CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in More on the rate deal

Re: More on the rate deal

Jack Darin — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:14:24 -0000

On clean energy raising the price of power -

The renewables and the efficiency programs in this bill will work well together to lower rates. Renewables give us another supply option when coal or natural gas rates soar. Efficiency is the "refund" you get every month, forever, when you use less power, and by softening overall demand, it will shave the peak prices that drive market power rates. If these provisions were passed in 1997, as part of dereg, rates would be 11% lower than they are today.

On jobs -

The U of I estimates that these programs will generate just under 14,000 direct jobs in building wind energy, retrofitting existing buildings to save energy, and reducing power costs to free up money for other activities that add more to the economy.

Re: More on the rate deal

Huh? — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:17:48 -0000

With all the gas about renewable electricity, I have 1 question for all of you - Who is going to persuade all of the

NIMBY - Not in my backyard
CAVE - Citizens against virtually everything
BANANA - Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything
and HSP - Highly sensitive people

that a wind turbine farm should be built in their area?

Re: More on the rate deal

coal is not king — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:07:01 -0000

Iâ€™m not going to get too excited about coal gasification until I see a commercial plant built that actually captures and sequesters the CO2. And before we start calling this technology â€œclean,â€ letâ€™s not forget the pollution, land disturbance and workplace hazards associated with coal mining.

Re: More on the rate deal

Reddbyrd — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:51:04 -0000

Let's drag BrickHeadJoe out of mothballs...He can file all the suits Durkin wanted...the funniest part of afternoon was a tie between GOPs (as in MOPEs) demanding law suits again business AND the fact that no one mentioned the Cross-Jones plan...that was one where consumers would have paid interest on defered rates hikes...

Re: More on the rate deal

Ex-IP'er — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:17:06 -0000

It's difficult for citizens to line up resources to take on an Ameren. Why did Ameren demand a guarantee from prosecution by the State of Illinois, if they did nothing wrong?

Re: More on the rate deal

Rich Miller — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:41:51 -0000

There's no guarantee from lawsuits by private citizens. Just sayin

Re: More on the rate deal

Ex-IP'er — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:35:14 -0000

The rebate agreement is NO solution for central and southern Illinois citizens. Ameren gets their same rate increase, BUT now with a guarantee from prosecution for their cheating and rigging. The citizens' get the same rate hike, but the hosing is spread out so that the pain builds more gradually. The citizens have told Illinois state government how to solve this problem: it's with the roll back and rate freeze legislation, that is now pending in the Senate; it was passed by the Representatives. The Senate should bring the "roll back and freeze bill" to a vote, and do NOT support or vote for the rebate agreement. Just for ONCE do what the citizens' have asked you to do.

Re: More on the rate deal

Paul Revere — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:16:17 -0000

cermak_rd,

I don't know what you think is going to happen with this 100 BILLion tons of coal under Illinois, but it ain't just gonna sit there at a time of increased energy use. While you're absolutely right that Western coal is lower in sulfur, the whole point of this Taylorville gasification project (and FutureGen for that matter) is that it actually removes sulfur and a whole bunch of other bad pollutants. Western coal doesn't work as well as Illinois coal for these gasification projects.

Before you bury the coal industry and the central and southern Illinois economy along with it, consider that there is another, better way to use coal.

Re: More on the rate deal

Ghost — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:15:31 -0000

Old axiom

a bad settlement beats a good trial

Re: More on the rate deal

cermak_rd — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:05:23 -0000

Doing anything to revive the coal mining industry in IL is a mistake. We don't need young people taking up the profession then whining about their jobs being taken away. At least now, most of the legacy coal miners still left are nearing retirement, I certainly have no sympathy for them if they're younger as the demise of the industry in this state has been forecast for some time. If we want coal, Wyoming and Montana have cleaner coal that doesn't have the sulphur problem that IL coal has. Even using scrubbers etc. doesn't magically remove the sulphur, it simply concentrates it and then it must be properly disposed of as industrial waste.

