News Home

[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

News Watch Home

D300 approves new energy contract, looks to eliminate wind consortium  

Credit:  By Emily McFarlan, The Courier-News, couriernews.suntimes.com 13 February 2012 ~~

ALGONQUIN – Community Unit School District 300’s plans to use renewable energy to offset its energy expenses through a School Wind Consortium Agency are gone with the wind.

However, District 300 officials announced at Monday’s regular school board meeting that their endeavor still was a success. The Carpentersville-area district “never lost sight of our stated goals” and still will reduce its energy costs, according to a memo from CFO Cheryl Crates and Supervisor of Facilities and Energy Management Dave Ulm.

“At the end of the day, we found a better way to save money,” Crates said.

District 300 had formed the School Wind Consortium with Keeneyville Elementary School District 20 and Prospect Heights School District 23 in August 2010.

The consortium’s goal was to use renewable energy, secure long-term energy savings for its member school districts and enhance educational opportunities for their students.

But, the memo said, “We have determined that the feasibility for funding any such venture without upfront investment does not exist.”

The School Wind Consortium’s original plan, to fund and operate the state’s first school district-owned wind farm, fell apart when it could not interest investors in buying general obligation bonds, District 300 announced in November.

It then planned to negotiate an agreement with Invenergy LLC to purchase energy from existing wind farms at a fixed price, then sell it to offset its electrical expenses for the next 20 years.

But, Ulm said, “The negotiations broke down without us being able to come to terms that were mutually beneficial to both parties.”

One of the utilities providers that had responded to the consortium’s request for proposal for an “alternative energy retail supplier” was Constellation New Energy, it said. Constellation is District 300’s current electricity and natural gas provider.

The utilities provider returned to District 300 with an offer for an electrical contract that “would meet most of our original intent,” according to the memo.

The District 300 board approved an eight-year contract with Constellation at its last meeting, Jan. 23.

Before it was part of the School Wind Consortium, the district was unable to secure more than a four-year contract, Ulm said.

The contract with the consortium includes a fixed price for administrative fees – a “large component” of energy costs, he said.

That will save the consortium about $300,000 each year, Crates said. That means District 300 will make up the $80,000 to $90,000 it had invested in the setup of the consortium within a year, she said.

Beyond that, she said, all three districts will have separate contracts and will be billed separately by Constellation.

District 300 has chosen to lock in 25 percent of its electrical usage for those eight years at a fixed rate of 44 cents per kilowatt hour, about 11 cents lower than its most recent contract, Ulm said.

Board member Joe Stevens called that outcome “admirable” but he said he thought the district probably could have gotten similar results without the consortium. The “sole function” of that consortium had been to secure wind energy, he pointed out.

“I understand, based in the status of things, I may be a day late and a dollar short, but I do not believe the School Wind Consortium should continue to exist,” Stevens said. “I believe it is outside the purview of the board of education.”

And Board President Anne Miller asked Crates to put together another memo for the board about what it would take to eliminate the consortium, how that would impact the new energy contract and “if what was done could be done in another way.”

Source:  By Emily McFarlan, The Courier-News, couriernews.suntimes.com 13 February 2012

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.