Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Aggregation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cary trustees discuss renewing municipal aggregation; consider 10% renewable option or larger civic payment
Summary
Village officials discussed renewing the municipal aggregation program that supplies residential electricity, weighing a higher renewable-energy share against a larger civic contribution and multi‑year contracting to reduce resident mailings.
The Village of Cary’s Committee of the Whole discussed renewing its municipal aggregation program on June 17, exploring whether to increase the renewable-energy share to 10% or accept a larger civic contribution from the supplier, and whether to pursue a multi-year contract structure to reduce resident mailings.
Adam Hoover, a consultant who works on behalf of NIMAC, told trustees the village currently receives 100% renewable power through its supplier arrangement and that Cary’s contract saved the municipality an estimated $62,000 this year compared with an approximate ComEd price. “You guys have about 200,000 kilowatt hours that DynaG is creating on your behalf that is renewable energy,” Hoover said.
Hoover told the board the village’s current supplier arrangement with MC Squared (MC2) is price-matched to ComEd for residents — producing no guaranteed savings for households — while the village receives a civic contribution. “This year, the market is actually a little bit improved,” Hoover said, describing two principal choices: increase the program’s renewable percentage from 5% to 10% or accept a larger civic contribution (from $12,000 last term to $18,000 for a one-year offer). He also described a two‑year offer that would pay $36,000 total and said some communities use longer base contracts with annual opt-outs to reduce the number of bill‑mailings and notices to residents.
Trustees asked how the civic contribution is handled. One trustee asked whether the payment is restricted to a specific fund; the mayor replied, “It’ll go into the general fund, but we can decide what we’d like to do with that particular contribution.” Trustees also raised concerns about resident communications when the program is renewed: Hoover and staff described that state notice rules require letters to be mailed to affected customers and that renewing under certain structures can reduce the volume of notices to households not participating in the program.
Board members generally signaled comfort with continuing the municipal aggregation and with the multi-year/annual‑opt‑out approach as a way to limit notice confusion. Hoover said the village would retain flexibility: “You could exit the program. You could leave. It’s just a normal 2 year deal,” and he committed to returning next June with the same options if the board wants to renew.
No formal motion or vote on the aggregation program was recorded at the June 17 meeting; trustees provided direction and questions and asked staff and the consultant to return with formal recommendations and paperwork for a future meeting.
Background: Hoover said the village initially approved aggregation via referendum in about 2012 and has used periodic renewals and a recent price‑match approach. Under municipal aggregation, customers are still billed and served by ComEd; the alternative supplier appears only as a single line item on the ComEd bill.
What’s next: Staff and the consultant said they will present formal renewal options at a future meeting (Hoover indicated he would return in June 2026 with the same options). The board discussed using any civic contribution as part of the village’s general fund and earmarking it later during the annual budget and capital-improvement discussions.