Coal liquification might be better, but I've not studied that technology, my suspicion is that cleaner coal would still be a better choice.

Re: More on the rate deal

Rich Miller — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:04:57 -0000

Sage, never predict what a court will do.

Re: More on the rate deal

Greg — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:58:48 -0000

Sage,

Wow, calm down. My question was "what are you talking about" as it relates to punitive damages and a guaranteed court victory. I have no axe to grind about political leaders. I'm simply really interested in this issue because I follow the companies. Being familiar with how the court process would work, your comments about 100% chance of victory and punitive damages seemed incorrect. Important details, as they affect the relative generosity of the settlement. geeze

Re: More on the rate deal

Scooter — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:51:30 -0000

The giveback is a win for consumers, but this whole bill including the IPA is a disaster in the making. Rep. Reis asked in the hearing yesterday, "{paraphrasing} if the state doesn't have the expertise to properly manage the lottery and that's why it's being pushed to the private sector (to get more money out of poor folks), how can you expect the geniuses who run the state to manage the entire electrical grid better than the private sector?"

That's a great question that nobody has answered yet in this mad dash to re-regulate an incredibly complex industry!

Re: More on the rate deal

Sage — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:48:47 -0000

Greg

So what is your point? That Lisa Madigan was out of her league when she filed the suit? Or that she files frivolous lawsuits? That she filed the suit knowing it had no chance in court? That she doesn't understand the difference between federal and state courts? Or that she is not good enough to prevail on a lawsuit? Or that the only reason she filed the suit was for political image knowing that the case was futile on the merits? Or did she really think she had a great chance to win the case? I actually believe the latter in her favor.

Even when a temporary restraining order was filed, the case would go on for ultimate resolution. Either Lisa didn't know what she was doing when she filed the suit, or she filed it for political cover knowing it was futile, or the case had a good chance of being won. Which was it?

Re: More on the rate deal

Paul Revere — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:47:18 -0000

Anon 207.

If that's why she opposes the bill, then she doesn't understand it. As I understand it, it doesn't "set a price". it sets a cost-based rate that is subject to numerous regulatory reviews. That means the power is sold at cost plus a rate of return that is regulated, just like power is sold elsewhere.

The whole idea was pushed by CUB because they knew it would be the best deal for consumers. So does this now mean the AG is against CUB too, as well as the unions?

Re: More on the rate deal

Greg — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:30:20 -0000

"Lisa Madigan at the minimum would have won in court on the all electric rate issue with punitive damages for deception." - Sage

What are you talking about? It would have gone to federal court, where a temporary restraining order would have been immediately filed. At issue would be takings by the govt following a state-approved auction. This isn't a Madison County jury trial we're talking about.

Re: More on the rate deal

HoosierDaddy — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:29:22 -0000

Fair enough, Rich. But since when has 'honesty' been a criterion for a campaign commercial in Illinois? ;-)

I obviously need to read a little more about the rate deal.

Re: More on the rate deal

Ghost — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:20:41 -0000

I am told that there are some Republicans that plan not to vote for the rate relief for electric ratepayers,â€ said Madigan, who supports the deal. â€œAnd if there are Republicans, especially from the Ameren service territory, that are going to vote against rate relief, why, I welcome them to do it.â€

Translation: I triple dog dare you

Re: More on the rate deal

Sage — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:18:26 -0000

A non...regarding the rate freeze in the courts, this is the first time I have sensed ANY concern about that from Madigan & Co. Even after the rate hikes took effect, Madigan had votes on it in the House again. Now he is all of a sudden being pragmatic. Humm.

The single most important fact remains that if the combined state leadership which is all democrat had its act together this would have been dealt with long ago and on more favorable terms to consumers.

Madigan, Madigan and Jones have now jointly sold out to the utilities. This is a poor agreement and they ought to take GOP concerns into consideration and renegotiate. Lisa Madigan at the minimum would have won in court on the all electric rate issue with punitive damages for deception. Why does a party with all the power in state government settle for such a lousy agreement?

