Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: This morning’s must-watch advertisement
Next Post: Prairie State Is One Of The Worst Polluters In The Nation
Posted in:
*** UPDATE 1 *** The Senate has apparently given up on a comprehensive bill and is now working on what’s being called a “skinny bill” which would address “time sensitive matters.” Provisions include a moratorium on nuclear plant closures (which would certainly prompt a court challenge), some Exelon ethics provisions and a “solar cliff fix” with related equity issues. “Yep, so a bill that cuts out everything environmentalists want,” said one top enviro lobbyist.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Senate President Pro Tempore Bill Cunningham is confirming to the Senate Energy and Public Utility Committee that the decarbonization process is still the sticking point. The enviros and the Pritzker administration, he said, want “descending caps” that could lead to plant closures before 2035 and 2045.
*** UPDATE 3 *** From Jordan Abudayyeh…
Reporters—
Since Deputy Gov. Christian Mitchell was not called to testify in committee this afternoon, I’ve attached his remarks as prepared for delivery here. The latest draft of the bill is also attached. The administration has not seen any other language that has been presented at this time.
Thanks!
From Mitchell’s remarks…
We can’t understand why those who oppose this measure would ignore the jobs I’ve just listed to try to preserve jobs that may go away decades in the future
The draft is here.
*** UPDATE 4 *** It doesn’t sound like the “skinny” bill has any real support outside the Senate, including with labor.
* From Gov. Pritzker’s policy advisor…
See attached for the last draft of the energy proposal, reflecting the Governor’s most recent offer on decarbonization, in response to labor’s continued requests. A summary of the new structure is as follows:
• Prairie State and CWLP: no unit-specific emissions cap; with IEPA approval of carbon capture and sequestration (must capture and store at least 90% of greenhouse gas emissions) by 2034, they can stay open until 2045
• Declining caps with a 20% aggregate emissions reductions requirement over a 5-year period (does not apply to specific units)
• Units with best available control technology can stay open longer than dirtier units
• Ripcord provision allows a plant to stay open if the RTO deems it necessary for reliability purposes
• IEPA rulemaking must consider the impact on the ability of resources to meet reliability requirements
• Phase out coal by 2035 (except PS/CWLP w/ 90% capture)
• Phase out natural gas by 2045The two other substantive changes are: insertion of two low income pilot solar projects in Peoria and East St. Louis, as requested by Ameren Illinois and approved by the legislative workout group, and a clarification that the 10% set aside for equity eligible contractors applies specifically for those with that designation (responsive to a request by members of the black caucus).
There are a few other technical changes caught by various parties, including a telecom clarification requested by AT&T.
We stand by for questions, but believe this bill is ready for passage, and the Governor is ready to sign it.
The full draft is here.
The 2035 deadline for coal was a huge sticking point for organized labor, their legislative allies and some Republicans, particularly when it came to two coal-fired plants, Prairie State Energy and Springfield’s CWLP. Then they raised the natural gas issue, which was a big issue during last night’s negotiations.
* Organized labor still won’t budge, however. “If a plant is clean — why should they be forced to shut down?” texted a top labor leader to me this morning when I asked about the status of the proposal.
If they won’t bite on 2045, then I don’t know how much further the enviros can move. From an enviro lobbyist…
If in 2045 we have technology that allows for 100% CCS, then we can change the law in the next 25 years and they’ll be able to stay open. But why shouldn’t we plan for the likelihood (if not inevitability) that such technology is not feasible and/or affordable?
The carbon capture technology is at least four times as expensive as a carbon tax, which the governor proposed and the unions and the Senate President both opposed. WBEZ…
The Prairie State Energy Campus is represented by the lobbying firm that once employed Harmon’s chief of staff, Jacob Butcher, a relationship that has drawn scrutiny and questions about a potential conflict of interest from within some political circles at the statehouse.
But Harmon sharply defended his top aide in his first public comments on the issue and insisted Butcher’s past association “does not factor in at all” in the push by Senate Democrats to find some way to keep Prairie State from the green-energy chopping block.
“Jake Butcher left lobbying behind when he returned to public service at my request, and he works for me and he gives me good advice and I appreciate his wealth of knowledge. But his prior representations of anybody, including renewable companies, has no bearing on energy policy in the Senate Democratic caucus,” Harmon said.
And when asked about how he viewed some at the statehouse questioning Butcher being in the room as Prairie State’s future is debated, Harmon said going after legislative staffers is off-limits.
