Community Choice Aggregation, abbreviated CCA, also known as Community Choice Energy (CCE), municipal aggregation, governmental aggregation, electricity aggregation, and community aggregation, is an alternative to the United States aggregate the power of individual customers within a regulated jurisdiction. The CCA chooses the power generation source on behalf of the consumers. By aggregating purchasing power, they are able to create large contracts with generators, something individual buyers may be unable to do. The main goals of the energy mix, mainly by offering “greener” generation portfolios than local utilities. Currently CCAS are possible in the United States of Massachusetts, Ohio, California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, and nearly 5% of Americans in over 1300 municipalities as of 2014.
CCAs are local, not-for-profit, public agencies that take the decision-making role of sources of energy for electricity generation. Once established, CCAs become the default service provider for the power mix delivered to customers. In a CCA service territory, the incumbent utility continues to own and maintain the transmission and distribution infrastructure, metering, and billing. In some states, CCAs may be considered de facto public utilities, rather than the traditional utility business model based on monopolizing energy supply.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and National Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a rare combination of national power and climate protection. are competitive with fossil fuel and nuclear-based utility power. Several major US population centers under the CCA have switched to energy portfolios that are of greater importance than other utilities or other direct access providers. CCAs are more likely to be successful in green power innovation, receiving US Environmental Protection Agency’s “green power leadership awards” for achievements in renewable energy (Clean Energy MCE, Oak Park, IL, Cincinnati, OH). Newer CCAs in California like Sonoma Clean Power and San Francisco’s CleanPowerSF are more likely to be more energy-efficient than grid power.
In the US, CCAs are permitted in eight states: Massachusetts, Ohio, California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, but are only present in the first seven. States must first pass legislation allowing for the formation of CCAs before an aggregate can form. Currently, only states with electric deregulation have passed such legislation. This is a natural progression as electricity deregulation separates the functions of electricity generation from transmission and distribution. This separation then allows for electricity generation. However, only 17 states and the District of Columbia have deregulated markets. The remaining 33 states are considered regulated,
In Massachusetts, where the nation’s first CCA bill (Senate 447, Montigny) was first drafted by Massachusetts senate energy committee director Paul Douglas Fenn in 1995 and enacted in 1997, the towns of Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard formed the Cape Light Compact and successfully lobbied for passage of the seminal CCA legislation. Two of the Cape Light Compact founders, Falmouth Selectman Matthew Patrick and Barnstable County Commissioner Rob O’Leary, were still elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives and Senate respectively. Between 1995 and 2000, Fenn formed the American Local Power Project and worked with Ohio, New Jersey, and other states. Former FERC Commissioner Nora Brownell has called on Community Choice Aggregations “the only great exceptions to the failure of electric deregulation in the US” with each CCA still being operated and charging rates less per kilowatt hour than their Investor-Owned-Utilities, CCAs have Proven to be able to deliver energy at competitive prices. The Office of the Consumer Council of the United States of America is the largest success story in the United States. In Massachusetts, the success of the Cape Light Compact has been developed in Marlborough, Massachusetts. “With each CCA still in operation and charging rates less per kilowatt hour than their Investor-Owned-Utilities, CCAs have been able to compete. The Office of the Consumer Council of the United States of America is the largest success story in the United States. In Massachusetts, the success of the Cape Light Compact has been developed in Marlborough, Massachusetts. “With each CCA still in operation and charging rates less per kilowatt hour than their Investor-Owned-Utilities, CCAs have been able to compete. The Office of the Consumer Council of the United States of America is the largest success story in the United States. In Massachusetts, the success of the Cape Light Compact has been developed in Marlborough, Massachusetts. The Office of the Consumer Council of the United States of America is the largest success story in the United States. In Massachusetts, the success of the Cape Light Compact has been developed in Marlborough, Massachusetts. The Office of the Consumer Council of the United States of America is the largest success story in the United States. In Massachusetts, the success of the Cape Light Compact has been developed in Marlborough, Massachusetts.
