30 Comments - NIU Grad - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 3:17 pm: I think they should first leverage them to open the books to get an honest perspective on their profitability and how they’re spending rate-payer funds. This shouldn’t be a hard ask for a state-sponsored utility. - Moe Berg - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 3:18 pm: Call the bluff. Those assets that were created an enormous cost to the ratepayers in the first place. If Exelon is telling the truth, it has nothing to fear. No one will bid. - Earnest - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 3:20 pm: No. It will be enough to simply return the land they built them on to the same condition it was before. - pool boy - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 3:27 pm: Voted yes. If Trump loses, maybe fossil fuel plants won’t be as profitable. - Old Illini - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 3:27 pm: Carbon-free 24/7 power is what we need more of, not less. Find another operator. - Anyone Remember - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 3:35 pm: Yes. Beyond the jobs, what will closing the plants do to the property tax revenues for those local governments? - metroeasterner - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 3:37 pm: The only people buying nukes are groups like Holtec who are buying them to accelerate the decommissioning and profit off of the decommissioning trust funds. They’re not being purchased to operate - you would have to pay someone to take them. - Nick - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 3:42 pm: I don’t see the harm in requiring it. If no one buys it, we end up in the same place. - Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 3:50 pm: Exelon has a trust fund for decommissioning its plants. That trust fund has only a tiny fraction of the money needed to decommission the plants. In the absence of those funds, its shareholders would need to pay the billions. It’s a pretty big obstacle to closure. At this point, it’s a PR campaign. Exelon has not given the notice it needs to provide to the grid operator. At that time, the grid operator will determine whether the plants are needed for reliability. In other words, I’m not even sure they’ve taken hostages yet - mostly they’ve just announced plans to shoot the hostages if they actually wind up taking them. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 3:50 pm: Voted “yes”, but my thoughts are to process; As part of any closure or any revenue driven decision, they should be also forced in the analysis to show market value of a sale, and that sale only to those who will operate the facility, not break it down and profit upon its closure. By doing so, we all could see possible buyers and operators and publicly have the leverage of a sale and operations to counter… well, extortion. - Excitable Boy - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 3:51 pm: I don’t think it’s necessary, I say call their bluff and see if they’re willing to take on the expense of decommissioning. My money is on no. - Benjamin - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 3:53 pm: Sure–the state should seize and condemn them, pay a fair price to Exelon, and turn them over to a state-owned corporation for operation. Normally, I wouldn’t suggest direct public ownership, but carbon-free energy is a great need, and nobody has the bandwidth these days to worry about a subtle approach. - Tina - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 3:53 pm: Yes, a no-brainer. There is precedent. Wyoming passed a bill requiring power companies there to put plants up for sale before they close them. - dbk - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 4:02 pm: As I noted in the earlier thread, yes, call their bluff. Depending on the outcome of examination of their books, then the state could either (a) force a sale or (b) buy the plants at book value and operate them as long as necessary (2030 or so, i.e. 8-9 years) until full transition to renewables has been completed. I think the latter may be more beneficial to the state’s own interests - greater control over rates as well as the timing of decommissioning. I’m hoping the Pritzker administration has the will to do this. It’s a big ask. - Bruce( no not him) - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 4:08 pm: My question is not “should” but does the state have the authority to force Exelon to sell? - Leigh John-Ella - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 4:16 pm: Yes. Look, it’d be nice if they’d at least take out a Craiglist ad before junking the power plants and walking away from the communities and workers. - WH Mess - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 5:25 pm: Voted no. Instead, claim them under eminent domain (worthless, according to the owner), and then auction them under current regulatory framework. - Candy Dogood - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 6:23 pm: Voted yes. Worst case scenario we can see about a public entity operating it, however I want to hear about Excelons long term plans for the long term decommissioning of the plants which will involve radioactive issues for thousands of years. - the law - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 6:39 pm: As I understand these nukes are owned by Exelon. How could the state force Exelon to try to sell them? It’s their property. Legally, how is this possible? A bill requiring a sale would likely be an illegal taking under the Constitution. Unless they’re proposing an eminent domain takeover. It’s a great idea and sounds wonderful, but how is it a legal possibility? - Larry Saunders - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 6:49 pm: Closure is a repeat threat by Exelon to get their own way (although Dresden SHOULD have been shut down a long time ago). Funny how advocates claim we should rely upon nukes for clean, cheap energy, yet utility stances constantly prove otherwise. Now is the long forecast day of reckoning for those communities that opened their arms to these turkeys in the first place. Yes, require their sale; Byron still has a lot of life in it. Excelon should get pennies on the dollar for it and make do. - Chicago 20 - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 7:17 pm: No. Selling the nuclear plants will shift the decommissioning costs to the new owner and create another Zion nightmare. - White Sox 2020 - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 8:11 pm: Voted yes, they will probably create a shell company to sell to at a lower price than what they are assessed for, argue that the property taxes should be lowered, then low and behold quarterly filing Report show the parent company did well. They do know how run those plants, Illinois Power took forever to refuel, Exelon does in half the time. - nadia - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 8:16 pm: Forcing the sale would be a very bad precedent and not sure how legal it would be. If the State doesn’t want to help them then it should just let the plants move forward or close on their own. - Blue Dog Dem - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 8:44 pm: Voted no. Heck no. Probable buyers. PRC. Go figure. - Joe - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 9:40 pm: Yes, BUT, if only to peal the curtain back so as to be able to do a real, honest, independent Cost-Benefit Analysis. There are a few folks around - separate from the “connected” insiders - who could do this work. Will our State follow that path, OR . . . . - Odysseus - Thursday, Aug 27, 20 @ 11:34 pm: I stand with Benjamin@ 3:53. - Cth - Friday, Aug 28, 20 @ 7:27 am: Why sell so another company can Decom? The problem is the unfair market value at PJM auction. Change the auction to not favors fossil fuels and you fix the problem. - Nathan - Friday, Aug 28, 20 @ 7:36 am: Yes. We need those nuclear power plants for their carbon free power. We need to expand all carbon free power options, like wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and yes, nuclear. - Pot calling kettle - Friday, Aug 28, 20 @ 9:02 am: Voted yes, but who would buy one? They might make some $$, but each plant comes with a very big environmental liability cost. - Chicagonk - Friday, Aug 28, 20 @ 9:19 am: So the ZECs weren’t enough? I wouldn’t trust Comed if it said 2+2=4. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.