Eye On Illinois: Energy deal may get done, but debate is far from over

After months of arguments, lobbying, dealing and pleading, the future of electricity in Illinois hangs on one question: Will holding a firm line on coal plants result in the loss of nuclear generators?

We’ve haggled over Exelon’s demands for almost $700 million in ratepayer subsidies just a few years after a $400 million package that now sits at the center of a federal legislative bribery investigation. We’ve looked at the cost of incentives for other generation technologies like wind and solar. But those and other issues are resolved, at least to the satisfaction of people negotiating legislation the House will consider today. And since those people have the votes and the rest of us just have checkbooks, all we can do know is focus on whatever is unsettled.

According to Capitol News Illinois and other outlets, the remaining sticking point is the future of city-owned coal fired power plants. Senate Bill 18 would close those plants by 2045, allowing them to operate as normal in the meantime. Another suggested Prairie State Energy Campus, near St. Louis, could stay open past 2045 by committing to carbon sequestration and offsets of at least 105%.

Then on Friday the governor’s office put its weight behind House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 1571, which still wants the coal plants closed by 2035 but also says the carbon output should be reduced by 45% by 2035.

Removing all financial considerations for customers – as the negotiations seem to have done thus far – anyone truly concerned about how power plants influence climate cannot seriously entertain rejecting either Senate bill if that means shutting down one or two nuclear facilities (Byron and Dresden) and keeping coal plants running unchecked.

Renewable energy advocates said they can’t support more Exelon incentives without getting a commitment to cut coal, but are they willing to overplay that hand?

What seems lost is the distinction between the publicly owned coal plants, which have a limited mission, and the privately owned Exelon, which in addition to delivering safe electricity is concerned about profitability and its investors, but also generates substantial property taxes.

It’s beyond clear Exelon won’t reduce corporate earnings to meet profit goals. Both legislative proposals would fund “equity-driven clean energy workforce development programs” and a doubling investment in renewable energy infrastructure but would do so with extra money from customers, not by cutting into margins.

Meanwhile, the coal plants may have to spend a bunch of public money to cut emissions over 14 years, then shut down altogether a decade later. What precisely is the incentive there?

I predict a deal gets done today or tomorrow, but also that whatever is decided won’t in any way resolve debates about our electrical future.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Media. Follow him on Twitter @sth749. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.