“I’m trying to bite my tongue,” Harmon said. “I would not call out the governor’s staff or the speaker’s staff for decisions or actions that the governor or the speaker take. Our caucus operates as a collection of elected representatives of the people who send us here to Springfield. We couldn’t do our jobs without an incredibly able staff. But we don’t throw staff under the bus. We’re the ones who are accountable to the people who send us here.”
The Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee is meeting this morning at 10:30.
* Related…
* Coal Makes Play To Save Itself While Business Groups Throw Cold Water On Energy Deal
* As deaths from burning coal decline, natural gas now a leading hazard, study shows
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 9:47 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: This morning’s must-watch advertisement
Next Post: Prairie State Is One Of The Worst Polluters In The Nation
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“Phase out natural gas by 2045″
First they had me, then they lost me. Why do they want to phase out natural gas?
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 9:52 am
==Why do they want to phase out natural gas?==
CO2 emissions, presumably. Although, if the carbon capture & sequestration technology can be proven and implemented on the coal plants, wouldn’t that also apply to the natural gas ones as well?
To me, all of this seems like a good compromise - it gives everyone plenty of time (and warning) to get sequestration tech off the drawing board and working in the real world; it throws the unions a bone, and it even gives Peabody something to tell their shareholders as to why they’re investing in sequestration tech.
Most importantly, if this can be proven to work here, it may get copied by plants in China, which are probably the biggest climate threat of all.
Comment by Dysfunction Junction Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 10:10 am
If the argument about Prairie State is debt service on bonds…carbon capture and sequestration makes zero sense. The costs are tens of millions annually–it adds skyrocketing debt, not room to maneuver, while allowing the 7th worst carbon polluter in the nation to keep doing what it does…pollute.
Comment by JM Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 10:10 am
===carbon capture and sequestration makes zero sense===
60-30-1
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 10:12 am
===Why do they want to phase out natural gas?===
Natural gas may emit less CO2 than coal and oil but it still pumps plenty into the atmosphere. And it also emits methane which does not stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2 but is 120 times more powerful at trapping heat. If we want to keep the planet habitable, it’s something we need to phase out as soon as possible and-frankly-should have phased out of a long time ago. Fully Renewable Energy is the only real path to having a future that isn’t completely nightmarish.
Comment by Edyrdologist Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 10:13 am
To date, no coal plant has achieved more than 65% carbon capture. Assuming 90% for Prairie State and CWLP is simply not basing policy on reality–it is protectionism plain and simple. The industry has used carbon capture and sequestration arguments to delay its inevitable and needed phaseout, while giving cover to complicit lawmakers. You can see it being used to derail needed climate action in real time right now.
Comment by JM Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 10:17 am
==Why do they want to phase out natural gas?==
“As deaths from burning coal decline, natural gas now a leading hazard, study shows”
Also, you know, CO2.
Comment by The Opinions Bureau Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 10:26 am
The carbon capture is a great “call your bluff” move. You can make it work at a cost folks can afford? Good for you! If not, shut that mess down. Planet wins either way.
Comment by Matthew Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 10:32 am
Labor seems to be getting a bit greedy with this energy bill
Comment by Nick Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 10:34 am
==To date, no coal plant has achieved more than 65% carbon capture.==
So… we’re saying that with the clock ticking, a law with a deadline on the books and high financial incentive to improve the technology, there will be no improvement over the next decade and a half?
Guess I need to call my son over in Urbana and tell him he and the couple dozen colleagues in his research lab can pack up their stuff. JM thinks they can’t improve current system performance by 50% before 2034.
Silly me. Here I was, thinking such a law might actually help drive increased funding for their research.
Comment by Dysfunction Junction Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 10:36 am
===But we don’t throw staff under the bus. We’re the ones who are accountable to the people who send us here.===
Well said Mr. President.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 10:45 am
==Here I was, thinking such a law might actually help drive increased funding for their research.==
Oh, it might? Awesome, keep pumping those toxins boys. We might have a solution by the time I die.
Comment by SWIL_Voter Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 10:54 am
So-called “natural” gas is a prime methane emitter, which is a bigger greenhouse gas factor in a shorter term (~20 yrs), resulting in more extreme temperature and precipitation factors, impacting agriculture yields (to make it locally relevant). It’s coming down to legacy interests in business and labor wanting to hang onto what they know and not allow any change, now or 20-30 years from now, and want the incumbency protection to ward off a transition to cleaner and cheaper electricity and power.
Comment by VerySmallRocks Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 10:55 am
===Well said Mr. President.===
Concur. The cleanup to it, the folks with the switches are accountable.
To the post…
The dance with labor, or the lack of a dance, the possible outs to be steadfast while pressing forward with a bill like this are there, but even as the dates/years put a hard ending, it could be a ripe time to expand how labor can be even more plugged in (no pun intended) to the new ways of energy.
