Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Stop doing this, please

Posted in:

Illinois

* Background is here if you need it. This bill has nudged me hard toward the recent Illinois Supreme Court minority opinion on the constitutional requirement for three distinct reading days…

The Citizens Utility Board (CUB) on Wednesday thanked Gov. J.B. Pritzker for protecting Illinois consumers and issuing an amendatory veto on Ameren’s controversial “Right of First Refusal” legislation that the watchdog said would have needlessly raised costs for electric customers.

An amendment to House Bill 3445 would have given Ameren Illinois a monopoly over transmission projects. Having the “Right of First Refusal” means Ameren would have gotten first dibs on these big wire projects, thus eliminating the competitive bidding process for transmission projects in the utility’s territory.

Customers pay for these transmission projects through their electric bills, so Ameren’s proposal would have exposed customers to higher costs, at a time when they already face a record $1.3 billion rate-hike request on another part of their power bills. Ameren customers also face the utility’s proposed $148.9 million gas hike.

“CUB thanks Governor J.B. Pritzker for protecting consumers and issuing an amendatory veto on a provision of House Bill 3445 that would have given Ameren a monopoly over transmission projects,” CUB Executive Director Sarah Moskowitz said. “Not having a competitive bidding process for transmission projects risks higher costs for electric customers.”

The bill was hustled through the Senate and then the House just a few weeks after the ComEd Four were found guilty…

Interestingly, the bill applies only to Ameren Illinois, which serves downstate Illinois, and not Commonwealth Edison. Ordinarily, the IBEW, which represents thousands of workers at both utilities, would have pushed to favor both companies.

But ComEd’s admission of an elaborate bribery scheme aimed at currying favor with former House Speaker Michael Madigan, and the recent convictions of the so-called “ComEd Four,” including former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore, on conspiracy and bribery charges, led backers to focus only on Ameren.

Senate President Don Harmon told me he viewed the bill as pro-union (IBEW), not pro-Ameren, but, man, this just didn’t smell good.

* The Ameren/union amendment popped up out of nowhere on May 25th. It was sent to the non-substantive Senate Assignments Committee that same day and immediately advanced to the Senate floor, where it passed 41-9 with one abstention. The House concurred the very next day on a 63-32-2 vote, far less than a veto-proof majority, likely because some House members were a bit more informed about the bill by that time, and/or upset with the way it was being muscled through.

* From Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office the day it passed the House…

While we have not yet reviewed the language in detail, we echo comments issued by the Department of Justice and FTC, which state that the 2011 federal elimination of “Right of First Refusal” resulted in new benefits for consumers: lower rates, improved service and increased innovation. We are concerned about the impact that of a right of first refusal will have on consumers, as a right of first refusal generally increases transmission costs. Research has demonstrated that competitively-bid projects are typically more affordable, costing 40% less than projects that are not competitively bid. We are concerned that right of first refusal stifles competition and discourages new entry to the market.

The governor pledged to veto the bill and did so a couple of days ago, citing cost and competition factors.

* The IBEW sent out a press release today with some decent counter-arguments, including these…

* The bottom line is that this is a huge issue involving a large and powerful utility company passed in the literal wake of the biggest utility-related corruption trial in Illinois history. This wasn’t one of those bills (like the assault weapons ban) that had been percolating and negotiated and various elements heard in committee for months or even years and then passed when the votes were finally rounded up.

House Bill 3445 deserved far more debate and scrutiny than it got. But if the legislature is gonna continue doing this sort of stuff, then maybe it does need to be reined in by the Supreme Court. /rant

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Aug 18, 23 @ 10:01 am

Comments

“deserved far more debate and scrutiny than it got.”

One of the concerns I have with the self-immolation of the republican party, is that can lead to secondary effects of enabling some bad behavior from the other side of the isle as well.

There’s a benefit to the democrats having such a large majority, but it also comes with the pitfalls of less of a check on bad behavior. Democrats are people to, and subject to the same personality quirks. It would behoove the Democratic leadership to be acutely aware of this dynamic and take active steps to reign it in.

