19 Comments - 4 percent - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 3:44 pm: Hold onto your wallets. Despite statements that they were concerned about the “cost” this jacks up prices including a near doubling of the rate cap. And before the proponents claim there will be “savings” - ask your self - if there are truly savings, why the need for a rate cap? And that is just on the RPS standard. - DuPage Saint - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 3:52 pm: CUB should definitely be subject to FOIA Are they subject to open meetings act? - Nick - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 4:02 pm: I notice that the exelon subsidies look like they’ll more closely match what Pritzker’s study/audit reported than what Labor is backing. Will be an interesting battle of wills. - Cool Papa Bell - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 4:07 pm: I’m as green as Kermit the Frog on most issues. But no thanks to much of this. Natural gas isn’t going any where by 2045 and I don’t care for a carbon tax either. If the state wanted to lead - back a next gen nuke plant or two and send Illinois forward with totally carbon free energy. - Notorious RBG - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 4:12 pm: == CUB should definitely be subject to FOIA Are they subject to open meetings act? == CUB is a not-for-profit organized under the laws of the state, funded by utility ratepayers through collections made by utilities as well as by donations. It is not a government agency and not subject to FOIA or the OMA. - Lt Guv - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 4:15 pm: Wow. The Luddite parade began quickly. - Dysfunction Junction - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 4:17 pm: I’m with Cool Papa Bell on one thing: next-gen nuclear would seem a smart way to establish a sufficient carbon-free baseload for IL. But I disagree about gas & coal… in the long term, you can’t beat free fuel. Wind and solar may have many up-front costs (though so do fossil fuel plants), but the operational cost advantage should make up for it in the long run. And with the speed of new battery development/green hydrogen conversion/etc., those “free” generation technologes are looking more feasible all the time. Certainly possible by 2045, assuming someone draws the line in the sand now. - illinoyed - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 4:29 pm: Ameren, exelon are on top of the comment game - DuPage - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 4:44 pm: Does end natural gas use by 2045 refer to houses or just to electric generation? - jimbo26 - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 4:47 pm: Would love to see JB’s fact sheet that went to stakeholders. - liveable planet enjoyer - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 4:48 pm: == I’m as green as Kermit the Frog on most issues. But no thanks to much of this. Natural gas isn’t going any where by 2045 and I don’t care for a carbon tax either. == If you’re as “green as Kermit the frog,” you’d know scientists say we need to cut carbon emissions in half by 2030 and get them to zero by 2050 to avoid catastrophic climate change. If you think we should still be burning fossil fuels in 2050, you don’t want to stop climate change. You decide which one you care about. - Perplexed - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 4:50 pm: Cool Papa Bell makes an interesting point. Illinois chose an energy path decades ago: toward what became the nation’s largest fleet of nuclear plants. That decision has paid huge dividends, such as letting a coal-producing state move away from coal. The question now is how Illinois can renew/expand that zero-carbon fleet. The new, off-the-shelf plant designs appear to be safe and ought to be less expensive to build and run than all the one-off plants from the first generation. - Anon221 - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 5:09 pm: “Atop a fact sheet distributed to stakeholders Wednesday…” We are ALL stakeholders in this… let the entire population of the state see this. - Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 5:21 pm: ===scientists say we need to cut carbon emissions in half by 2030 and get them to zero by 2050 to avoid catastrophic climate change.=== I looked at all the EIA 2021 report charts, and none of them had oil, natural gas or coal at 0% by 2050. Good luck, world. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/ - going nuclear - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 5:48 pm: Good to finally see Pritzker’s energy bill. It should help focus the discussion. But can the Governor convince the stakeholder groups to step back, reexamine their priorities and work to find a compromise. I hope so. The window to blunt climate change is closing quickly. - Anon221 - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 8:25 pm: Sun Times is reporting that the bill, Consumers and Climate First Act, will be unveiled tomorrow- https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2021/4/28/22408700/pritzker-energy-bill-comed-commonwealth-edision-clean-energy-fixed-rates-federal-investigation - Derek Smalls - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 9:21 pm: thisjustinagain, CUB was created by statute, 220 ILCS 110. CUS has a link to the statute on its webpage. - Notorious RBG - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 10:49 pm: thisjustinagain isn’t wrong, nor is Derek Smalls. It’s created by statute, but it is not a government agency - it is a not-for-profit corporation by definition under the CUB Act. The IHSA case would tend to show that CUB is not subject to FOIA, and it is not a public body under the definitions of the OMA. - Candy Dogood - Wednesday, Apr 28, 21 @ 11:56 pm: ===Still waiting for Christian Mitchell=== He’s busy updating his own wikipedia page. ===Good luck, world.=== The trick to getting to those bench marks is passing a law to require utilities to pay feed in tariffs to support the cost of home owners and business outfitting their own properties with solar. We don’t have to wait for a private company to decide to make a transition if we require them to support individual actors making the decision. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.