The only good, it seems, very superficially, is that the GOP here in Illinois has made a real point, until recently with the CA, that they are not a fan of welcoming to labor needs. Maybe those who went for the CA on the GOP side can make some hay without looking like they are full out derailing
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 10:56 am
=If the argument about Prairie State is debt service on bonds…carbon capture and sequestration makes zero sense. The costs are tens of millions annually–it adds skyrocketing debt, not room to maneuver, while allowing the 7th worst carbon polluter in the nation to keep doing what it does…pollute.=
I’m not sure I follow this, if allows the 7th worst polluter to pollute? If they are sequestering 90% of their carbon, then they aren’t the 7th biggest polluter. Hypothetically if they sequestered all their carbon, then I can’t think of a reason why they’d have to close, even in 2025.
But realistically they are not going to keep these plants open past 2035 by sequesting carbon. Its just the theoretical possibility of it might give some cover for people to vote for it.
Comment by George Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 10:56 am
2045*
Comment by George Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 10:57 am
Continuing to burn fossil remains for fuel is suicidal…so what’s new?
Comment by Dotnonymous Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 11:17 am
It was the Senate President’s decision to hire a former lobbyist knowing there might be a conflict with significant legislation, to have that former lobbyist jump into the negotiation sessions despite an apparent conflict of interest, and it was the Senate President who launched a last-minute derailment of the initiative specifically tied to those perceived conflicts. So I don’t know if that’s attacking staffers, but it definitely shows poor judgement on the part of the Senate President. Those actions should be criticized, not shielded in the name of “protecting staff”.
Comment by A skeptic Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 11:21 am
The committee hearing is now slated to begin at 11:30 am. https://ilga.gov/senate/schedules/dailyhearings.asp
Comment by Anon221 Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 11:25 am
===But his prior representations of anybody, including renewable companies, has no bearing on energy policy in the Senate Democratic caucus,” Harmon said.===
You know you’ve [censored] real bad when people are trying to suggest that one of your key staff members is responsible for your terrible idea based off of their past employers instead of laying your terrible idea at your feet.
What I find confusing is Mr. Butcher’s LinkedIn profile identifies him as an assistant legal counsel in the office of the Senate President during the same period that he worked as a lobbyist or government consultant. Is that a part time job or is he just being generous with the dates? Can a young staffer literally work as a lobbyist the same time they’re drawing a check as a member of the legal counsel for the Office of the Senate President?
If they can, maybe that part is what should be fixed.
Either way, I think Senator Harmon should own his responsibility. Even if he has staff that are former lobbyists, Senator Harmon still makes the decisions.
It’s Senator Harmon that wants people to choke to death on coal pollution. It’s Senator Harmon that wants the People of Illinois to bail out investors in a bad idea that knew it was a bad idea at the time and were fully aware of the threat climate change poses to our species.
Let’s not blame his staff.
Let’s ask Senator Harmon what’s in his wallet, and who put it there, and if that’s not the case, let’s force him to explain why he is willing to sacrifice the future of our species for a for profit company that is part of the industry that spent the last several decades doing everything they could to lie to the public about the threat of their pollution.
===I would not call out the governor’s staff or the speaker’s staff for decisions or actions that the governor or the speaker take. ===
We literally have a state law that holds public employees, including employees of the executive and legislative branches, personally accountable for misconduct and wrong doing — even if the Governor tells them to do it.
We go after staff and public employees all the time. There is literally a public entity that only exists to go after the Governor’s staff. If Senator Harmon wants to take this personally, I think all he has to do is explain himself and his actions in a way that makes it pretty clear that who is staff are have nothing to do with his poor decision making skills.
Comment by Candy Dogood Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 12:03 pm
So… 10 more years for CWLP & Prairie State in exchange for lots of expensive carbon capture technology. I’m not opposed to the carbon capture, but does the investment to get the extra years make economic sense?
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 12:12 pm
If a coal plant is to switch to natural gas, they need enough time to pay for it. 2035 for coal and 2045 for natural gas is only 10 years. It is unlikely the investment to switch to the low pollution natural gas power plant could be recovered in 10 years.
Meanwhile, China is opening many, many new coal plants every year.
Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 12:17 pm
Hearing has started.
Comment by Anon221 Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 12:26 pm
Prairie State is the seventh largest coal plant because it is one of the newest, cleanest and most efficient. Older, smaller and less efficient more polluting plants have been closed and jobs lost in down State. The coal mine is across the street from the plant and the Coal arrives on a conveyer belt not in a truck or even rail. Yes it is large and efficiently produces reliable power in a cost effective fashion, complete with ’scrubber’. The plant cost $4 billion and is nine years old. The Nuclear plants being subsidized export their energy out of Illinois and are so old they are well past their useful life. What is the spent fuel storage plan?
