A public hearing on Evanston’s planned electric aggregation program turned into a magnet for environmentalists Tuesday night, drawing only folks who want the city to buy 100 percent renewable energy.
Evanston Sustainability Coordinator Katherine Hurley and Utilities Director Dave Stoneback fielded questions at the public hearing.
A public hearing on Evanston’s planned electric aggregation program turned into a magnet for environmentalists Tuesday night drawing only folks who want the city to buy 100 percent renewable energy.
About two dozen people turned out for the session at the Civic Center and several speakers suggested that the extra cost of going for 100 percent renewable energy, versus 75 percent renewable, shouldn’t be a deterrent.
Some estimates have suggested the increased cost for all renewable power would amount to about $1 a month for the average customer, but that the aggregation program could still save the average customer about $24 a month compared to current Commonwealth Edison rates.
One sour note for some people at the meeting who either have switched to an alternative energy supplier on their own, or who belong to churches that have done so.
They likely have signed up at individual rate discounts less than the municipal aggregation program will achieve. And when their current contracts expire, Utilities Director Dave Stoneback said, they can buy power from the city’s chosen supplier — but at then-current market rates, not the bulk rate the city will negotiate for customers who are on board when the aggregation program initially goes into effect.
Additional hearings on the municipal electric aggregation program will be held at 7 p.m. tonight at the Levy Senior Center and at 7 p.m. Monday at the Civic Center.
Related document
Are they aware of the real costs ?
Sunlight and wind are free—but capturing, storing and transmitting are not. The same with bio-products [processing, land taken up, fertiizer, food not grown, waste, etc.] There are large costs for equipment, transmisssion, land not used for other purposes.
Obviously coal and oil have the same problems but we know 'most' of the costs. What we don't consider are the clean-up costs and charge for them.
Before the committee considers what real costs for electricity are, have they considered—and donate to cover—the costs for their car. Until the recent spike in gas costs, it was felt $10 per gallon price [i.e. $6 tax] was needed to cover the clean-up from the pollution—not to mention costs for roads. Now that cost is more like $11.
Before they get on their high-horse over 100% renewable electric, have they adjusted their own habits for their car—something they can immediately control ? I doubt it. It is easier to push 'green' cost control to a committee or producer and then rail against them.