Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

New Pritzker plan comes down hard on ComEd and Exelon

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s administration is proposing a series of “accountability” measures for utility companies as part of an energy policy agenda unveiled Friday, a month after federal prosecutors said the state’s largest utility, Commonwealth Edison, engaged in a “yearslong bribery scheme” while seeking political favors in Springfield.

Improving transparency and ethics is the first of eight principles in Pritzker’s agenda, which also includes a number of clean energy proposals. […]

The agenda also calls for an additional disclosure requirement for elected and appointed officials if they have relatives who work for regulated utilities. […]

In a statement issued Friday morning, ComEd spokeswoman Shannon Breymaier said company officials are reviewing Pritzker’s energy proposals. She also said that past infrastructure investments “have been fully vetted in a transparent process” and have benefited customers.

“ComEd has already moved aggressively to implement comprehensive ethics reforms to ensure that the unacceptable conduct outlined in the agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office never happens again,” Breymaier said in a statement. “However, we recognize the importance and challenge of rebuilding the trust of the public, regulators and elected officials, and look forward to working with these stakeholders to achieve the state’s ambitious clean energy goals.”

* Sun-Times…

Declaring that utilities “can no longer write the state’s energy policies behind closed doors,” Pritzker’s office issued a set of proposals Friday that include getting rid of the state’s formula rate system, banning utilities from making charitable contributions and requiring elected officials to report any relatives who work for a regulated utility company in their ethics filings.

The proposal (click here) doesn’t outright ban charitable contributions. It bans utilities from using ratepayer money for contributions (which often go to charities favored by elected officials). That money would have to come from profits if Pritzker has his way.

...Adding… I’ll put the full press release on the live coverage post, but here are his 8 principles…

1. Strengthen Utility Company Transparency and Ethics Requirements
2. Expand Consumer Affordability Protections
3. Make Illinois a Renewable Energy Leader and Phase Out Dirty Power
4. Implement a Market-Based Solution That Supports Clean Power and Clean Air
5. Electrify and Decarbonize Illinois’ Transportation Sector
6. Support Communities Transitioning to Clean Energy
7. Advance Equity in the Growing Clean Energy Economy
8. Enhance Energy Efficiency in Illinois

* WBEZ…

Tops on the governor’s wish list is an immediate repeal of so-called formula rates, which ComEd won in 2011 through a bill that former Gov. Pat Quinn vetoed. His veto later was overridden by the General Assembly.

That rate structure enabled ComEd to automatically get increases to cover any operating losses, which essentially guaranteed the company a profit every year. The law limited the role of the Illinois Commerce Commission in setting rates.

The rate structure is due to expire in 2022, but the company has actively pushed for an extension. […]

Pritzker’s demands also include the elimination of deposits and late fees for low-income residential ratepayers and an end to fees assessed for the online payment of bills.

Additionally, the governor is seeking beefed-up disclosure of shut-offs and reconnections to state utility regulators, which were not consistently reported before Pritzker’s COVID-19 moratorium on shutoffs.

* The real meat is covered by Crain’s…

Pritzker also is “highly skeptical” of Exelon’s proposal, mirrored in the environmentalist-supported Clean Energy Jobs Act, to have the state take over from a federally chartered regional power administrator the task of setting prices reflected in electric bills paid to power plants to promise to deliver during high-demand periods, Mitchell says. The state would be directed to have consumers pay more to carbon-free power sources like Exelon’s nuclear plants than coal- and natural gas-fired plants emitting heat-trapping gases.

“The first step in that (policy) is to annually pay each of Exelon’s nuclear plants an amount equal to three times the current taxpayer subsidy that two Exelon plants already receive without any strings attached and without Exelon showing us their math as to why this is necessary,” according to a document laying out the governor’s principles. […]

Instead, the governor supports setting a price on carbon emissions from power plants and then letting the market determine which plants survive or not. Such a method would probably mean more revenue for Exelon’s financially ailing nukes. But not nearly as much.

Any extra support for Exelon plants—the company has warned that without ratepayer help it will have to close three of its four nuke stations not currently subsidized—would require the company to open its books to the state on a plant-by-plant basis. Exelon wasn’t required to do that the last time it asked for subsidies.

A carbon fee would be controversial, since it would likely mean higher costs for many consumers. But it’s not without precedent, and there are advocates for that approach from both the left and right sides of the political spectrum. A multi-state carbon market has been in place in the Northeast for 15 years. Mitchell says Pritzker is open to a regional market in the Midwest as well if other states are interested.

Pritzker’s market-based approach has been hotly opposed by Exelon/ComEd and the enviros. The environmentalists are “highly skeptical that a carbon market can meet equity concerns.”