The nation’s first CCA, the Cape Light Compact, currently serving 200,000 customers, running aggressive and transparent energy efficiency programs and installing solar installations on Cape Cod schools, fire stations and libraries. Many other towns and cities have become CCAs or are working to complete the initial process.
In Ohio, the nation’s largest CCA was formed shortly after 1999 when the state legislature passed a CCA law – the Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council (NOPEC), made up of approximately 500,000 customers in 138 cities and towns across eight counties, procured a power supply power generation of a 70% air pollution reduction in the region’s power mix. The contract also included solar photovoltaic demonstration projects in each of the eight counties. NOPEC’s contracting process was led by Scott Ridley, an energy consultant who has worked with Fenn to develop Community Choice Aggregation in Massachusetts and has been a consultant for the Cape Light Compact.
In 2002, California State Legislature passed Bill 117, enabling CCA. The Bill allowed CCAs, and mandated that customers be automatically enrolled in their local CCA, with an option to opt out. The law also makes the clarification that, in California, CCAs are by law and are not regulated.  In the early days of the California energy crisis, Paul Fenn, the Massachusetts Senate Energy Committee, commissioned by CCA Legislation, formed Local Power Inc. and drafted new CCA legislation for California. In Oakland, Berkeley, Marin County, Local Power, the City and County of San Francisco and a group of Los Angeles municipalities in adopting resolutions asking for a state CCA law in response to the failure of California’s deregulated electricity market. Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) in 2001, and the bill became law (AB117) in September, 2002. CCA training in California was delayed by the political opposition by the state’s investor-owned utilities. In June 2010, Pacific Gas & Electric Proposed Proposal, Proposal 16, to make it more difficult for local entities to be elected by a two-thirds vote of the electorate rather than a single majority, for a public agency to enter the retail power business. Although PG & E contributed over $ 46 million in an effort to pass the initiative (Prop 16’s opponents, Led by Local Power Inc. and The Utility Reform Network, had access to less than $ 100,000), Proposition 16 was defeated. San Francisco adopted a CCA Ordinance drafted by Fenn (86-04, Tom Ammiano) in 2004, creating a CCA program to build 360 Megawatts (MW) of solar, green distributed generation, wind generation, and energy efficiency and demand response to San Francisco ratepayers using solar bonds. Specifically, the ordinance combined with the power of CCA, known to the H Bond Authority (San Francisco Charter Section 9.107.8, Ammiano), to allow the CCA to finance new green power infrastructure, worth approximately $ 1 Billion. In 2007 the City adopted a detailed CCA Plan also written primarily by Fenn (Ordinance 447-07, Ammiano and Mirkarimi), which established at 51% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2017 for San Francisco. Over the following decade, Sonoma and San Francisco worked with Fenn’s company, local power inc. Inspired by Climate Protection Efforts, CCA has spread to cities throughout the Bay Area and the state. In 2007, 40 California local governments were in the process of exploring CCA, virtually all of them seeking double, triple gold quadruple the green power levels (Renewable Portfolio Standard, or “RPS” of the state’s three Investor-Owned Utilities. , 2014, Assemblymember Steve Bradford (D-Gardena) introduced legislation (AB 2145), which would have a strong impact on CCA advocates business, and environmental organization rose up in opposition and defeated AB 2145. AB 2145 passed in the California Assembly and died in the Senate on August 30, 2014 when the Senate’s legislative session was over for a vote. Regulators hold a hearing in 2017.
Marin County launched California’s first CCA program, Marin Clean Energy, on May 7, 2010, offering 50% -100% renewable energy at competitive prices. Marin Clean Energy (MCE) now serves approximately 255,000 customers in Marin County, Napa County and the cities of Benicia, El Cerrito, Lafayette, San Pablo, Richmond, American Canyon, Calistoga, Lafayette, Napa, St. Helena, Walnut Creek, Yountville , Concord, Danville, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Pinole, Pittsburgh, and San Ramon. As California’s first CCA program, MCE is charting the race for a new, highly innovative approach to electricity service in the Bay Area. The organization’s mission is to reduce energy-related greenhouse gas emissions by expanding access to affordable, renewable energy and energy efficiency programs while creating local economic and workforce benefits.