Comment by Al Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 12:32 pm
“Let’s ask Senator Harmon what’s in his wallet.”
Man. This session needs to end.
Comment by not for nothing Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 12:33 pm
===but does the investment to get the extra years make economic sense? ===
The construction of the Prairie State Campus never made sense. That’s why the investors are all local governments that are easily duped because they had to buy into a certain kind of rhetoric on the campaign trail.
===Meanwhile, China is opening many, many new coal plants every year. ===
Lead by example, DuPage. Our whole species is threatened and we’ve been the biggest emitter of CO2 on the planet for most of the 20th century and all of the 21st century.
Comment by Candy Dogood Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 12:52 pm
===It is unlikely the investment to switch to the low pollution natural gas power plant could be recovered in 10 years.===
Honestly, with the direction coal is going nationwide, it is unlikely that Prairie State and CWLP’s coal operations will be financially viable in 2035 anyway. This might be a problem that takes care of itself through market forces. They should definitely still legislate it with the deal that they can stay open to 2045 with 90% carbon capture tech. However, I think they will have to close before 2045 anyway.
Comment by Polihack Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 12:59 pm
===That’s why the investors are all local governments that are easily duped===
Illinois Power did the same with rural electric coops when they built the Clinton nuke plant.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 1:06 pm
===Illinois Power did the same with rural electric coops when they built the Clinton nuke plant. ===
Given my experience with local elections and local elected officials I can pretty safely say that energy policy isn’t something many of them have had a very informed opinion on. The politicization of some issues have made this worse. There are municipalities that are on the hook for millions of dollars that invested in a big giant coal plant and I am certain people involved in that decision making did not “believe” that climate change is a real thing.
The overall approach that our elected leaders are taking to addressing climate change lacks a sense of urgency that should exist after having spent nearly 40 years doing as little as possible while pretending that ethanol and “clean coal” were magical bullets.
At what point in time should we expect our elected officials to take this matter seriously?
It’s not like there won’t be other good union jobs available in energy production.
Comment by Candy Dogood Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 1:28 pm
To the Update:
===The issue of Prairie State Energy Campus then came to the fore. Its commitments are mostly up in 2035 – so the coal date was moved back to 2035, at the request of its legislative and labor advocates.
Remember: PSEC is the largest emitter in the state—it belches more than 12 million tons of C02 into the air, making it so awful a polluter that a Chicago Tribune article noted that President Biden cannot reach his climate goals if it stays open. And it didn’t become a decisive issue until May 31. ===
This is a nice backhand and deserves some credit. No one seemed worried about the issue till the last minute, and it’s a moot point anyway.
===The Governor’s Office and legislative leaders received a letter over the weekend saying that Prairie State and CWLP – which is a problematic plant located in the heart of an environmental justice community – needed to be allowed to do carbon capture and stay open, or nearly fifty legislators would not support the bill.===
This gets back at Senator Harmon really needing to explain his decision.
Comment by Candy Dogood Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 1:39 pm
If the update is correct, this is incredibly disappointing. We cannot wait to address Climate Change and every second we wait on the decarbonization process is worse effects for communities around the world. We were so close to being a leader in the process.
Comment by Shibboleth Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 1:52 pm
When they place a $10 a gallon tax on jet fuel to cut down on frivolous travel for fun I will take global warming seriously. Hard to compete with Wind and Solar on price. I will feel safer when these Unionized Homer Simpson run antique nuclear plants are closed.
Comment by Al Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 1:56 pm
=10 more years for CWLP & Prairie State in exchange for lots of expensive carbon capture technology. I’m not opposed to the carbon capture, but does the investment to get the extra years make economic sense?=
No, which is why it won’t happen. You’d be better off closing the plants and buying the power elsewhere. But as I read it, the proposal just allows them to keep the plant open if they do carbon sequestration, it doesn’t fund the investment necessary to do that. It gives the operators of the plants an option other than closing, but its not a realistic option, so it really doesn’t chance much, other than the legislators can try to tell the communities involved that there is a chance of the plants staying open until closer to the end of their bonds.
Comment by George Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 2:02 pm
I don’t recall Democrats ever blocking Goldberg from testifying in committee under Rauner. But Democrats won’t let their own guy talk?
