Committee advances opt‑out community choice aggregation bill after amendments and debate
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The committee reported LD 2112 'ought to pass as amended' by an 8–5 vote after discussion and amendments that would convert Maine’s community choice aggregation framework from opt‑in to opt‑out, require municipal approval processes, protect customers on assistance, and add a local referendum requirement and changes to data‑sharing provisions.
The House Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee considered LD 2112, which would authorize municipalities to form community choice aggregation (CCA) programs to procure electricity on behalf of residents and move the model from opt‑in to opt‑out enrollment.
Sponsor Jerry Ronte explained the bill would mirror many existing competitive energy provider procedures, set data‑sharing processes with utilities and leave certain determinations to the Public Utilities Commission for coordination with standard offer procurement. The proposal preserves customer protections: for customers receiving assistance, the bill requires unenrollment and placement in the standard offer if a CCA supply contract is more expensive than the standard offer.
Members engaged the sponsor on process and timing. Representative Sophie Warren and others sought clarity on whether the plan’s municipal approval would be via local referendum or a legislative/governing‑board vote; sponsor Ronte said his intent was that the plan would ultimately go to a town‑wide ballot, though the draft text currently requires a majority vote of the municipality’s legislative body or governing board. The committee discussed adding a referendum requirement and language tweaks to minimize impacts on default service and to use aggregated payment data by municipality in lieu of individual payment histories.
Representative Sacks summarized the package of changes to the March 4 amendment — aggregate payment data, referendum language, and revised default‑service protections — and members caucused briefly. On return, the committee resolved the reporting language and the clerk recorded the final position: the committee reported LD 2112 'ought to pass as amended' with eight in favor and five opposed; minority members signaled an 'ought not to pass' report.
The committee directed staff to work with the sponsor and interested parties to draft the referendum language and any additional clarifications before language review.