advertisement

Daily Herald opinion: A time for careful deliberation: Naperville right to move cautiously on energy decision

Naperville residents who packed a City Council meeting last week to oppose renewal of a contract with the city’s power provider brought an environmental message and carried signs pleading “Say No To Coal.” But some City Council members themselves offered a perhaps even more salient message.

Essentially, what’s the rush?

Naperville is one of a handful of Chicago suburbs that provide electricity independently to residents. It does so through a contract with the Illinois Municipal Electric Agency, which has minority ownership stakes in the Prairie State Generating Co., a coal-fired power plant in southwestern Illinois. Environmentalists argue that, under any circumstances, the agency’s heavy reliance on coal makes it an unwelcome long-term partner for Naperville.

That fact alone argues for leaders taking the time for a good, long view of how it will provide energy and where it will get it. The urgency of fighting climate change grows stronger every day, so energy users — whether individual, commercial or municipal — are wise to seek out the cleanest power sources available that can satisfy their needs.

And, most to the point, Naperville has some time to do that, although IMEA has put on some pressure.

The present contract with IMEA doesn’t expire until 2035 and the city isn’t required to make a decision on extension until 2030. But the city’s website says IMEA wants to know now whether current clients plan to renew in 10 years so it can “plan energy needs and transition from carbon emitting resources. It has provided an extension offer that would allow the city to acquire renewable energy outside of IMEA, but set a deadline of April 30 for leaders to decide.

That offer is not insignificant, but it’s hard to see how it’s so significant that city leaders should be pressured to act prematurely.

As reported by our Katlyn Smith, some officials seemed to share a sense of reluctance. Council Member Ian Holzhauer stated flatly, “I really don’t see the rush to make any decision right now,” and Mayor Scott Wehrli noted he has concerns because the extension proposal would prevent the city from “storage, peak shaving and self-generation” of energy.

“I've got some challenges with that,” Wehrli said. “I would not sign that contract if it was my own business right now.

So, the central question for Naperville is when should it sign such a contract, if ever. Officials have hired a consultant — Customized Energy Solutions — to analyze their options, and they plan at least one workshop in April where the consultants will present their findings to the public. Depending on the response, another meeting could be scheduled later.

Obviously, the council - which, by the way, could include new members with little experience with the issue after April 1 elections - needn’t make hasty decisions before seeing and analyzing Customized Energy Solutions’ report. And, that report needs to be evaluated with thoughtful, open minds. But it’s hard to imagine that IMEA is offering something in 2025 that can’t also be on the table in 2030, and it’s important to recognize that we are in a pivotal period for determining the outlook for energy production for the rest of the 21st century. The next five years could be replete with options — perhaps including IMEA, perhaps involving other providers.

These are matters the city should be carefully weighing before jumping into a decision by the end of April that would tie up the city for 30 years, with not-irrelevant even longer-lasting consequences for the planet.

Article Comments
Guidelines: Keep it civil and on topic; no profanity, vulgarity, slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. If a comment violates these standards or our terms of service, click the "flag" link in the lower-right corner of the comment box. To find our more, read our FAQ.