Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SB 328: Separating Lies From Truth
Next Post: RETAIL: Strengthening Communities Across Illinois
Posted in:
* Press release…
A new report issued by the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association (IMA), Chemical Industry Council of Illinois (CICI), International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 150, and the Illinois Pipe Trades Association (IPTA) warns a government-mandated push toward full electrification in Illinois could impose more than $1 trillion in costs by 2050, driving up energy bills for businesses and consumers by more than 2,000 percent, threatening energy reliability and the state’s economic stability.
The study, Analysis of Potential Pathways to a Clean Energy Future in Illinois, finds alternative decarbonization pathways that continue to utilize the natural gas system can reduce emissions significantly at a fraction of the cost to Illinoisans. Affordable, reliable energy is critical to our state’s manufacturing sector, which depends on large amounts of energy to produce the goods consumers rely on every day, including life-saving medicines, nutritious food and other products that keep our economy running. Additionally, full electrification would threaten the jobs of thousands of skilled laborers, who are vital to maintaining the state’s diverse energy sector.
The study models several potential energy futures for Illinois, including a 100% electrification scenario that would result in nearly $540 billion in new electric infrastructure investments and an additional $638 billion in incentives – paid by natural gas consumers – to subsidize full electrification. Under this scenario, energy costs for homes and businesses would rise by approximately 14% annually for the next 25 years. […]
The report emphasizes that a government-mandated electrification policy would require costly subsidies to convince or coerce participation, particularly from customers who cannot afford the high upfront costs of electric retrofits. By contrast, alternative scenarios that incorporate moderate electrification, hybrid heating systems, energy efficiency and renewable natural gas (RNG) would cost significantly less—between $340 billion and $391 billion, or roughly one-third the cost of the full electrification. These more affordable pathways still achieve up to 60% emissions reductions while preserving customer choice and ensuring energy reliability.
Click here for the full report, but just keep in mind that nobody has so far proposed a full electrification plan. And the governor’s spokesperson told me “that’s never been our approach.”
* I collected some responses. From the Illinois Environmental Council…
Let’s be clear - electricity rates are increasing because of skyrocketing demand from energy-intensive data centers and because Regional Transmission Organizations have been disastrously slow to connect cost-effective clean energy to the electric grid. Electrification efforts, including the use of efficient heat pumps, can help solve for high electric rates while protecting Illinoisans from cancer-causing, climate-warming methane gas. Illinois can’t afford not to electrify - our pocketbooks, our health, and our climate will suffer if we don’t. The ICC’s Future of Gas proceedings, which are the key venue to discuss Illinois’ managed transition away from methane gas, are well underway here in Illinois, and we expect in-state experts with the best interests of Illinoisans in mind to create a plan to move away from methane gas to bring much-needed health and savings benefits to Illinois families.
* From the governor’s spokesperson Alex Gough…
The Climate Equity and Jobs Act (CEJA) is focused on delivering clean energy to Illinoisans that is affordable and reliable. The administration will always seek to collaborate with our partners in the business community and organized labor to make that a reality.
However, this study misrepresents the goals outlined in CEJA and the cost of clean energy in Illinois. Gas utilities also said in 2009 that the pipeline replacement program would cost $2.2 billion, but costs and bills have skyrocketed since then. A recent study by the Citizens Utility Board estimated the program will cost more than $16 billion.
This report inflates the cost of alternatives and underestimates the costs of natural gas. Meanwhile, the Illinois Commerce Commission’s (ICC) Future of Gas proceeding is a transparent, public process to identify the best way towards cleaner and more affordable heating. That is the kind of process we ought to be guided by for the best path forward in our state.
* I followed up with Monique Garcia, who wrote the initial press release…
Conversations about electrification, including full electrification, have been raised during the state’s Future of Gas proceedings. This report models several scenarios, including full electrification.
The modeling provided in this report is intended to be useful for policymakers as they explore various clean energy pathways both during the Future of Gas proceedings and the current Resource Adequacy Planning survey that started a few weeks ago. The study presents potential cost and emissions reductions from a few potential decarbonization pathways, including 100 percent Clean Energy by 2050; caps on average total delivered natural gas rates statewide; and a model decarbonization portfolio proposed by several gas utilities in New York.
