Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Aggregation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears SOPEC presentation on electric aggregation; motion to delay action fails
Summary
At a public hearing, the Sustainable Ohio Public Energy Council (SOPEC) described its electric aggregation program for London. Council members questioned administrative fees, competitive options and renewable energy credits; a motion to table a decision failed and the council left SOPEC items for further readings.
London City Council held a public hearing on a proposed electric aggregation agreement with the Sustainable Ohio Public Energy Council (SOPEC) and heard a presentation from SOPEC officials about how a regional aggregation program would work.
Phil Lepla, deputy director and general counsel for SOPEC, told council that SOPEC is "a regional council of governments under chapter 167 of the Ohio revised code" and that the organization manages aggregation programs and other energy services for member communities. He said SOPEC represents 49 member communities, leverages bulk purchasing with AEP Energy and offers program administration, renewable energy certificates and optional services such as natural gas aggregation and grant writing.
Council members and residents pressed SOPEC and city staff on several points: how prices would be set and compared to other suppliers, the size of SOPEC’s administrative fee, the geographic source of renewable energy certificates (RECs), and the time needed to transition between programs. Phil Lepla said base power is purchased on the open market and that RECs used to provide a 100% renewable default historically come from wind projects in Oklahoma and Texas; he said the RECs are fixed when purchased and that the program offers opt‑out notices and a 21‑day statutory opt‑out window.
Finance committee members and several councilors questioned whether council had explored more than one provider; proponents on the dais said SOPEC’s status as a government entity and its lower admin fee were advantages. Mayor Pat Klauser and staff warned that the city’s existing aggregation contract will expire later in the year and that delaying selection too long could expose residents to market rates.
Council considered a motion to table the SOPEC legislation to October so staff could solicit additional options. The motion to table failed in roll call (two council members voted yes, three voted no, one abstained), and council agreed to leave SOPEC‑related ordinances and the plan of operation on the agenda for further readings rather than voting to finalize membership at this meeting.
Council members asked staff to provide clearer, comparable data about administration fees and any other charges and to return with information councillors requested about alternatives, timing and opt‑out mechanics before a final vote.