The problem with Pritzker’s approach, as I see it, is he wants to toss out existing plans and doesn’t really have a concrete alternative, just a concept…

Some advocates have concerns that a market-based approach to carbon pricing will result in more-polluting plants being able to operate longer because they will be able to pay their way out, and will allow them to continue polluting communities that are already disproportionately experiencing the impacts of climate change.

However, we know that there are ways to structure a carbon pricing program to make sure that this does not happen, and we are committed to achieving that principle in any program that we design and implement. Coal-fired power plants that do not capture carbon are on their way out in Illinois and nationally. It is our goal to design a program that accelerates closures, while re- directing revenue to other clean energy pursuits.

They’ve essentially punted the issue to the working groups. That’s probably where it belongs, though.

Aside from that, it looks like a pretty good plan.

…Adding… Illinois Chamber…

“We applaud Gov. Pritzker for standing up for Illinois against corruption with this thoughtful, serious energy plan,” said Illinois Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Todd Maisch.

“By ruling out another Exelon bailout, the governor has saved ratepayers in Illinois, including residential customers and small businesses, an estimated $414 million.”

“A well-crafted plan made up of diverse and reliable sources of energy that considers both environmental, and ratepayer needs is critical to Illinois’ economic future. The Chamber has long supported these goals and worked with Illinois Senate President Pro Tempore Bill Cunningham to propose a balanced approach to these issues, that prioritizes the needs of energy consumers and provides thousands of jobs for Illinois workers.

“We appreciate the Governor’s Office’s thorough review of Illinois energy policies and are energized to see some of these initiatives included in their initial plan. We look forward to working with him, Sen. Cunningham and other legislators, staff and stakeholders to continue to develop balanced energy polices for Illinois.”

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 11:29 am

Comments

Give credit where credit is due. Lausch could be a very strong contender for Governor in 2022.

Comment by Frumpy White Guy Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 11:46 am
Enough with the crying by the enviromentalists. They proposed a price on carbon in their bill for goodness sake. Their “skepticism” about Pritzker’s approach is all about their bruised egos. They bet big on partnering with Exelon, a company that has traditionally had a problem telling the truth, and they lost. Pritzker deserves credit for behaving like a real Governor here. It’s been at least 20 years since we’ve seen such behavior so many people are unfamiliar with what it looks like. Thanks for messing up a generation of young people Rauner, Quinn and Blago!

Comment by Dutch Elm Down Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 11:50 am
It is good to see JB take a strong stand on this with ComEd. Since it is clear that there was an arrangement between ComEd and the Speaker, JB should take a strong stand with the Speaker as well. All those people on ComEd’s payroll put there at the request of the Speaker should be terminated. JB should call for the Speaker to step down. That would largely address concerns the voters may have about corruption in this case.

Comment by SSL Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 11:54 am
“That would largely address concerns the voters may have about corruption in this case.”

Not remotely. The corruption with ComEd and Exelon runs very deep and goes well beyond the Speaker. We know there were hundreds of payments made under the table through their lobbyists to unknown individuals. Who were those individuals, what was paid and when? As I said, the corruption runs very, very deep with this company. The “few bad apples” defense is a sick joke.

Comment by Southern Skeptic Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 11:57 am
== We know there were hundreds of payments made under the table through their lobbyists to unknown individuals. ==

What!? Where did you get this, because this is not what the feds have alleged.

Comment by Hush Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:00 pm
== The real meat ==

Yep, The ComEd ethical stuff is the shiny object, but the governor turning thumbs down on the Exelon/Enviro FRR proposal is the real news.

Comment by Roman Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:01 pm
=== We know there were hundreds of payments made under the table through their lobbyists to unknown individuals.===

“hundreds”

Can you cite the multiple hundreds of payoffs.

Thanks.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:03 pm
The Lausch crowd might want to can it before you have another Jim Letten on your hands.

Comment by Hole in One Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:06 pm
Yes Willy. It’s been reported that Jay Doherty made payments to more than 100. What I’ve heard from several sources is that he was not alone in doing that. Thus hundreds.

Comment by Southern Skeptic Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:08 pm
=== What I’ve heard===

Hmm.

Doherty, yep… gotta do better than “heard”.

We’ll see.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:11 pm
Pritzker might not have the perfect solution as this is one big complex problem, but he should be given credit for making a really good effort to get a serious discussion moving in a positive direction.

Comment by Back to the Future Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:14 pm
My point? It’s bad enough as it is… it doesn’t need hyperbole.

Jay Doherty alone, whew.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:15 pm
“The environmentalists are “highly skeptical that a carbon market can meet equity concerns.””

You can certainly design a tax such that it is more equitable. Washington’s Initiative 732 is one example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_732

Comment by Odysseus Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:15 pm
The Governor ignoring the Enviros, and their benefactors, is the news here. And it is good news at that.

