Naperville City Council Electric Strategy Workshop

On Monday, September 28, 2026, at 6:00 PM in Council Chambers at 400 S. Eagle Street, the Naperville City Council held an Electric Strategy Workshop (agenda item 26-1147). City Manager Doug Krieger and staff presented the city's power procurement history, draft vision statements, a proposed decision framework, and a recap of four long-term electricity procurement options. Because the session was a workshop, no final actions or binding votes were taken. Eight members of the public provided comment during the Public Forum.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Richard Stark (Naperville resident for 8 years; member of the strategy team supporting Doug Krieger) described the due diligence process used to check AI-generated research. He played an AI-generated audit by Gemini Pro of a 28-page ChatGPT electricity strategy analysis containing 59 citations; all 59 citations passed verification, and a flagged reference to the "National Laboratory of the Rockies" turned out to be the correct new name for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Stark's position: the report provides a reliable foundation for the council's electricity strategy.
• James Fillar argued against leaving the Illinois Municipal Electric Agency (IMEA) on cost and ratepayer-impact grounds. He noted that only 6% of utility customers subscribe to the city's energy efficiency program, that residents collectively paid $700 million over 24 years with a promised 25% price reduction that did not materialize, and that 62,000 utility account holders have not been heard from. He expressed concern about 2035 bills for retired couples on fixed incomes and families already struggling financially.
• Joe Huss (volunteer with NEST) raised concerns about the presentation's claims on options two and three: he said the city could hire experienced power marketers rather than new staff, that "immediate action" is not required (citing Earthwise Energy's 600 MW Will County solar farm, which began construction in 2026 and plans delivery in 2028—three years), and that assets serve as a physical hedge against rate volatility rather than causing fluctuations. He advocated hiring outside independent expertise and a diverse, flexible solution.
• Tim Farrito (Forbull Naperville Director and Naperville resident) presented a cost comparison showing solar PPA costs roughly three times IMEA Prairie State power after bond retirement ($105/MWh vs. $35/MWh, using actual 2025 invoices and generation reports). He warned of isolation risk from the state's plan, noted that businesses consume 50% of Naperville's power and that cost increases pass through to customers, and observed that 80% of ComEd customers still use standard bundled service.
• Robert Geese (Affordable Naperville; PhD in physics from Stanford; 26 years at Argonne National Laboratory studying electric utilities and energy storage) urged the council not to accept the phrase "climate crisis" uncritically, citing natural climate variability, the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature, and natural CO2 removal mechanisms. His position: examine the science and policy choices independently.
• John Doyle (Naperville resident) reviewed procurement history: since 2004, ComEd was cheaper than Naperville in only three years, all during the IMEA era; Naperville was 17% cheaper than ComEd under J. Aaron vs. 8% under IMEA. He suggested merging options two and three into a single market participation option and adding "autonomy" and "flexibility" as evaluation metrics.
• Lewis Halkeus offered brief comments during the Public Forum (the transcript records only his introduction).
• Roger Bloomquist (lifelong engineer; former operator of a nuclear submarine microgrid; briefly served on the NEST Energy Committee) said the traditional priority order—reliability, affordability, environmental—has been reversed, making electricity more expensive and less reliable. He criticized NEST's partnership with the Rocky Mountain Institute and urged the council to apply "the laws of physics and economics" rather than aspirations.

Presentation: Procurement History and Market Context

• City Manager Doug Krieger recapped the timeline: 2007 IMEA contract approved (expires September 30, 2035); 2007–2011 power supplied by J. Aaron Goldman Sachs with IMEA performing administrative duties; June 1, 2011 IMEA power deliveries began; late 2023 post-2035 discussions began; IMEA extension offer declined in 2025 after the April 30 deadline was extended to August, with negotiations continuing on 10 specific areas plus a power sales contract; February 2026 council formally paused contract extension negotiations; spring 2026 new educational presentations began.
• Market shifts noted: a shift from energy concerns to capacity concerns, continued renewable price reductions, the December 2025 Illinois Power Agency warning of potential PJM reliability/capacity shortfalls beginning in 2030, slow PJM addition of new energy sources, potential exponential demand growth from data center proliferation, and current volatility complicating long-term contracts.
• Councilwoman Gibson clarified that IMEA's 2007–2011 administrative role (FERC/NERC/PJM reporting) could be performed by staff or outsourced. Krieger confirmed that grid reliability for Naperville would not depend on which procurement option is chosen; the larger effect would be on pricing.

