Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Summit County staff outline fixed-rate energy purchase for about 5,000 customers; no termination fee
Summary
County staff described an energy aggregation purchase that would lock a fixed rate for roughly 5,000 customers, noted no termination fee, and said the current supplier had been bought by another company. Specific rate units and some details were not specified in the transcript.
County staff reported that Summit County is arranging a large, fixed-rate electricity purchase that would cover about 5,000 customers and carry no fee to terminate participation once the program is set.
A staff member said the program would set a fixed price for participants and that “there’s no fee to terminate.” The staff member added, “Once it’s set, it's a fixed rate. This is such a large purchase. There's 5,000 customers here.”
Staff described three types of customers currently enrolled in the program and said some municipalities that previously participated as townships are continuing participation now that they are cities. The staff member also said the current supplier had a prior contract with Energy Harbor and that the supplier was purchased last year.
The staff noted pricing indicators in the meeting record: “It's about 9¢ for a dual hour,” and separately, “we should get a price about $10.” The transcript did not specify the units or the exact product those figures refer to (for example, 9 cents per kilowatt-hour or another metric) and did not document a formal vote or final contract terms.
Questions from board members and staff touched on the program's capacity rate and the possibility for customers to switch to a different supplier and pay a higher rate if they choose. A staff member said customers can switch and “go back and pay a higher rate.” The staff also described three customer categories in the present program but did not specify those categories in full detail on the record.
No formal motion or vote on contracting terms was recorded in the provided transcript excerpts. The county did not provide a complete contract text or final rate schedule in the available discussion; several numeric items were mentioned without unit or contractual context.
Looking ahead, staff said market conditions were affecting short-term pricing and that the county would obtain a final price. The transcript did not specify a timeline for a final contract, nor did it show a completed execution of an agreement during the recorded excerpts.