Many groups, ranging from the business community and organized labor to environmental organizations and government entities, have called for further discussion and information related to the cost, workforce impact, and reliability of moving away from natural gas – this study provides some data and information under various scenarios.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jul 2, 25 @ 12:39 pm
Previous Post: SB 328: Separating Lies From Truth
Next Post: RETAIL: Strengthening Communities Across Illinois
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Never too early to start your gaslighting. It has been proven very effective for the MAGA GOP. As they say, repeat a lie enough it becomes the truth.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jul 2, 25 @ 1:02 pm
=== Regional Transmission Organizations have been disastrously slow to connect cost-effective clean energy to the electric grid ===
Has anyone at IEC or CUB looked at the value of solar in the PJM capacity auction? It’s abysmal, and only going to get worse from here.
Even if you built a ton, it’s not going to move the needle much on the capacity prices.
https://x.com/shanumathew93/status/1939731075330449615?s=46
Comment by Michael McLean Wednesday, Jul 2, 25 @ 1:05 pm
Ah, now that I know burning gas is all about life-saving medicines, I have changed my position on it completely.
Comment by Oklahoma Wednesday, Jul 2, 25 @ 1:08 pm
CEJA was rushed through and some of the “costs” are going to be dramatic.
Taking thousands of acres of the best farmland on planet earth for solar fields not only is a laughable use of the soil, but barely moves the needle from an energy standpoint.
Agriculture is still the #1 industry in Illinois by a very wide margin. This use of prime land is sacrilege. A shameful, poorly thought out calamity.
Comment by Really? Wednesday, Jul 2, 25 @ 2:05 pm
The biz and unions are looking wearily at that future of gas proceeding at the ICC. The enviros are pushing for there to be no future for gas, but it’s not clear that the ICC will agree with that path. Bottom line is we’re gonna need an “all the above” approach for the next few decades during the transitions to a much greener (but unlikely 100 percent green) future. Unfortunately, we have enviro-maximalists pushing unrealistic goals that might crash the grid and MAGA-types trying to save coal despite the financial and health costs. Would be nice if the ICC could split the difference with their recommendations in the report.
Comment by Telly Wednesday, Jul 2, 25 @ 2:24 pm
My favorite parts of the report are:
“Prepared for the American Gas Association” and “Error! Reference source not found.” in citations.
Comment by Google Is Your Friend Wednesday, Jul 2, 25 @ 2:48 pm
Things don’t happen until they do happen if that makes sense, so it makes sense for these groups to get in front of it.
Comment by Chicagonk Wednesday, Jul 2, 25 @ 2:57 pm
Illinois was going to approve new transmission lines from Kansas to Illinois several years ago. It got tied up in “right of first refusal” about power companies having some say about rejecting slipshod contractors who do defective work. During this delay prices and interest rates went way up. Now we have a 10% rate increase and on future rates “the sky is the limit”. We are already unable to meet peak loads and will need gas to slow down the increase in electricity demand from unlimited grid price increases.
Comment by Dupage Wednesday, Jul 2, 25 @ 3:00 pm
===several years ago===
Two years ago.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ameren-illinois-governor-veto-right-of-first-refusal-roft-transmission-miso/691268/
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 2, 25 @ 3:14 pm
Oh no. We better gut our social safety nets and cut taxes for billionaires.
Comment by Irreverent Wednesday, Jul 2, 25 @ 3:17 pm
=== get in front of it. ===
Getting out in front a concern is different than lying about the status. Have a meeting with folks and let them know you want your concerns.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jul 2, 25 @ 3:25 pm
Thank you for more info on ROFR DuPage! Pritzker would be wise to tout his veto on that me thinks. Also anyone that thinks we don’t need to get a move on with the transition to and onward from ethanol supports dumping 2 million pounds of nerve damaging hexane emissions into Decatur on a yearly basis. There are uses besides fuel for soy such as pfas free firefighting foam. In addition, not only is water used when growing the crops broken down into ethanol, water is also used during the ethanol creation process so it’s a double whammy in terms of squeezing fresh water.
Comment by Macon Deliberations Wednesday, Jul 2, 25 @ 3:34 pm
“Taking thousands of acres of the best farmland on planet earth for solar fields not only is a laughable use of the soil, but barely moves the needle from an energy standpoint.”
Better to keep using that precious farmland to produce ethanol for our vehicles?
Comment by Ben Tre Wednesday, Jul 2, 25 @ 3:49 pm