But opponents, including ComEd and the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, said forcing utilities into long-term contracts for electricity from unproven, alternative-fuel plants eventually could mean higher rates for consumers.What Tenaska is asking the legislature to do sounds complicated and in previous articles company spokesmen raised the specter of Enron and the California energy crisis in their effort to explain the bill. It all comes down to one simple fact: Clean coal technology isn't economically feasible without government subsidies. It's still too expensive and carbon capture is at least a decade form being scientifically proven.
So, this becomes of question of where we should spend taxpayer dollars to promote clean energy projects. Should we subsidize the profitable coal industry for projects that may or may not pay off years from now and still won't be clean? Or should we invest in renewable, more economical, proven technologies like wind, solar, and efficiency programs? There's one answer that's best for the coal industry and a different answer that's better for the rest of us.
I seriously doubt the Taylorville Tenaska plant will be built unless the General Assembly reverses itself.