The Sonoma County-based Climate Protection Center formally introduced the idea of pursuing CCA in Sonoma County in the 2008 Community Climate Action Plan. In 2011, the Sonoma County Water Agency funded the production of a feasibility study to study the issue. Sonoma Clean Power is a Sonoma Clean Power initiative, which is one of the most important sources of Sonoma Clean Power. utility PG & E. The County and all eight eligible cities in the county This includes Cloverdale, Cotati, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, and Windsor.
Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) launched on April 3, 2017 by providing 100% GHG to Silicon Valley communities, including Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill , Mountain View, Saratoga, Sunnyvale and Unincorporated County of Santa Clara. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/about-us
Lancaster Choice Energy (LCE) has opened its doors to municipal accounts in May 2015 with broad public enrollment beginning in October. So far the city of Lancaster, California has almost 70% of its peak load (147 Megawatts) with renewable sources of energy. Lancaster is one of the world’s leading companies, with several private-sector partners. The City has established new rules for building more efficient, sustainable structures. As of the end of its first full year of operations in 2016 Lancaster Choice Energy had 55,000 accounts in the City of Lancaster. LCE customers receive a minimum of 36% renewable energy through the standard Clear Choice product, with many opting up to 100% renewable Smart Choice. In addition, LCE’s first solar energy plant is now live. Built by sPower, the plant provides 10 MW of power in Lancaster directly for Lancaster residents and is enough to power approximately 1,800 homes. Peninsula Clean Energy Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) (https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/) was formed in February 2016 by unanimous votes of the County of San Mateo and all 20 incorporated cities and towns in the County. It began supplying power to customers in the fall of 2016 and is currently the largest community choice energy program in California. As of June 2017 it is offering its customers a baseline product and is at least 50% renewable and 75% greenhouse gas free) and at a lower cost than the incumbent utility, PG & E.
East Bay Community Energy, also abbreviated EBCE, ebce.org, was formed in October 2016 by Alameda County and the cities of Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Oakland, Piedmont, San Leandro, and Union City. East Bay Community Energy plans to begin providing electricity in June 2018 for commercial and municipal customers and November 2018 for residential customers. As of April 2018, EBCE plans to offer customers two energy services. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG & E) does not cost but it costs less. Their Brilliant 100 option is more energy efficient than PG & E electricity at the same price. A third service is planned to be launched in November 2018 and hopes to use 100 &
In 2016 the six existing Community Choice agencies: MCE Clean Energy, Sonoma Clean Power, Lancaster Choice Energy, CleanPowerSF, Peninsula Clean Energy, and Silicon Valley Clean Energy formed a 501 (c) (6) non-profit trade association, the California Community Choice Association, Cal-CCA. Cal-CCA held its first meeting in San Francisco on October 20, 2016. According to the Clean Power Exchange, a project of the Center for Climate Protection that tracks Community Choice expansion in California, by the close of 2016, 26 of the 58 counties in California or had operating CCAs, were on schedule to launch service, or were at some earlier stage of evaluation. Over 300 cities are similarly engaged in operational or emerging CCAs.
On May 16, 2017 San Jose City Council approved the creation of San Jose Clean Energy, making San Jose the largest city in California to be adopted by CCA.
Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) provides carbon-free electricity for Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counties, including all cities except Del Rey Oaks and King City which is not to participate. MBCP began serving customers in March 2018, with residential service beginning July 2018. MBCP matches PG & E rates and by default offers a 3% rebate on generation charges. https://www.mbcommunitypower.org/
Multiple cities across the state of California are considering the implementation of Community Choice aggregation programs in their districts, and many will begin to launch their programs in 2018. Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Placer County, and Alameda County. There are also other cities that are exploring and implementing CCA, this includes San Diego County, Fresno County, and San Luis Obispo County.
