“…the public (has) spoken through the referendum.” – March 22 Board meeting*
“Did you say over? Was it over when the German’s bombed Pearl Harbor?”
On March 20th, a majority of residents voted against the “opt-out” Electrical Aggregation Referendum as proposed by our Village Board. This perceived “defeat” had some of our board members casting blame on residents for various inane and deflective reasons during their March meeting. A referendum question is simply a question – no more, no less, so our Village Board got their answer on “opt-out” aggregation. However, this should not preclude our Village Board from pursuing an alternate path which should result in greater energy discounts for residents than they might receive on their own.
The Observer published an editorial titled, “What residents should know about electrical aggregation,” which preceded the March Primary Elections. That piece included the following information:
“If residents vote against the referendum, the Village can still pursue an aggregation agreement under an “opt-in” plan. The same decision steps outlined earlier may occur, and the Village can still contract with an energy supplier. Residents would then be notified of the terms and rates, and can submit a request to obtain pricing negotiated by the Village.”
Hence, the Village can still pursue aggregation through an “opt-in” program. They simply cannot “predict” as many customers for a potential aggregator as they might under “opt-out” programs which, not surprisingly, are the preference of aggregation companies. That’s why they assisted with writing the question printed on the ballots.
But the fact remains that 443 residents did vote in favor of allowing our Village to negotiate electrical rates in the hopes of volume discounts. These residents pay property taxes in return for services from our Village, and their wishes should be fulfilled by the Village through an “opt-in” aggregation plan.
The path to aggregation is not expensive and it is not complicated unless those involved choose to make it so. The Observer believes the Village should start down that path now when the aggregation companies will be most competitive.
In the meantime, residents who don’t want to wait for the Village to take action can review their immediate options via the Citizens Utility Board’s alternate energy supplier website.
– The Observer
*Excerpted from the April 5, 2012, Barrington Courier-Review article “Trustees baffled by rejection of referendum.”
Thank you for the clarification of alternatives available. There are many residents like myself who have little confidence in anything that comes out of a Village meeting, mostly due to the President’s dominance over the Trustees. The CUB website is worth investigating.
This issue is not as cut and dry as himself and his minions on the board would have you believe. Note also should you go the below link the comments posted by the Mayor of DesPlaines. Yes, there are some smart Mayors out there, just too bad we don’t have one in Barrington Hills!
“Here’s another not-so-great (read: ugly) result of municipal aggregation: When large masses of people aggregate and switch at roughly the same time, they are in effect undoing the benefit of deregulation. That benefit, of course, is achieving lower rates through competition. Interesting how the price of electricity has been decreasing steadily since alternative suppliers came into the market. Sadly though, of the twenty communities that have already aggregated, 19 of those were divided among three primary suppliers. Please tell me, how exactly does this promote competition?? We might as well all stay with ComEd and return to its pre-deregulation monopoly. The full benefit of deregulation is potentially yet to be seen and municipal aggregation might halt that progress entirely. Please consider that as you cast your vote.”
See: https://power2switch.com/blog/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-municipal-electricity-aggregation-in-illinois/
Let Bacog do the work for the village. They can save us!