SPRINGFIELD — Last week, Gov. J.B. Pritzker used his amendatory veto powers to strike language from an omnibus energy bill giving downstate utilities Ameren and MidAmerican Energy first dibs on building out new electrical transmission lines in their coverage areas.

A week before that, the governor issued a total veto of a bill that would have lifted the state’s 35-year-old moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants.

The former was expected. Pritzker telegraphed for months that he would not sign the legislation as-is, and argued in his veto message that it would “eliminate competition and raise costs for ratepayers.”

The latter came as more of a surprise, as the legislation passed with bipartisan supermajorities. Additionally, nuclear power is generally viewed as a crucial source of carbon-free energy needed for the state to meet its clean energy goals.

Whether he tipped his hand or kept it close to the vest, each action by Pritzker makes sense when taking the long view of his record.

In his four-plus years in office, Pritzker has generally cast his lot with environmentalists in situations where sides needed to be taken — even if that meant he was on the opposite end of key allies in organized labor.

In the summer of 2021, for instance, negotiations on what eventually became the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act (CEJA) dragged out as a coalition of environmental groups battled it out against the unions over the timeline for decarbonization.

Pritzker served as a backstop for the environmental groups, threatening to veto any legislation that would have fundamentally altered the nature of the legislation from the landmark climate bill it was intended to be.

Eventually, agreement was reached with the major stakeholders and Pritzker signed the law, which aims to move Illinois to 100% renewable energy by 2050. All privately owned coal-fired plants will need to come offline by 2030, with natural gas plants following in 2045. Publicly owned coal plants, like the Prairie State Energy Campus southeast of St. Louis, will need to close by 2045 if they cannot achieve 100% carbon emissions reductions.

CEJA, one of Pritzker’s signature legislative achievements, is probably the most high-profile example of this in action. But if you want to gauge where the governor is on energy legislation, a good rule-of-thumb is to check and see where the greens are.

In the case of House Bill 3445, which gives Ameren and MidAmerica the right of first refusal to build new electrical transmission lines and forgo competitive bidding on projects, as well as Senate Bill 76, the lifting of the nuclear moratorium, the Illinois Environmental Council and the Sierra Club were both opposed. 

With the transmission lines legislation, the groups charged that the measure essentially gives the utility companies a monopoly that will drive up construction costs and, ultimately, rates for consumers. 

Pritzker echoed the sentiment in his veto message.

“Without competition, Ameren ratepayers in downstate Illinois will see higher electricity bills to pay for the higher cost of these transmission projects,” Pritzker said. “Competitively bidding transmission construction, instead of giving the utility a monopoly, has been proven to lower project costs significantly.”

And though nuclear energy is a significant source of carbon-free baseload power, environmental groups have long cultivated an uneasy relationship with the technology, citing safety concerns and the lack of a permanent storage solution for resulting hazardous waste.

In his veto message and subsequent comments to reporters, the governor said he does not oppose allowing construction of small modular reactors, also called SMRs. Advocates say the technology, viewed as potentially game-changing, could provide cheap, safe carbon-neutral energy on a small scale.

“I believe strongly that we should bring small modular reactors to Illinois,” Pritzker said, adding that “they do seem to work very well and they do seem to be safe, but they’re going to be several years of testing yet ahead.”

But Pritzker said the legislation did not provide enough regulatory protections and that the its language was amended to allow the building of any “advanced nuclear reactor,” which he said could open the door to larger-scale developments. 

There is a through-line here when it comes to consumer protection, especially on safety and cost. And taking the side of environmentalists — especially when utility companies are on the other side of the issue — is just good politics with Democratic base voters.

Even though he has endorsed President Joe Biden’s reelection, Pritzker has remained in the conversation as a possible candidate for national office in the future. 

State Rep. Larry Walsh, D-Elwood, the sponsor of HB 3445, and state Sen. Sue Rezin, R-Morris, the sponsor of SB 76, have both vowed to seek overrides of Pritzker’s vetoes.

At first blush, the transmission lines legislation appears to be heavier lift. It passed the Illinois House with 63 votes, mostly from Republicans — just short of the 71 needed for an override. The measure would then need 36 votes in the Illinois Senate.

However, the bill is heavily backed by organized labor, which could exert its significant collective clout in the Capitol to twist enough arms to secure an override. 

The nuclear bill passed with supermajorities, but could also face roadblocks. In his veto message, Pritzker said he rejected it in part at the insistence of House Speaker Chris Welch’s leadership team. 

However, the Hillside Democrat himself has not chimed in on a possible override attempt. 

One possible resolution: Lawmakers could approve a new measure with the bill’s original language, which limited the moratorium’s lifting to SMRs. 

With his party controlling supermajorities in the legislature, Pritzker’s vetoes are few and far between. But when he does exercise the power, he appears to be following a pattern, at least on energy legislation.

Illinois will need to build out significant new amounts of transmission lines to meet its clean energy goals. It would be outright impossible to meet them without the state’s existing nuclear fleet. And SMRs are viewed as potentially a huge boon for both clean energy goals and creating jobs.

But as the governor showed with the stroke of his pen, the “how” is not always as straightforward as the “what” or “why.” 

Lawmakers return to the Capitol in October.