Amidst everything going on with the state, national and international political scene, it was actually refreshing to read a banal headline from Capitol News Illinois Friday: “Nuclear power, battery storage funding at center of energy policy debate.”

Most of the time, energy legislation surfaces these days, it’s to remind everyone of the bills fueling the federal bribery investigation that brought down bigwigs at Commonwealth Edison, as well as previously untouchable House Speaker Michael Madigan. But this time (at least for now), Andrew Adams’ reporting focuses on the basics of what could be on the table during the October veto session, a welcome reminder that our elected officials still must head to Springfield to conduct the people’s business.

In this light, energy subjects are especially interesting because they represent one of the few topics where typical political alliances are realigned. In recent memory, it was easy, in certain parts of Illinois, to find houses with “Fire Pritzker” signs adjacent to placards demanding bills to ensure the future of a nuclear plant – a plan that required the governor’s support to advance.

Exelon and ComEd likely didn’t intentionally site their facilities in areas that regularly send Republicans to the Statehouse, but that’s the current dynamic. Political divides on these matters often are more notable in the Democratic Party. Having a larger tent increases the possibility of different camps stumping for competing priorities, and that’s been especially true with regard to climate change, fossil fuels, alternative energy and lots of other buzzwords.

Illinois Democrats have set bold goals for emissions rates, electric vehicle usage and more, but they’ve also, as Adams noted, established conditions where “these always-on, power-hungry facilities are a key aspect of Illinois’ economic development strategy, and the state has offered several data center companies tax incentives to locate here.”

Political fascinations aside, a practical downside of the ongoing debate is being reminded that in the macro context of anything falling under “energy,” residential customer bills are something of an afterthought. This has long been true whenever utilities are accountable to shareholders, but it seems particularly striking at a time when economic conditions are unstable at best and we’re heading into another Midwestern winter.

It’s worth reading Adams’ entire story (tinyurl.com/CNIenergydebate), but take note of a reference to a plan to add a surcharge to utility bills to fund corporate battery storage incentives. The Illinois Power Agency reports “adding 6 gigawatts of battery storage to the grid – the equivalent of several power plants’ worth of batteries – would reduce costs to consumers by about $2.70 per month in northern Illinois and about $7.50 in downstate Illinois.”

The study has already generated bipartisan pushback, another indicator we’re in for some compelling conversations over the coming weeks.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.