Madigan presided over the ultra-flawed dereg of 1997. Now we are supposed to trust him that this is a good deal. Illinois citizens are paying for his mistake in 1997 and now to cover himself, his daughter, and his vulnerable members he has latched onto chump change for political cover. Apparently Madigan's world class negotiating skills with other government leaders are left in his desk drawer when he negotiates with utilities.

Re: More on the rate deal

Anon — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:07:45 -0000

The AG opposes the Taylorville LEGISLATION for two reasons: 1. it sets a price for the output of the plant (which would distort the market for energy) and 2. it doesn't capture carbon.

The rate bill, from a consumer perspective, is a huge win. The utilities have been browbeaten into giving rate relief when they were under NO legal obligation to do so. The auction, as a method of procurring power, was legal. The power contracts were legal. If the utilities in this state didn't have legacy relationships with legislators, ratepayers would have gotten nothing at all and it would have all been legal.

The best evidence of this is Midwest Generation. They own about 20% of the generation in the state but are owned by a California company who could care less about IL. They ended up giving 25 million to the relief fund but in return, got a provision in the bill that bars home rule units from carbon taxation. If ComEd is sold to say, a Texas company or a North Carolina company and rate go up again, for any reason, don't expect a refund.

Re: More on the rate deal

Dollar USA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:34:19 -0000

I've owned CIPS/Ameren stock for 32 years and have never missed receiving a dividend. Their stock price is good. Some people just enjoy getting hit in the eye. In 1945 Americans loved being winners, today to many people enjoy being losers.

Re: More on the rate deal

ids — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:27:05 -0000

It seems AG has heard of global warming. Nice! Taylorville is not planning carbon sequestration, which doesn't reduce GHG, it buries it and the amount that can be buried is a small % of what is necessary. China is putting up new coal plants (one a month) to produce all the crap exported to US- we the cause of more GHG than we produce at home. & coal mining jobs have to be the worst jobs in the world, anybody who craves them has their head in a hole.

Re: More on the rate deal

A Non — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:23:25 -0000

Sage,

And what would you say about the fate of a rate freeze in the courts? Those advocating the strongest for a freeze were doing so last year, before the new rates went into effect. Once they did, thanks to the governor, Sen. Pres, Sen. Minority Leader and House minority leader, all of whom were actively opposed to a freeze or MIA on the issue, it was a whole different ball game. This is a deal crafted on the strength of one caucus, the House Dems, against all others. That's the reality.

Re: More on the rate deal

Sage — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:14:44 -0000

It is not dishonest to say that 17 cents on the dollar is chump change. Especially when Madigan's candidates last year went on and on and on about a total 3 year freeze and beat all Republicans over the head about it. Now they settle for 17 cents on the dollar and let the utilities off the hook for illegaly conspiring to continue to advertise for all-electric discounts until just before they ended the discounts.

The larger part of relief included in the "agreement" which all-electric customers will benefit from will happen even if the agreement is voted down. Yes, even the dysfunctional ICC has things ready to roll back the extra increases that all-electric customers were hit with last January 1st.

All in all, the rate hikes amounted to $6 billion over three years. The rate relief is a mere one million of that. After grandstanding on the issue of a total freeze in last year's campaigns, Madigan has sold out for chump change...a few nickels on the dollar. And the full rate increase gets shepherded in when all is said and done.

For utilities to forgo one billion to get 6 billion, end lawsuits against the utilities by the Attorney General, and allowing the utilities to end up eventually getting the full increase in rates permanently...then it is not dishonest to say Madigan, Madigan and Jones sold out for chump change.

Re: More on the rate deal

Lisa Lisa — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:03:42 -0000

I have been pleasantly surprised and pleased with Lisa Madigan's job as AG over the years and I am a Republican. But allas she finally succumbed to politics when she dropped the lawsuits. Shame shame. Also although daddy dearest wants Lisa to be the first woman governor I've always heard she wants U.S. Senate