Vision Statement Discussion

• Staff presented five draft vision statements (with statement two repeated as six as an attention check) and four criteria: long-term/future-focused over a 20-year horizon, inspirational and directional, defining the final destination, and anchored in decision-making values.
• Councilwoman Jane and Councilwoman Gibson offered a new statement, designated number six: "To secure an energy future that prioritizes reliability, sustainability, affordability, flexibility, and local control."
• Councilman McRoom offered number seven: "To maintain a financially strong technologically adaptable electric utility capable of meeting Naperville's future energy needs while preserving flexibility for generations to come."
• Council members debated whether "sustainability" was undefined or a "code word" (McRoom, Moore) vs. important to the community and required by state law (White), and whether "affordability" should be listed first (Mayor) vs. treated as one of five interconnected, non-hierarchical pillars (Holzar, Gibson).
• A straw poll by show of hands selected number six: "To secure an energy future that prioritizes reliability, sustainability, affordability, flexibility, and local control." Numbers seven and eight were also tested but did not achieve a simple majority.

Decision Framework Discussion

• Staff proposed a decision framework with four categories: affordability (measured by total cost per kWh vs. ComEd and by wholesale cost), reliability/resilience (measured by SAIDI—System Average Interruption Duration Index—the minutes or hours the average customer is without power), sustainability (metric tons of carbon from generation sources, plus solar installations, EV chargers, and program participation), and "custom programs," which staff revised to "flexibility" after noting that no one liked the original title.
• Councilman Holzar asked that flexibility also cover city-level choices such as battery storage, and that wholesale costs be compared on an apples-to-apples basis. Councilman White asked that affordability benchmarks be expanded beyond ComEd to include other joint action agencies in the region.

Options Review and Council Direction

• Staff recapped four options: (1) joining or creating a joint action agency; (2) market participation with asset ownership; (3) market participation without asset ownership; and (4) sale of the electric utility.
• Staff recommended focusing on option one (narrowed to joining an existing joint action agency rather than creating one) and option three (using power purchase agreements to dictate generation sources without ownership, similar to the 2007–2011 J. Aaron arrangement), and not focusing on options two or four. They noted option three does not prevent battery energy storage systems and that any option could be revisited as markets and technologies change.
• Council discussion covered: the buy-vs-lease distinction between options two and three (asset ownership entails 15–20 year commitments; PPAs are typically 3–5 years); the need for some form of hedge under either approach; small modular reactors as a possible future asset (Krieger said it is too early, and the city could buy power blocks from such a reactor rather than owning a share); and Councilman Wilson's concern that sustainability goals could conflict with affordability, citing prior NEST-referenced Lazard figures of roughly $167 vs. $30–35 per MWh for coal generation.
• Councilman McRoom questioned why IMEA representatives have never presented to the council despite two years of debate; Krieger responded that IMEA's absence likely reflected respect for the council's pause on negotiations and that IMEA would probably be happy to present if invited. Councilman White echoed interest in formally inviting IMEA.
• Councilman Kelly said he preferred to eliminate option four entirely; staff responded that they would not perform additional analysis of option four unless directed by council. Councilwoman Gibson said she was only comfortable eliminating option four and wanted the other three kept open until the decision framework is finalized.
• Krieger confirmed the pending rate study is expected in June 2027 and will forecast rate impacts (including possible 2028 increases and cash reserve or debt needs) for the various options. Staff will continue refining the decision framework and mission statement before the rate study.

Key Outcomes

• Selected vision statement by straw poll (simple majority): "To secure an energy future that prioritizes reliability, sustainability, affordability, flexibility, and local control."
• Agreed in principle on decision framework categories—affordability, reliability/resilience, sustainability, and flexibility (renamed from "custom programs")—with further council discussion to follow before adoption.
• Straw polls were conducted by show of hands on each of the four procurement options (one, two, three, and four); the transcript does not record the individual tallies or resulting guidance. Staff stated they will present recommendations in conjunction with the evaluation of the remaining options and will not pursue additional option-four analysis unless directed.
• Next steps: staff will continue the battery energy storage system cost-benefit analysis, refine the decision framework and mission statement, and return to council ahead of the June 2027 rate study that will inform further option evaluation.
• No formal actions were taken; the workshop was informational only.