–then maybe it does need to be reined in by the Supreme Court.–

Agree, and that is why it is critical to control that snowball before it grows large enough to lead to a larger reigning in of legislative action.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Friday, Aug 18, 23 @ 10:14 am
== One of the concerns I have with the self-immolation of the republican party, is that can lead to secondary effects of enabling some bad behavior from the other side of the isle as well. ==

Actually, one of the most interesting and little talked about aspects of this bill is that it was not crammed through on the strength of the Dem supermajorities. There was overwhelming GOP support for it, despite the fact it was pushed heavily by their traditional labor foes, it codifies a process that is essentially an anti-competition/anti-free market, and if there is a resulting rate hike it will be shouldered disproportionately by downstate Republican districts. Yet, best I can tell only one Republican in the GA (Wilcox) voted against it. Weird.

Comment by TNR Friday, Aug 18, 23 @ 10:38 am
I think proposed by a public utility and good for ratepayers is a bit of a contradiction on its face.

It seems like they needed to chat a bit more about this.

Comment by OneMan Friday, Aug 18, 23 @ 10:39 am
It will be interesting to watch how the veto plays out.

63 votes in the House wouldn’t seem enough to override but there were 21 people who were not on that roll call. The Unions only need to turn 8 out of those 21 and keep the 63 they’ve got and they override. The Senate is much easier they already had 41 so they’ve got 5 to give.

I’m betting on the Unions in Illinois to get passed what they want to be passed.

Comment by Frida's boss Friday, Aug 18, 23 @ 10:45 am
====This wasn’t one of those bills (like the assault weapons ban) that had been percolating and negotiated and various elements heard in committee for months====

Personally I don’t think this is a bad bill. But I also think that if it was debated in committee and percolated for awhile as you suggest it may have even picked up even more support. Not sure about the governor but I think IBEW is a 100% correct.

Comment by Been There Friday, Aug 18, 23 @ 10:50 am
===there were 21 people who were not on that roll call===

Mainly because they were opposed but didn’t want to upset the unions.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 18, 23 @ 11:02 am
Totally agree that no one should have tried to ram this through at the last minute. But I’m happy to see IBEW explain the issue. It has nothing to do with bidding construction work…..it is about offering up to the lowest bidder the right to own and operate and maintain and profit off of the transmission infrastructure running through our State. Of course, those folks will tell us they can save us money. But I don’t buy it. These merchant transmission companies will find ways to cut corners to profit that will cost us all more in the long run.

Comment by JLW Friday, Aug 18, 23 @ 11:38 am
Good call, Rich and Governor.

This is just the sort of thing the IL-GOP needs right now - McCombie spoke of corruption, and see? Corruption.

Whether corrupt or not, this could have easily been prevented by using the rules of order properly, rather than “efficiently to win.”

The Parliamentarian needs to step up, but the Members on all sides need to get their Legislature in order too. That is the only promise the people have - rules of order guiding legislation.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 18, 23 @ 11:43 am
Anonymous at 11:43 is me. Sorry rules

Comment by H-W Friday, Aug 18, 23 @ 11:43 am
=Senate President Don Harmon told me he viewed the bill as pro-union (IBEW), not pro-Ameren=

Respectfully, who cares. It was anti-rate payer. How about we quit worrying about scoring points with special interests and businesses and look out for Illinoisans who have already seen their rates skyrocket?

Comment by Anon123 Friday, Aug 18, 23 @ 11:50 am
==Mainly because they were opposed but didn’t want to upset the unions.==

Which is why I’m going to bank on the unions turning 8 of those 21 and winning the day. They’ll convince 8 of their friends it’s ok to vote for it.

Comment by Frida's boss Friday, Aug 18, 23 @ 11:54 am
I like the Gov raising the question, and hope that a compromise can be reached between him and the Dems in the General Assembly. It was kind of short sighted to push this through on the heels of the ComEd issues. Everybody should be smarter and can now work through something that makes more sense for the public.

Comment by Lincoln Lad Friday, Aug 18, 23 @ 12:14 pm
The “enrolled bill doctrine” has to be revisited by the Supreme Court of Illinois. In the past, the Court has threatened to do so, but always kicked the can down the road on the issue. The General Assembly has violated the three readings requirement too often and avoided scrutiny due to the enrolled bill doctrine.

Comment by Gravitas Friday, Aug 18, 23 @ 12:57 pm
@ Gravitas

Perhaps the enrolled bill doctrine needs to be amended? It is an ethical issue, so perhaps language requiring leaders of each chamber to certify a more literal statement regarding the three readings requirement? Doing so might require passage of an agreement as to what the latter (i.e., three readings) should legally entail.

Comment by H-W Friday, Aug 18, 23 @ 2:26 pm