By WILLIAM LAMBRECHT

Story of a law: how Assembly worked out an energy program

WITH last winter's energy shortage as a sharp memory, State leaders began debate last spring on an energy program for Illinois. Spurred on by the spiralling price of fuel, both the executive and legislative branches of State government sought ways to increase energy supplies through the application of new technology to existing resources. Although oil and natural gas presently supply nearly 80 per cent of the nation's fuel, both of these sources are limited, and the nation's massive coal deposits appear to be the best hope for achieving Washington's goal of "energy self-sufficiency" by 1980. One-sixth of the nation's coal lies under Illinois soil, and the thrust of energy activity in Illinois, planners agree, will be to increase production of this black gold, estimated to amount to 150 billion tons.

The energy situation: 'a haunting spectre ...'
Governor Dan Walker set the stage for development of these coal reserves when he devoted more than half of his 1974 "state of the State" message to energy problems, which he described as "a spectre that haunts the economy and threatens another major upward spiral in prices." Emphasizing the need to pursue coal gasification/liquefaction technology, Walker put forth an eight-point general energy plan in his speech and called for bipartisan support.

In February House Speaker W. Robert Blair announced the first Republican involvement in the State's coal development with his pointed speech delivered in Joliet. Several weeks later Blair introduced an energy bill in the House, launching the legislative process that would lead to the State's first comprehensive energy program. The bill (H.B. 2651) called for the establishment of a State commission to coordinate coal development and other energy programs. Blair's bill named the Governor as commission chairman, a proposal which a Walker aide said led to "great hassles," because of the Senate's refusal to accept a regulatory body under executive control. The bill, however, dealt only with the regulatory aspect of an energy program, and the major policy questions of financial commitment and bonding authority were yet to come.

Gov. Walker, Lt. Gov. Hartigan, and legislative leaders each had their own ideas. At stake was control of commission, bond issue size, choice of distributing agency

'The well organized togetherness of it all just fell completely apart'
Legislators returned to Springfield in April for the General Assembly's spring session, which was to deal mainly with budgetary matters. However, the pressing and unresolved energy situation soon caused the legislators to realign their spring agenda. During the first weeks of the session, the energy issue remained on the back burner while lawmakers devoted their time to ethics bills and the perennial problems of the Chicago area Regional Transit Authority. Neither the Governor nor legislative leaders wished to act hastily on coal development. The question was too serious for partisan politics, all parties felt. As one Republican staff member noted, resolution would require "good-faith legislative dealing."

Early in May, after a parley among Walker and leaders from the Senate and House, staff members were dispatched to work out details of an energy program. The Governor had drawn upbill proposals for the meeting and the aides met to "iron things out" in what would supposedly be a bipartisan program. The attitude at the meeting was cautious, with staffers more interested in finding out what others wanted than in advancing positions. According to those in attendance, the meeting was "bad," "difficult," and "not in good spirit." "The well organized togetherness of it all just fell completely apart," according to a Democratic staff member.

As a result of the first staff meeting' the major lines of contention had formed. The Governor, with Senate Minority Leader Cecil A. Partee (D., Chicago) acting as legislative sponsor, would seek $100 million in State bonds for coal development and the establishment of a new State agency to coordinate energy programs. Senate Republicans expressed reluctance to fund the program at this level and argued for a lower figure.

The Governor's staff, including legislative liaison Michael P. Duncan, maintained that a significant bonding power would be needed to compete with other states for federal funds. The federal Office of Coal Research, under the U.S. Department of the Interior, prepared the machinery to disperse millions of dollars in federal funds for coal gasification and liquefaction pilot plants. States with funded energy programs would receive the highest priority in their requests for federal funds. Complicating the bonding

24 /Illinois Issues/January 1975