The state of Illinois adopted a CCA law in 2009, which the city of Chicago, which includes the city of Rahm Emanuel is focused on the program. power generation and increasing renewable energy. As of October 2013, 671 Illinois cities and towns (representing 80% of the state’s residential electricity market) have used CCA. By the end of 2013, 91 local governments in Illinois (accounting for 1.7 million state residents) used the state’s 2009 CCA law to purchase 100% renewable electricity for their communities.
New Jersey adopted CCA law in 2003, but did not see active training of aggregations until 2013, when Bergen County, Passaic County, and other counties began funding their projects. supply, or both.
2015 authorizing Sustainable Westchester to put out an RFP and award contracts for both electric and natural gas supply for residents and small businesses in municipalities in the county of the United States: “The Sustainable Westchester pilot is expected to provide valuable experience CCA design and outcomes that, in addition to the comments in this proceeding, will assist the Commission in making a determination on the state of implementation of CCA. ” The program launched in 2015, becoming the first operational CCA in New York State. Similar local CCA organizing efforts are underway in Ulster County, Sullivan County, Hudson Highlands, and other communities.
The Utility Restructuring Act of 1996 deregulated the utility market Rhode Island, allowing consumers to choose their electricity supplier and CCAs to form. While this act is for the creation of CCAs, there are currently no residential or small business CCAs available for private customers to join. The only CCA option is for municipal facilities. Rhode Island Energy Aggregation Program (REAP) The Reap program is operated by the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns and Provinces of Rhode Island 39 municipalities and four school districts. The Reap program shall be facilitated by the provision of electricity by the municipality by submitting requests for proposals, which shall be deemed to be the preferred provider for each municipality.
There are advantages and disadvantages associated with the implementation of Community Choice Aggregation across different localities. CCA provides benefits like providing a customer choice, reduced energy costs, renewable energy, and environmental benefits. By providing customer choice, customers have the ability to be enrolled in CCA or maintain their current utility provider. Customers are automatically enrolled in the program but they can choose to opt out of it. CCAs reduce energy costs, lowering rates for customers. This also increases the use of renewable energy, provided by wind, solar, and geothermal steam. This provides environmental benefits for the community because it reduces natural gas consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. There are also disadvantages associated with the implementation of CCAs. Potential issues associated with the implementation include political and financial obstacles. CCAs can face groups lobbying against its implementation, setbacks from IOUs, exit fees, and even disadvantages associated with the opt out choices. On the political level, local government can be opposed by groups and organizations. An example of this one when the Pacific and Electric Company proposed by CCA Proposal 16 in 2010, which would make it difficult for California to implement CCAs across the state. Another utility provider who took action was San Diego Gas & Electric. SDG & E created a separate entity, Sempra Energy, that would allow them to lobby CCAs in San Diego County. Other issues that can arise from the development of community choice aggregation include the development of exit fees, specifically in the state of California. This is an issue for CCAs in the United States of America because it allows you to invest in the power of indebtedness (PCA), making it more expensive for customers. to customers when they choose to stop using bundled services provided by their utility provider and start using a CCA program. The main issues revolving PCIA is the transparency of the program, accountability of the agencies, and proper valuation of costs associated with the exit fees. Exit fees are put on CCA users to compensate for the cost that would be on those left with IOU services. Costs such as the exit fees and rates can be a disadvantage. Rate setters and local officials can set the price of local government services and their local self-government. The choice to opt out may be a benefit for customer choice but it can also be a risk for CCA programs. Rate setters and local officials can set the price of local government services and their local self-government. The choice to opt out may be a benefit for customer choice but it can also be a risk for CCA programs. Rate setters and local officials can set the price of local government services and their local self-government. The choice to opt out may be a benefit for customer choice but it can also be a risk for CCA programs.