t have the expertise to properly manage the lottery and that’s why it’s being pushed to the private sector (to get more money out of poor folks), how can you expect the geniuses who run the state to manage the entire electrical grid better than the private sector?”
That’s a great question that nobody has answered yet in this mad dash to re-regulate an incredibly complex industry!
- Greg - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 2:58 pm:
Sage,
Wow, calm down. My question was “what are you talking about” as it relates to punitive damages and a guaranteed court victory. I have no axe to grind about political leaders. I’m simply really interested in this issue because I follow the companies. Being familiar with how the court process would work, your comments about 100% chance of victory and punitive damages seemed incorrect. Important details, as they affect the relative generosity of the settlement. geeze
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 3:04 pm:
Sage, never predict what a court will do.
- cermak_rd - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 3:05 pm:
Doing anything to revive the coal mining industry in IL is a mistake. We don’t need young people taking up the profession then whining about their jobs being taken away. At least now, most of the legacy coal miners still left are nearing retirement, I certainly have no sympathy for them if they’re younger as the demise of the industry in this state has been forecast for some time. If we want coal, Wyoming and Montana have cleaner coal that doesn’t have the sulphur problem that IL coal has. Even using scrubbers etc. doesn’t magically remove the sulphur, it simply concentrates it and then it must be properly disposed of as industrial waste.
Coal liquification might be better, but I’ve not studied that technology, my suspicion is that cleaner coal would still be a better choice.
- Ghost - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 3:15 pm:
Old axiom
a bad settlement beats a good trial
- Paul Revere - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 3:16 pm:
cermak_rd,
I don’t know what you think is going to happen with this 100 BILLion tons of coal under Illinois, but it ain’t just gonna sit there at a time of increased energy use. While you’re absolutely right that Western coal is lower in sulfur, the whole point of this Taylorville gasification project (and FutureGen for that matter) is that it actually removes sulfur and a whole bunch of other bad pollutants. Western coal doesn’t work as well as Illinois coal for these gasification projects.
Before you bury the coal industry and the central and southern Illinois economy along with it, consider that there is another, better way to use coal.
- Ex-IP'er - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 4:35 pm:
The rebate agreement is NO solution for central and southern Illinois citizens. Ameren gets their same rate increase, BUT now with a guarantee from prosecution for their cheating and rigging. The citizens’ get the same rate hike, but the hosing is spread out so that the pain builds more gradually. The citizens have told Illinois state government how to solve this problem: it’s with the roll back and rate freeze legislation, that is now pending in the Senate; it was passed by the Representatives. The Senate should bring the “roll back and freeze bill” to a vote, and do NOT support or vote for the rebate agreement. Just for ONCE do what the citizens’ have asked you to do.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 4:41 pm:
There’s no guarantee from lawsuits by private citizens. Just sayin
- Ex-IP'er - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 5:17 pm:
It’s difficult for citizens to line up resources to take on an Ameren. Why did Ameren demand a guarantee from prosecution by the State of Illinois, if they did nothing wrong?
- Reddbyrd - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 5:51 pm:
Let’s drag BrickHeadJoe out of mothballs…He can file all the suits Durkin wanted…the funniest part of afternoon was a tie between GOPs (as in MOPEs) demanding law suits again business AND the fact that no one mentioned the Cross-Jones plan…that was one where consumers would have paid interest on defered rates hikes…
- coal is not king - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 7:07 pm:
I’m not going to get too excited about coal gasification until I see a commercial plant built that actually captures and sequesters the CO2. And before we start calling this technology “clean,” let’s not forget the pollution, land disturbance and workplace hazards associated with coal mining.
- Huh? - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 8:17 pm:
With all the gas about renewable electricity, I have 1 question for all of you - Who is going to persuade all of the
NIMBY - Not in my backyard
CAVE - Citizens against virtually everything
BANANA - Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything
and HSP - Highly sensitive people
that a wind turbine farm should be built in their area?
- Jack Darin - Thursday, Jul 26, 07 @ 11:14 pm:
On clean energy raising the price of power -
The renewables and the efficiency programs in this bill will work well together to lower rates. Renewables give us another supply option when coal or natural gas rates soar. Efficiency is the “refund” you get every month, forever, when you use less power, and by softening overall demand, it will shave the peak prices that drive market power rates. If these provisions were passed in 1997, as part of dereg, rates would be 11% lower than they are today.
On jobs -
The U of I estimates that these programs will generate just under 14,000 direct jobs in building wind energy, retrofitting existing buildings to save energy, and reducing power costs to free up money for other activities that add more to the economy.