Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Sen. Bryant calls state worker vax mandate “massive overreach”
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Quick energy bill update
Posted in:
* Most of the news stories about the energy bill focused on Friday’s draft. But subscribers know things have changed since then.
Whatever the case, this is a good point from Center Square…
Key statehouse negotiators of the sweeping measure have said this isn’t likely the final say on energy legislation. Lawmakers could come back in the years ahead and further tweak the state’s policies.
The legislature doesn’t ever adjourn forever. And we see these energy bills every five years or so. Congress can go decades without changing laws, but this legislature isn’t quite as sclerotic.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 8, 21 @ 9:42 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Sen. Bryant calls state worker vax mandate “massive overreach”
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Quick energy bill update
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Is it a *bad* thing that laws can change?
I mean… the constitution, un-amended, would read like a whole different document, and we’re talking about laws…
My favorite is folks pointing to “iron clad” things… like amendments to the constitution… no sense of irony then when discussing how laws later can change.
Dealing with what’s in front is the best way to also move forward, add, delete, tweak… but there’s a starting point that needs its own beginning.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 8, 21 @ 10:12 am
I get that people who make deals want guarantees that those deals will stand, but it just doesn’t exist. Legislators don’t enter into binding contracts with each other when they’re wheeling and dealing, and even if they did that couldn’t bind the next generation of legislators.
Comment by Perrid Wednesday, Sep 8, 21 @ 10:18 am
Economically I think this bill would have to be revisited in order to do what it claims it is trying to do. Creating a fund intended to support our transition away from carbon by taking the fee on to rate payers instead of placing it earlier in the system through a carbon tax or some other similar mechanism could have the opposite of the intended economic effect.
If the carbon tax is paid by the electric producer just through the basic process of market equilibrium it would be difficult for them to pass 100% of the cost of the tax onto the consumer in a competitive market place. This would at least theoretically encourage or reward firms that would be able to produce electricity without as much or with no reliance on carbon and allow them to under cut the price for a company that refuses to transition away from burning fossil fuels.
The impact of having it on the rate payers removes that market based incentive that would create a market based pricing support for renewables against fossil fuels and makes it more likely for the program to have either no effect or the opposite effect by creating a pricing support for fossil fuel based power production since 100% of the cost is passed onto rate payers regardless of the source and the end user typically isn’t actively involved in determining/deciding/negotiating what price they pay per kwh. This also allows fossil fuel dependent power production to blame “the government” for the increase in rates due to their rent seeking.
The impact of this change basically makes the bill or the compromise lean much more towards fossil fuel energy producers under the auspices of “let the people who use the electricity pay for it” when at the end of the day the end user pays for it no matter what, but a carbon tax on the producer actually drives a market incentive since it is theoretically impossible to pass 100% of the cost on in a competitive market place.
So just on it’s face this would be an energy bill structured this way without a carbon tax will need to be “fixed” in order to be more likely to accomplish it’s stated goal, and will need to be fixed sooner than later.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Sep 8, 21 @ 10:47 am
Laws can and do get changed all the time. Nothing is set in stone.
Granted I will say another subsidy on this bill keeps adding up for ratepayers. How much was the Senate bill going to increase rates with its nuke and clean energy subsidy? Now add in a subsidy to Prairie State and coal?
Comment by Frank talks Wednesday, Sep 8, 21 @ 11:36 am
Trying to stay informed on the energy bill is quite a challenge. But I have a suggestion that I believe will help reduce the demand on fossil fuel produced electronic.
Here goes. For individuals installing home solar units: pass legislation that prohibits Increases to property taxes. Allow a property tax credit for homeowners based on a percentage of usage or a maximum cap amount. Local taxing entities could be reimbursed by the state similar to monies used to subsidize the nuclear fleet.
This would surely stimulate homeowners to add solar capability while reducing coal generated electric.
Comment by Blue Dog Wednesday, Sep 8, 21 @ 11:37 am
Candy Dogood has been making interesting comments on the energy bill.
It seems Team Pritzker started out thinking about Exelon/ComEds profitability issues and just went right to taxpayers/ratepayers to come up with a huge amount of money for them without thinking about incentives to improve air quality if these firms work on improving things.
Perhaps Team Pritzker should put Illinois citizens first and quit the spin talk on this legislation.
Thinking it is time to dump the ComEd bailout program and concentrate on real reforms.
Comment by Back to the Future Wednesday, Sep 8, 21 @ 1:12 pm
Why is the solution to every “thorny” issue with this bill making ratepayers pay more? (Rhetorical question in IL I know). If the nukes can’t make a profit, close them. If the coal people can’t clean up their operations without a subsidy, close their plant too. These are massive corporations - they do not need subsidies from poor people.
Comment by Stop please Wednesday, Sep 8, 21 @ 3:21 pm