Monday, October 02, 2006

Isn't that Special? - UPDATED

I just got word that the Speaker is sending a letter to the Governor calling on him to convene a Special Session within the next week to overturn the Illinois Commerce Commission actions regarding power rates. The proposal is geared at passage of HB5766, which has gotten a lot of traction around the state.

I have received dozens of calls and e-mails in support of the bill, and this is one of those issues that consumers can clearly comprehend.

The Speaker rightfully points out that the envisioned competition in the energy market has not materialized. He then goes on to label the recently-concluded power auction a 'sham procedure' aimed at doing little more than padding the bottom line of the energy companies and their investors.

The energy folks are going to have their work cut out for them trying to convince the powers that be that any change to the proposed pricing increases could set us up for California-esque brown-outs. In an election year, I'm betting on the Speaker.

UPDATE
SO IT JUST DAWNED ON ME - that it's ironic in light of some of the other news of the day, that the Speaker wants to extend the rate freeze for three more years, but we can't get any traction in trying to extend the 7% property tax cap. Go figure.

8 Comments:

At October 2, 2006 at 3:06 PM, Anonymous silentk said...

UPDATE
"SO IT JUST DAWNED ON ME - that it's ironic in light of some of the other news of the day, that the Speaker wants to extend the rate freeze for three more years, but we can't get any traction in trying to extend the 7% property tax cap. Go figure."


Even more ironic is that according to today's Crain's, "Politically, the issue is more potent Downstate, where rate hikes following the auction are much higher, ranging from 40% to 55%."

Isn't it true that the Downstate legislatures won't vote for the 7% - even though they can "opt out" in their counties? Seems if it helps Chicago - they won't play. Why jump on the Downstate bandwagon??

 
At October 2, 2006 at 9:57 PM, Blogger respectful said...

I hope Fritchey plays hardball with his downstate colleagues who voted against the 7% cap that would help Fritchey without hurting anyone downstate. Now these same downstaters want Fritchey's vote for an extension of one cap that helps them most. Tell them "no deal" John unless they agree to support the 7% solution.

 
At October 3, 2006 at 9:20 AM, Anonymous Southern Illinois Friend said...

Nice to see you back on Rep. Fritchey. Like the new name too.

Hope we get a new freeze on these electric rates and, from what I am hearing, we will.

The corn and bean harvest is in full swing down in your old neighborhood. Hope to see you soon. Take care.

One more thing. Isn't Alexi doing a great job.

 
At October 3, 2006 at 1:56 PM, Anonymous SouthernILRepub said...

I don't know there is much room for horse trading on this issue. Because a vote against this legislation is saying, "go ahead constituents pay higher electric bills." It seems as if the property tax issue will have to be handled later.

 
At October 3, 2006 at 3:16 PM, Blogger Hon. John Fritchey said...

SI, my friend,

Good to see you post, was just thinking about you guys this morning. I'm thinking that I'm about due for a visit.

 
At October 3, 2006 at 4:35 PM, Blogger Hon. John Fritchey said...

And respectful and SIR,

As much as I believe that a message needs to be sent about local control (7%), I don't believe that this is the right opportunity to do it. It doesn't make much sense to protect the money in one pocket of my constituents (property taxes) while spending it out of the other (utility bills).

 
At October 3, 2006 at 9:18 PM, Anonymous southernilrepub said...

I'm in total agreement, but until Emil comes to bat, it looks very unlikely that either issue may be resolved soon!

 
At October 10, 2006 at 11:41 PM, Blogger leo said...

Since this "experiment" has proved a failure, can't we just go back to the previous regulatory framework?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home