Comment by Centennial Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:23 pm
I wonder where organized labor is on this plan. There a lot of good paying, union jobs at these plants that feed the surrounding communities. That support usually tip the balance in these big energy bills.

Comment by Anon Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:26 pm
Pretty good plan except little to no discussion of protecting most of Illinois’ ratepayers.

We can get all of the clean energy you want so long as people don’t care about paying higher electric rates.

We can use all of the clean energy you want so long as you’re not concerned about rolling brownouts (CA for example).

The good news is that they didn’t swallow the entire CEJA plan that included the kitchen sink.

Comment by 4 percent Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:28 pm
What about the other utilizes?

People’s Gas, Vistra, etc…

Does this initiative apply to them?

Comment by Others Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:41 pm
The governor’s support for a market based approach
to carbon is an interesting contrast with how the Biden campaign is talking about energy.

https://www.axios.com/joe-biden-carbon-tax-climate-change-plan-e8d522a8-5015-45fc-8164-3ec5c8a0d8a3.html

Comment by Splits Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:42 pm
@Splits - “But many politicians in the Democratic Party and climate activists have moved away from supporting a carbon price as a core policy over the last couple years, arguing that, compared to mandates and regulations, a market-based approach can’t guarantee the steep emission reductions scientists say are now needed to address climate change.”

That depends on what you set the carbon price to. $300/ton gets you some pretty serious waste reduction real fast.

The big problem is that making large changes fast creates a major backlash, and the people stoking that backlash are entirely happy to lie about every aspect of the problem and solution.

https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/imf-75-per-ton-carbon-price-needed-by-2030-to-meet-climate-challenge/

Sweden has set a good example. Its carbon tax is $127 per ton and has reduced emissions 25 percent since 1995, while the economy has expanded 75 percent since then.

Comment by Odysseus Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:49 pm
MJM and his cronies got the green, instead of pushing ethics reform on elected officials, he is pushing a mini green new deal for IL.

Comment by Donnie Elgin Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:54 pm
“t’s bad enough as it is… it doesn’t need hyperbole.”

It’s not hyperbole. I have very good sources. You’ll see in time. Is it remotely hard to believe that Doherty isn’t the only one they used for this?

Comment by Southern Skeptic Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:55 pm
Roman 12:01
exactly

Comment by walker Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:58 pm
=== You’ll see in time.===

Prolly why I said… “We’ll see”

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 12:58 pm
I know the enviros will probably cheer this because it mostly mirrors the Clean Energy Jobs Act, but I find it fascinating still that Biden is out there pushing for carbon-free by 2035, while this talks about carbon-free by 2050. With nothing in the near-term to do anything, how is this actually doing anything other than simply saying “we will figure it out in 2040″?

Generally positive, though. Eager to see more details.

Comment by Ok Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 1:00 pm
Ugh. Why is every energy post’s comment section the same group of bots or anonymous accounts trying to rumor-monger or agree with themselves from different accounts.

Comment by Ok Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 1:03 pm
Vistra has contributed $89K from January 1 to present day to various elected officials in the state Capitol, and that is with many months of NO Funders because of COVID

Makes one wonder what the breakdown is for the other utilities utilities.

Comment by Mr Green Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 2:23 pm
== The proposal (click here) doesn’t outright ban charitable contributions. It bans utilities from using ratepayer money for contributions (which often go to charities favored by elected officials). ====
Hopefully they will cut into their profits and still dole out those sizable contributions. They (and other utilities) spread around a lot of dough to many good organizations. Everything from Misericordia to probably every chamber of commerce in the state.

Comment by Been There Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 2:28 pm
Quinn’s veto in 2011 was right when it happened. History has proven that it was a wise and sensible good government move that he should get more credit for.

Comment by Moist von Lipwig Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 2:32 pm
“…it mostly mirrors the Clean Energy Jobs Act”

You mean other than gutting the FRR which was the centerpiece of CEJA?

Comment by Southern Skeptic Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 3:01 pm
===You mean other than gutting the FRR===

lol

Yeah. There’s that.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 3:05 pm
No U.S. state has a carbon tax. The last to try was the state of Washington. California and ten NE states have carbon cap and trade programs. It doesn’t make sense for Illinois to go it alone. It would probably take federal legislation or a regulation like Obama’s proposed Clean Power Plan to motivate neighboring states to work with Illinois in developing a regional emissions trading scheme or carbon tax.

Comment by Going nuclear Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 3:41 pm
=== to motivate neighboring states to work with Illinois in developing a regional emissions trading scheme or carbon tax.====
Good luck with Indiana.

Comment by Been There Friday, Aug 21, 20 @ 4:08 pm