Comment by SpiDem Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 2:12 pm
== PSEC is the largest emitter in the state—it belches more than 12 million tons of C02 into the air, ==
It’s a huge plant at 1,600 megawatts, so it is going to pollute a bunch. They claim to be at least 15% cleaner and more efficient than comparable plants. By comparison, CWLP is less than half at 568 megawatts.
Neither site makes it easy to find, but I’m wondering how the pollution compares to other plants and types of fuel like natural gas on a per megawatt basis?
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 2:13 pm
===I don’t recall Democrats ever blocking Goldberg===
(Sigh)
Goldberg *wanted* to testify. It was his schtick.
Also why Goldberg was, without any equal, my favorite.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 2:15 pm
Thank you for completely missing the point Willy.
Mitchell *wanted* to testify too. Unlike Goldberg, they didn’t let him.
Comment by SpiDem Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 2:22 pm
=a huge plant at 1,600 megawatts, so it is going to pollute a bunch. They claim to be at least 15% cleaner and more efficient than comparable plants. By comparison, CWLP is less than half at 568 =
When people talk about a plant being relatively clean, they are often talking about things like SOX and NOX. Which the scrubbers do a good job of removing and the “clean coal” has less of that stuff to begin with. In terms of what was traditional considered “pollution”, something that’s going to cause smog or acid rain or something, Prairie State is relatively clean by US standards, and very clean by the standards of maybe China or India or something. So that’s what the plants like to promote.
But when it comes to carbon emissions, short of carbon sequestration, which isn’t really done on a large scale and isn’t economic to do, the emissions just are what they are more or less. Prairie state probably isn’t much better or worse than anywhere else, just bugger.
As far as gas, it burns much cleaner than coal and has far lower emissions per MWH, by probably 50% or more in terms of carbon.
Comment by George Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 2:25 pm
Clean Coal isn’t real. It wasn’t real last week and it’s not real next week.
Comment by Biker Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 2:31 pm
=Clean Coal isn’t real. It wasn’t real last week and it’s not real next week.=
To clarify, I basically agree with you which is why I used quotes. But there are some types of coal that emit far less SOX and NOX than others. So if you’re burning PRB coal with a scrubber you’re polluting literally 99% less than Illinois coal, without a scrubber, again on terms of things like SOX and NOX, but to your point, not carbon.
Comment by George Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 2:45 pm
— CCS makes zero sense —
So does a state government “decarbonizing”. The majority of our emissions come from transportation and manufacturing. When a state “decarbonizes” they simply move the majority of their emissions elsewhere.
The only way to successfully decarbonize, is to invest in infrastructure that makes carbon free energy more affordable that carbon emissions. Otherwise you’re just engaged in outsourcing emissions.
Comment by Willy Symms Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 3:07 pm
“It’s the lure of easy money, it’s got a very strong appeal”…Polluter’s Blues?
Comment by Dotnonymous Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 3:29 pm
=So does a state government “decarbonizing”. The majority of our emissions come from transportation and manufacturing. When a state “decarbonizes” they simply move the majority of their emissions elsewhere.=
I agree. This is also a great argument for supporting local business and buying things made in America. You can build all thr green energy you want, you can even require EVs. But if most of what you buy comes from a factory in China powered by coal, and then gets here on a cargo ship, you still have a long ways to go.
Comment by George Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 3:31 pm
Rich, I’m looking forward to your post-mortem on this one, including who has the blame. Seems like a lot with the Governor and his pals, the environmentalists, for overreaching at the last minute on 5/31. Plenty then next with the Senate President, an avowed enviro turned fossil shill, and Labor, who also got greedy and overreached. How much of this is the new players and rookies in leadership roles? And how big will this failure be for the Governor (regardless of how his team is trying to spin)?
Comment by SouthSide Chirish Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 4:12 pm
Sad to see folks bamboozled by the fake clean coal playbook again. This is not about CCS. It is about maintaining the status quo for some of the state’s worst polluters.
Comment by JM Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 5:21 pm
Carbon capture and clean coal are fake. They are not science. They will not happen. Either you admit that you’re leaving polluting plants open to keep jobs and the environment be damn*d or you close the plants.
Comment by Advocate Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 9:10 pm
Also utilities get regulated guaranteed profits. They don’t need subsidies on top of that. There’s a real danger of these utilities passing on all the cost of their risks to us - the customers. Residential and business - that’s why the business groups blasted that idea. How about these companies stop reaching into our pockets.
Comment by Advocate Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 9:16 pm
=== Thank you for completely missing the point Willy.
Mitchell *wanted* to testify too. Unlike Goldberg, they didn’t let him.===
Goldberg was “unhelpful”… on purpose.
That’s the point.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 9:04 am