Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Delegation goes to bat for Exelon

Posted in:

Illinois

In a most unusual letter signed by 13 of the state’s 18 House members, both leading Democrats and Republicans asked Gov. Bruce Rauner and legislative leaders to act quickly on a bill they say “will allow Illinois’ nuclear plants to continue to operate.”

The letter—signators include Democrats like Mike Quigley and Bobby Rush, Bill Foster and Tammy Duckworth, and Republicans such as Randy Hultgren and Bob Dold—says the industry is “in jeopardy if state and federal policymakers do not act soon” to protect it from “market challenges, including historically low natural gas prices.”

The bill does not detail the “market-based solutions” it proposes. But that’s a reference to an Exelon bill pending in Springfield that would hike rates on an average home by $2 a month, distributing the proceeds to “non-carbon” providers, such as nuclear plant operators.

Look for lots of debate on that, though the letter says that Illinois would lose 8,000 jobs and $1.8 billion in economic activity if just three nuclear plants close.

The letter is here.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 2:22 pm

Comments

The fix is in. ComEd pretty much wrote the bill. Thank you, sir, may I have another…

Comment by bwana63 Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 2:41 pm
Did Mark Kirk sign-on? His seems to be the most influential voice in the delegation as far as Governor Rauner is concerned.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 2:43 pm
Perhaps they could convince Bruce to “sweep” that LIHEAP dough to Com Ed instead of GRF? Com Ed needs the money more than all those poor people anyway. If they would turn down their thermostat, they wouldn’t be cold anyway!

The audacity of a group of elected officials opting to back a public bailout of an already profitable publicly traded should corporation insults the intelligence of all those not employed by Exelon or Already a stockholder.

Comment by Madison Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 2:53 pm
If electrical utilities are just going to get rate increases to avoid them losing money, why are they private companies?

If we’re going to have things like private electric companies, that suggests that they should be at some risk of losing money.

If they get rate increases whenever, why aren’t they publicly owned entities?

Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 2:54 pm
I remember when these utilities got deregulation in the late 1990’s based on their assertion that they would never be back to the legislator again for help.

Also I wonder what the signers of the letter received from their Ameren and ComEd-Exelon in exchange for their signatures.

Comment by Qui Tam Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 2:59 pm
You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.

Comment by AnonymousOne Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 3:00 pm
The letter has many of the same phrases and justifications Exelon has been extolling lately in their massive PR bailout campaign. So…. Who actually wrote ( crafted) this letter to Rauner;)

Comment by Anon Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 3:00 pm
Shouldn’t they be declaring bankruptcy if they are in this bad of shape?

Comment by throwing stones Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 3:14 pm
47th–Just House members signed this letter. Were the senators asked? If so, they must have declined. If not, why not?

Comment by Nearly Normal Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 3:16 pm
I imagine that Kinzinger signed on. His tweets on the matter have sounded like they were taken from Exelon PR pieces.

Comment by Nearly Normal Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 3:25 pm
The term “market based” is inserted to give plausible deniability to the notion that what is being proposed would otherwise be a socialized remedy.

Comment by Long time listener Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 3:27 pm
The “market-based solutions” are government-mandated price hikes on the backs of customers, taxpayers, and voters.

Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 3:44 pm
Do any of these guys have a vote in the ILGA? Nah, didn’t think so. Where are all their co-sponsors BTW?

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 3:49 pm
How many signatures of our congressional delegation stops the plummeting cost of energy and market realities?

Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 3:58 pm
It’s good to see a unified voice for the truly needy.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 4:04 pm
=== VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 3:58 pm:

How many signatures of our congressional delegation stops the plummeting cost of energy and market realities? ====

It’s up there. 13.

Comment by A guy Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 4:23 pm
Exelon is already on of the Top 25 recipients of federal tax subsidies.

According to analysis of Exelon tax returns by Citizens for Tax Justice, Exelon pocketed more than $4 BILLION in federal tax breaks from 2008 through 2012.

I guess $4 billion just doesn’t go as far as it used to.

Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 4:24 pm
Any way to increase already strong profits is fair game, for those who otherwise decry dependence on government.

The GA must resist this BORG attack.

Comment by walker Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 4:25 pm
How embarrassing for the reps. I am sure their DC offices and Exelon’s DC lobbying team told this was benign.

I thought our congressional delegation knew better than to get involved in state politics.

Comment by okgo Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 4:31 pm
====The letter—signators include Democrats like Mike Quigley and Bobby Rush, Bill Foster and Tammy Duckworth, and Republicans such as Randy Hultgren and Bob Dold—says the industry is “in jeopardy if state and federal policymakers do not act soon” to protect it from “market challenges, including historically low natural gas prices.”

Market based: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Seems like there is a market based solution here. Natural gas.

Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 4:50 pm
I’m floored that Shimkus didn’t sign that letter. He’s been banging the “all of the above” energy strategy for years.

Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 4:53 pm
There must be union bosses behind all the unprofitability.

Comment by Johnnie F. Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 5:25 pm
So, “market based” in post-modern America means “legally coercing customers to pay more to an already highly profitable regulated utility.”

I see.

Comment by Angry Chicagoan Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 5:28 pm
It’s nice to see our federal officials get it. I disagree with a lot of these other commenters. These nuclear plants have a much bigger impact for the state than just Exelon or ComEd.

Comment by enviroman Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 5:34 pm
I apologize - the other remedies were not in the original piece. They are: cap and trade, carbon taxes, and review of emission standards ( make carbon energy more expensive, so they can raise the market price to suit their desires to make profit margins ).

Comment by Long time listener Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 6:01 pm
Ok, so we want to keep good paying jobs in Illinois, AND we want to reduce carbon pollution, AND we want to have reliable electricity, AND we want energy independence…

But we will not lift a finger for the nuclear fleet when government policies, like subsidies for wind and solar, have put some of the plants on the brink of closing.

And to all the folks who got an F in Econ 101, it doesn’t matter if some plants (or Starbucks or McDonalds) make money. Any business, especially one with shareholders, closes operations that lose money. You don’t put it one big pile and hope for the best.

Comment by Adam Smith Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 6:12 pm
Sad to see my representative (Duckworth) on this list. Every time I think I might be lucky enough to be represented by someone with principles, this kind of stuff comes to the surface.

Go get in line with the others, Tammy.

Comment by DuPage Dave Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 6:37 pm
Adam Smith. - I would need evidence that the government does not lift a finger to help nukes - like sunsidies. From what I gathered rather hastily, existing nuclear power costs are comparable to current coal technologies, they just don’t match up when being proposed as “new”. These are existing plants that were bought with pretty well known operatonal costs and known life expectancies.

Comment by Long time listener Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 6:56 pm
- F in Econ 101 -

I got an A, and perhaps you should have went a step beyond 101 if you want to pretend you’re Adam Smith.

Fact is that these are old nuclear plants, and we’ve been paying for their inevitable decommissioning since they went online.

The base load electricity market has changed, but Exelon is trying to get the Government to say their operating cost is justified because of their contribution to reduced carbon emissions.

In reality, there are cheaper ways to go, Exelon is really trying to squeeze as much profit out as they can before they have to shut them down.

I’m actually not opposed to nuclear, just opposed to greed and lies.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 7:02 pm
@AdamSmith
The ratepayers of Illinois have lifted more than a finger to subsidize Exelon’s nukes. They have lifted more than twice the cost of these plants, which were constructed on ratepayer dime at, in some instances, 10 times the initial estimate.

If what you and exelon claim is true, why won’t they show the numbers?

Comment by econ101 Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 8:09 pm
Some of the vitriol in these comments is pretty unbelievable. As much as everyone loves wind and solar, and even with the massive subsidies they receive, they will cost a fortune more than nuclear, but you don’t hear people complaining about the cost impact there. Also, if these nuclear plants close, it’s going to mean we’re going to need a LOT of coal. So let’s stop pretending these things happen in a vacuum.

Comment by Night Rider Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 8:17 pm
Rich, one part of the letter not excerpted here is that 48 percent of Illinois’ power comes from nuclear. My question is — if the state loses that energy, where’s it coming from? Look at some of the other states and countries (Germany, for example) that have closed their nuclear plants. It’s coal. Which means carbon pollution goes through the roof. I suspect some of the coal guys are salivating at the prospect.

please post using your real name the comment above in the comments section of the post below

Comment by Louis Raymond Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 9:27 pm
Energy is serious business. It is time people stand behind their comments and not allow interest groups with big money mask themselves and concerned citizens

Comment by Louis Raymond Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 9:46 pm
Louis, Illinois is a net exporter of a significant portion of its energy (>20%). The 70% number Exelon put in this bill is strikingly similar to the amount of megawatt hours these nuclear plants (all of them, not just the supposedly underwater plants) make.

So even if one or two of these plants were shut down (probably unnecessary given the forthcoming infusion of hundreds of millions of dollars in the PJM Capacity auction), Illinois would not need to start up coal plants to compensate.

Comment by BEST Dave Thursday, Mar 5, 15 @ 2:28 am
Cui bono? Ie., who benefits if the nukes close? Answer: Big Coal. Because we all know that most of our energy comes from nukes or from coal. (Alternative energies are nice but don’t begin to cover our needs.) I wonder who’s funding this “Best Coalition.” Hmmm…

Comment by Reo Symes, M.D. Thursday, Mar 5, 15 @ 5:55 am