I started this discussion here.

To review, here’s the May 25 memo from Sup. Roger Thornton to the District 211 school board advocating the choice of the Illinois Energy Consortium as D211’s energy provider, for both electricity and natural gas.

The document relies on historical prices as the basis for choosing the IEC over ConstellationNewEnergy or ComEd as the district’s natural gas provider. (Note: An energy insider tells me that historical prices are not the best way to evaluate a natural gas contract.)

However, careful scrutiny of documents filed with the court in the lawsuit against District 211 suggest that the prices reported in that May 25 memo do not reflect the prices provided to the District by ConstellationNewEnergy.

In one court filing, D211 energy manager Reece Thome explains that he questioned the historical prices supplied to him by ConstellationNewEnergy.

Here is a copy, filed with the court, of the historical prices supplied to District 211 by ConstellationNewEnergy.

Mr. Thome’s affidavit to the court explains that the figures he gave to Sup. Thornton to reflect ConstellationNewEnergy’s historical price data were different from those that were actually provided to him by ConstellationNewEnergy.  I’m not in a position to evaluate the reasons he gives for changing the figures.  His affidavit also says in paragraph 25 that he discussed this difference with Sup. Thornton.

The historical prices actually supplied to District 211 by ConstellationNewEnergy were $377,516.00 lower than the historical prices supplied by the IEC.

The ConstellationNewEnergy historical prices that Sup. Roger Thornton provides in his May 25 memo to the 211 school board are $1,180.00 higher than those of the IEC.

This approximately $1,000 price difference is what led Sup. Thornton to propose to the school board that they adopt the IEC as their natural gas supplier.

The words that trouble me the most in Sup. Thornton’s May 25 memo are these:

The same three vendors supplied a historical analysis of their pricing structure…

He then goes on, in a chart, to provide the figures that ConstellationNewEnergy is said to have supplied to the District.

But, if I am reading these documents correctly, the prices from ConstellationNewEnergy that Thorton alludes to in his May 25 memo in saying that the IEC would cost the District approximately $1,000 less, are not the figures Constellation NewEnergy actually gave the District.
And, there is no indication of this in the May 25 memo.

So how could the school board have known about the change, since the May 25 memo doesn’t say a change was made? It simply reports the changed figures.

I’m very curious to hear from any District 211 school board members about this.