Connecticut hearing spotlights municipal electric aggregation as a local option for cheaper, cleaner supply

Supporters of municipal electric aggregation told the Connecticut General Assembly—s Energy & Technology Committee on Feb. 27 that the policy could give cities and towns a new tool for buying bulk electricity, developing local clean energy projects and stabilizing prices for residents and municipal accounts. Proponents urged lawmakers to permit joint power agencies so municipalities could pool purchasing power and build local programs.

Speakers including Peter Millman of People—s Action for Clean Energy and Cody Hoopin, who led the launch of San Diego Community Power, said a municipal model would let local governments become the default electricity supplier unless individual customers opt out, and that experience in other states shows competitive supply and new local investments have followed. Millman said the New Hampshire joint power agency model in particular produces reserve funds that can be reinvested in local clean-energy programs without taxpayer subsidies.

Consumer and utility witnesses pressed for protections and clarified options. Claire Coleman, director of the Office of Consumer Counsel, urged lawmakers to preserve Connecticut—s existing consumer protections that were adopted after abuses by some third-party retail suppliers. United Illuminating and Eversource recommended stronger regulatory oversight and clear deadlines for data exchange and system updates so utilities can integrate aggregation into procurement and billing. Eversource warned 15-minute interval settlement and other system changes would require significant metering and billing upgrades.

Committee members asked whether aggregation would raise costs for customers who remain on standard service; witnesses disagreed about scale effects but said properly timed procurement and regulatory coordination are important. Supporters said Massachusetts and New Hampshire provide working models and urged enabling legislation that lets towns choose from multiple administration models: simple broker procurement, municipal-run programs or a nonprofit joint power agency.

The testimony left lawmakers with competing priorities: expanding local choice and clean-energy tools versus protecting ratepayers and ensuring the state—s standard-service procurement remains competitive. Several witnesses recommended additional statutory language to: (a) clarify consumer notification and opt-out rules; (b) allow municipalities to create joint power agencies; (c) require timely data sharing and producer procurement notices to distribution utilities; and (d) preserve PURA oversight and consumer protections already in Connecticut law.

Ending note: Supporters said municipal aggregation would add a new option, not replace existing supply choices; opponents and some consumer advocates said the state must move cautiously and design safeguards to avoid harm to low-income and fixed-income residents.