Illinois families and businesses experienced sticker shock upon opening their June electricity bill. The proposed energy omnibus bill the General Assembly refused to pass this year would not have stopped the price spike this summer. Contrary to recent reporting, if passed, this bill would have added costs in 2026 and beyond without guaranteed benefits.
First, for 20 years, the bill required Illinois ratepayers to guarantee profits to out-of-state energy companies providing energy storage. Two other states where such guarantees exist, New York and California, have electricity costs that are 75% to 100% higher than those in Illinois, according to the Energy Information Administration.
The coalition opposing the draft bill offered a practical solution to protect ratepayers from unnecessary cost increases while facilitating energy storage opportunities. Using existing state agencies and monies collected, battery storage developers could apply for low-interest loans to help them get projects built. This solution wouldn’t have saddled ratepayers with costs for unnecessary subsidies and would have aligned with Illinois’ desire for affordable, reliable and sustainable energy policies to promote future economic prosperity.
Second, the proposed bill would have removed important ratepayer protections by raising caps on how much the Illinois Power Agency (IPA) can collect from consumers to buy renewable energy. Without proof, proponents claimed (and continue to do so) that raising these caps would promote renewable generation, ultimately lowering energy costs. This is as confusing as it sounds — claiming lower costs while charging ratepayers more defies logic.
Third, the bill would have granted energy policymaking authority, and hence the ability to protect (or not protect) customers against future rate hikes, to nonelected agencies including the IPA. While the IPA was created to administer competitive processes for energy procurement, the draft legislation would have granted it and select other state agencies and consultants increasingly expansive powers, further centralizing energy procurement in Illinois and stifling needed market innovations. As consumers in California learned at the start of this century, centralized energy procurement can lead to disastrous consequences.
An energy policy focused on reliable, affordable and sustainable solutions is critical. The rejected energy omnibus bill guaranteed none of these. So, when you see a General Assembly member this summer, thank them for rejecting special interests and doing right by ratepayers.
— Bob Stephens, executive director, Illinois Industrial Energy Consumers
Jackson’s condition
While reading the July 20 editorial (“On Jesse Jackson Jr. and second chances”) arguing for a second chance for former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., I was struck by the omission of his bipolar disorder and subsequent disability payments, as reported by the Tribune on Feb. 23, 2017: “Jackson, 51, receives about $138,400 a year — more than he made as a freshman congressman in 1995. Most of that — about $100,000 — is workers’ compensation and tax-free, according to Chicago attorney Barry Schatz, who is representing Jackson in his divorce proceeding. The rest of Jackson’s benefits are Social Security Disability Insurance payments, some of which may be taxable, Schatz said. The payments flow to Jackson because he has bipolar disorder and depression — the issues that led to an extended leave from Congress in 2012.”
I think it is a relevant question for voters to ask and the Tribune to examine: What is the current status of this disorder since it may affect his ability to be an effective representative? Is the condition being treated? Have payments ended?
While I would never deign to judge the fairness of a “second chance” for anybody, I feel the editorial board’s omission in examining this relevant issue illustrates less than exacting journalism.
— Brad Johnson, Crete
Built on fossil fuels
Civilization advanced on the back of energy technology. From burning wood for heat to kerosene lamps for light to coal and later natural gas for heat, and now gasoline and diesel oil for transportation, this is where we are today.
And now we want to blame the suppliers for pollution and global warming? That’s kind of like blaming the bartender for your alcoholism.
— David C. White, Chicago
Response to crisis
I appreciate the letter (“Give us the full facts,” July 15) from Richard J. Aronson, saying that “State Farm has a duty to explain to Illinois insurance holders the facts behind its rate increase.” I agree, and I wonder: Could it be that State Farm sees the science-based truth and the evidence-based (painful) consequences of the climate change that is upon us, bringing us ever more powerful natural catastrophes? Could it be that they are trying to prepare to pay for the mounting damages?
I wish State Farm’s rate hike could be enough to change the minds of climate change deniers and fossil fuel promoters.
— Carol Richart, Downers Grove
Fix the ‘pill penalty’
It is widely accepted that ensuring patients have access to medicines lowers overall health costs, improves management of both chronic and acute conditions, and supports a more viable health care system.
The Inflation Reduction Act introduced a significant obstacle to continued access to treatments through its “pill penalty.” The “pill penalty” allows large-molecule biologic medicines a 13-year period following approval by the Food and Drug Administration before being subject to price controls, but it limits small-molecule drugs, which typically come in pill or tablet form, to nine years. This discrepancy disincentivizes research into small molecule drugs, currently about 90% of prescriptions in the U.S.
The discouragement of incentives into one type of treatment option over another is problematic, especially as the health care system is seeing many opportunities using already approved treatments to fast-track new treatment options for unsolved diseases.
Congress must address this discrepancy because patients living with chronic and acute conditions, whether rare or common, depend on the right treatment options to manage them — these may be small or large molecule medications. Science is constantly advancing: Supporting continued research and development ensures that treatment efficiency is improving, more treatments are becoming available, and ultimately patient outcomes and quality of life are improving.
A commonsense, bipartisan bill was introduced to fix the discrepancy created by the pill penalty. The Ensuring Pathways to Innovative Cures (EPIC) Act would equalize the exemption period for small molecule medicines and is an investment in the future of medicine and healthier lives for patients everywhere. According to a University of Chicago policy brief, without the EPIC Act, patients could miss up to 188 new small-molecule medications. That is 188 missed chances for valuable treatment options and hundreds more for all of the follow-on indications that each approved treatment could provide for unsolved diseases by using already approved treatments to fast-track new treatment options.
We are calling on leaders from both parties to co-sponsor the EPIC Act and demonstrate their commitment to reducing overall health care costs for Americans and improve the quality of life for patients.
— Barbara Goodman, president and CEO, Cures Within Reach
Braun’s correction
The recent editorial opposing Indiana Gov. Mike Braun’s plan to freeze in-state undergraduate tuition at public universities misses the mark (“Indiana University, Ball State and Purdue are gutted without logic or thought,” July 7). Rather than a political stunt or a hollow gesture, this policy is a long-overdue correction to a higher education system that has drifted far from its core mission.
Braun’s tuition freeze is a bold but necessary step to restore affordability and accountability in higher education and perhaps something the state of Illinois could learn from since state universities’ tuition costs and fees continue to rise as state funding is lagging the pace of inflation.
For too long, universities have expanded their offerings, amenities and administrative layers in pursuit of prestige rather than purpose. As Braun’s “Freedom and Opportunity” agenda makes clear, Indiana’s future depends on leaner, more responsive institutions that serve citizens and students, not bureaucracies, whether that is in the statehouse or the classroom.
State universities were never meant to be everything to everyone. They were designed to equip the next generation with practical knowledge and skills to contribute to society. Somewhere along the way, that mission was diluted by mission creep and bloated budgets. While there will always be exceptions and special cases that deserve consideration, the broader trend is clear: Higher education has become too expensive, too expansive and too unaccountable.
This isn’t about denying students the chance to study a language at the school of their dreams. But taxpayers shouldn’t shoulder the burden of funding everything, and there are plenty of other fantastic institutions across the state where Hoosiers can pursue more esoteric studies to their hearts’ content.
— Dan Dumezich, Schererville, Indiana
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
