Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Choice Aggregation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council discusses opt‑in Community Choice Aggregation pilot while PUC review remains pending
Summary
EAC members heard an update that the statewide CCA petition is awaiting Public Utility Commission review, and discussed forming a multi‑borough opt‑in pilot and a renewable-energy task force to recruit households and pursue DEP support and funding for staff assistance.
Members of the Departmental Advisory Council discussed July 10 a stalled Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) petition currently before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) and considered a local opt‑in pilot and a multi‑borough renewable-energy task force while the PUC review remains unresolved.
An EAC member summarized recent correspondence: an administrative law judge and the Public Utility Law Project had advised the PUC against approving the petition, while the petition’s lawyer submitted a rebuttal. “The PUC doesn’t have — there’s no legally binding deadline for them to respond,” the member said, characterizing the matter as effectively paused.
Why it matters: council members said the PUC’s decision will determine whether a broad opt‑out CCA can proceed. While that review is pending, members argued a local opt‑in pilot could demonstrate consumer interest and operational feasibility.
The member reported that Dennis Rowan and others are proposing a “multi‑borough” task force — variously framed as an energy‑cost or renewable‑energy task force — to recruit initial participants and lead public education. The proposal discussed recruiting roughly 50 households per borough as an initial outreach goal (the member noted that 5% of households in their jurisdiction would equate to about 97 households). The member said the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) expressed support for community‑level pilots and indicated it would look for funding to hire part‑time staff to help guide local task forces.
Council members discussed concrete next steps: Dennis Rowan was expected to draft a short outreach paragraph and potentially model ordinance language; the council asked for a brief paragraph to present to elected officials and for sample ordinance text. Members suggested a 60‑day education period coupled with monthly or bimonthly coordination among borough representatives if the pilot proceeds. Jewel (referenced in the meeting) was suggested as a likely manager for collecting interested households’ contact information.
No formal ordinance was proposed or adopted at the meeting. The council agreed to compile a list of potential local leaders and to circulate outreach text once Rowan or the CCA advocates provide draft language. Members also asked staff to consolidate previously compiled contact lists for recruitment and to return with recommended model ordinance language and outreach materials.
The discussion included brief comments about broader market uncertainty: members referenced PJM rate volatility and the Inflation Reduction Act’s administrative rollout as factors that affect near‑term price guarantees. The member said those wholesale and administrative uncertainties make precise rate forecasts difficult, and that the pilot would be used to test whether a CCA can secure lower retail rates for participants over a defined period.
The meeting produced no votes on the CCA topic; actions were limited to requests for draft materials and staff follow‑up.
