Cincinnati committee holds decision on SOPEC mercantile aggregation after public concerns and administration briefing

The Cincinnati Budget & Finance Committee paused consideration of an ordinance to join the Sustainable Ohio Public Energy Council (SOPEC) on the recommendation of council members and after a presentation from the city’s Office of Environment & Sustainability.

Director Kroner of the Office of Environment & Sustainability told the committee that SOPEC membership would not obligate the city to purchase power or change existing contracts. “Joining SOPEC in itself takes no real action,” he said, adding that the membership would simply allow the city to access a new, voluntary procurement option and potentially partner on regional renewable projects.

The presentation framed the measure as a tool to expand renewable procurement for large commercial and industrial users, not to alter the city’s residential aggregation program. Kroner said Cincinnati’s established residential aggregation — which serves roughly 75,000 households and uses an opt-out model — remains unchanged; the proposed mercantile program would be opt-in for customers that consume more than 700,000 kilowatt-hours per year.

Public commenters at the hearing delivered mixed responses. Kylie Johnson, chair of the city’s Environmental Advisory Board, recommended membership, saying SOPEC membership “requires no financial commitment or mandate and gives the city flexibility to pursue competitive electricity pricing when market conditions are favorable.”

Other speakers urged caution. Alan Rusnak, a resident, asked why the city would move toward a new supplier “when we are this close to an election” and warned the proposal could vests excessive authority in the city manager absent an RFP or sustainability-committee oversight. “This proposal would give the city manager exclusive authority to choose SOPEC as our energy supplier without any oversight,” Rusnak said.

A public commenter who identified himself as Stefan Perron called the aggregation program a “scam,” saying lobbyists and outside interests were pushing the idea. Kroner responded to concerns about conflicts and recent energy-sector scandals by saying those issues are separate from Cincinnati’s proposal but acknowledged confusion in the market and the presence of bad actors who can sell energy at noncompetitive prices.

Council members pressed administration staff on timing, procurement procedures and how SOPEC membership would interact with existing contracts. Staff said the city’s current residential supply contract with Dynegy extends through 2030 and would not be affected by SOPEC membership. The administration also told the committee it is tracking a recent federal change to tax-credit rules that has compressed incentive timelines and created urgency for projects seeking federal tax benefits.

Council members asked how SOPEC membership would relate to the city’s Center Hill landfill solar project. Kroner said the Center Hill project — planned as roughly 65 acres and about 10 megawatts, enough to power about 1,200 homes — is pursued independently but that membership could help enable similar projects elsewhere by creating additional buyers and accelerating off-take agreements needed to qualify certain developments for federal tax credits.

After extended questioning and requests for clarity about legal obligations, public outreach and potential impacts on residents and businesses, the chair said he would hold the ordinance to allow the administration to provide a legal opinion and to circulate council members’ questions publicly. Vice Chair Johnson and other members supported the hold to ensure citizens receive robust information about any change to aggregation options.

The committee held item number 1 by unanimous consent and asked administration and the city solicitor to provide additional details before the committee takes further action. The committee then closed the public hearing and continued with the balance of the agenda, including multiple grant and appropriation ordinances called for passage or introduction.

The committee did not take a roll-call vote on the SOPEC ordinance during this session; next steps are staff follow-up, a legal review requested by council, and further committee deliberations.