Residents urge council to pause IMEA power contract renewal over coal exposure and costs

Saint Charles residents called on the City Council on March 17 to delay action on a proposed power-supply contract with the Illinois Municipal Electric Agency (IMEA), saying the deal would lock the city into coal-reliant generation and potentially higher long-term costs.

Why it matters: Public commenters said the IMEA supply portfolio relies heavily on coal — most frequently citing Prairie State Energy Campus — and argued that signing a long-term extension would foreclose faster moves to renewable energy and expose residents to continued air-pollution risks. Several speakers also raised cost questions and asked for more public information and study before the city signs anything.

At the public-comment period, Tom Krueger, a St. Charles resident, framed the issue as both fiscal and governance-related: “So what’s the problem? And the problem is that Saint Charles is a utility electrical utility... the City Council is in charge of operating the electric utility.” Krueger warned that a long-term contract would limit the city’s ability to pursue cheaper renewable options.

Joseo Zagaste, who said he has lived in Saint Charles for more than 30 years, told council members that the city’s recent bills implied higher retail rates: “The last 3 bills yield a cost of 16.8¢ per kilowatt hour, while the average in Chicago is around 15.9¢.” He said the city should ask how soon it could move to renewable energy and urged Saint Charles to be “bold and innovative.”

Charlotte Schumacher, a senior at East High School, criticized Prairie State Energy Campus by citing reporting from environmental groups: “Prairie State emits the most carbon out of all the coal plants in the state and seventh in the country,” she said, citing Prairie Rivers Network estimates that have been referenced by speakers.

William Napolitano, a student at Central East, described the contract-length request as unusually long and said the signature deadline (as referenced in public comments) had been set for April 30: “They’re trying to get us to sign 10 years early... This is an $800,000,000 contract at the least,” he said, adding that the $800 million figure was an estimate derived from a city staff calculation of annual costs multiplied over a 20-year extension.

Laurie Nini, a Saint Charles East science educator, detailed technical and regulatory uncertainties related to coal and carbon-capture technologies: “Carbon capture and storage... is nowhere near the silver bullet people think it is for fossil fuels,” she said, and noted that coal emissions include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and heavy metals.

Several speakers submitted or offered to submit materials for the city clerk’s record: Martha Goss of Tri Cities Clean Energy Group said a petition opposing the IMEA renewal had grown to about 584 signatures and asked the council to accept the petition into the public record.

Council response and next steps: Council members and staff said they are awaiting additional analysis before scheduling a formal public discussion. Council staff noted a Naperville report is still being finalized by another municipality and that staff will not bring the IMEA matter to a public agenda until they have that completed analysis. A council member asked for questions to be submitted to staff so they can be included in a future Government Services Committee discussion.

What was not decided: The council made no motion or vote on IMEA or any power-supply contract at this meeting; public commenters asked the city to delay or decline a renewal but did not record a formal council action on the contract during the session.

Ending: Residents and educators urged the city to seek more information, greater transparency and additional public engagement before any long-term contract with IMEA is signed, and several speakers asked the council to consider faster transitions to renewable sources or more detailed cost comparisons before committing to a multi-decade contract.