The Chicago Tribune recently ran a piece authored by the Citizens' Utility Board concerning Exelon's sought public support for its uneconomic Illinois nuclear units.

While generally opposed to any ratepayer-backed subsidy for the nuclear units, CUB said that should lawmakers, due to Exelon's considerable influence, entertain any such subsidies, lawmakers should extract from Exelon various concessions.

Among other things, CUB said, "If Exelon gets protection from market forces when prices are low, consumers must get protection when prices rise."

CUB did not elaborate on what form of rate protection would be sought. However, given legislative history in Illinois, this easily could be some form of default service hedging or procurement designed to ensure stability, by further insulating default service from market-based rates.

The Illinois legislature has already adopted two such procurements (the original post-auction "swaps", and then the more recent rate stability contracts).

And if it boils down to Exelon having to decide whether to accept less market-reflective default service in exchange for its desired subsidies for its nuclear plants, or foregoing such subsidies in order to preserve a workable retail market for its competitors, which do you think the Exelon board is going to choose?