Back
A number of Connecticut cities and towns want to secure more clean electricity for residents using a program that has already saved millions of dollars for consumers in other states.
Community choice aggregation allows cities and towns — or, in some cases, multiple municipalities working together — to negotiate with electricity suppliers on behalf of their residents. The goal is to achieve lower rates than those offered by utilities, often with a higher percentage of renewable energy in the mix.
“Municipalities can play a bigger role in using less electricity, using it more efficiently, and reducing the cost,” said Peter Millman, vice president of People’s Action for Clean Energy, a Connecticut nonprofit that supports community choice aggregation. “I hate to see an opportunity wasted.”
Nationally, community choice aggregation, also known as municipal aggregation, is authorized by ten states, including Northeast neighbors Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. Connecticut could become the eleventh: The state legislature is now considering a bill, HB 6928, that would allow municipalities to create these programs. The measure has wide support from environmental groups and municipal leaders.
Data suggest there are opportunities for meaningful savings. In Massachusetts, 225 of the state’s 351 cities and towns had approved municipal aggregation programs as of July 2024, and many include a higher percentage of renewable energy than required by law. In one group of communities, households realized an average of $200 to $237 in annual savings while receiving electricity with 5% to 11% more renewable power content than state requirements, according to an analysis from the Green Energy Consumers Alliance, a nonprofit that helps municipalities create aggregation programs.
“History shows that when a community aggregates consumers for the supplier side, good things happen,” said Larry Chretien, executive director of the organization. “It’s a fallacy that you can’t have greener power without paying more.”
Connecticut’s version of aggregation could be particularly ambitious, following a model used in California and New Hampshire. This approach allows cities and towns to choose between a basic aggregation program, in which a hired energy broker negotiates for electricity on behalf of residents, and a system in which multiple municipalities band together to form a larger aggregator that could handle the process of procuring power itself.
The multi-community approach allows these aggregation groups to retain the revenues that would have gone to an outside broker and use these reserve funds to develop and manage their own programs aimed at producing renewable energy, supporting energy efficiency, or reducing demand. In its first year, New Hampshire’s aggregation program saved ratepayers in participating communities about $14 million and created revenue of $10 million for reinvestment.
In California, this strategy has helped fund dozens of programs including battery rebates, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and discounts on solar power for low-income households.
Some skeptics of community choice aggregation have raised concerns about Connecticut’s proposed model, which would make a city or town’s negotiated rate the default for residents but allow them to opt out if they’d rather stick with utility service or an alternate supplier. Consumers, they say, should not be placed in a new program without choosing to make the move.
Supporters, however, argue that the successes in states where municipal aggregation has already been deployed demonstrate the model works with little risk to consumers.
“The opt-in model simply doesn’t work,” Millman said at a legislative committee hearing last week. “If these aggregations were not meeting or beating utility rates most of the time, there would be lots and lots of defections — and there are not.”
.svg)
