You are here: Home News Enon Council Talks Electricity

Features

RSS Feed

Enon News
Enon Sports
Click for Enon, Ohio Forecast

Enon Council Talks Electricity PDF Print E-mail
Written by Amanda Crowe   
Tuesday, 23 February 2010 15:31

 After listening to the pros and cons of a governmental electricity aggregation program, members of the Village of Enon Council decided voters will not see the issue on the ballot this May.
On Feb. 16, Tim Suter, Manager External Affairs for FirstEnergy Solutions, attended a special meeting of council to explain the opt-out electricity aggregation program. The goal of the meeting was to discuss and vote on whether or not to pass an emergency ordinance authorizing all actions necessary to affect a governmental electricity aggregation program with opt-out provisions pursuant to section 4928.20 Ohio Revised Code, directing the Clark County Board of Elections to submit a ballot question to the electors and declaring an emergency.
The ordinance needed to be passed as an emergency ordinance in order to file a certified copy and the ballot question with the board of elections no later than Feb. 18 in order to be placed on the May 4 primary ballot.
“What aggregation is supposed to do is offer a little better discount for a guaranteed length of time,” said Suter. “In this economy, the electricity generators realized they can either shut plants down or go out and offer discounts. Long term planning in this industry is crucial.”
According to the ordinance, governmental aggregation provides an opportunity for residential and small business consumers to participate collectively in the potential benefits of electricity deregulation through lower electricity rates which would not otherwise be available to those electricity customers individually. The aggregation would occur automatically for each person owning, occupying, controlling or using an electric load center proposed to be aggregated and will provide for the opt-out rights.
At a previous council meeting resident Lee Earnest inquired about electricity rates and the aggregation program the Clark County Commissioners will present to voters.  The village also has the option of entering an agreement with the county and surrounding townships.
“If you go under the umbrella of the county commissioners, the village still has to pass their own ordinance on the ballot,” said Suter. “If you go with them, that will limit the incentives for the village. If you do it on your own, if there are any grants or first time signup rebates those will be awarded directly to the village instead of getting trickled down from the county.”
Suter presented council with a specific Opt-Out Aggregation Program Proposal from FirstEnergy Solutions (FES). This agreement would last for a nine-year term through May 2018.  FES would provide a one-time community grant payment to the village in 2010 that is equal to $30 per customer enrolled in the program estimated at $40,000. This program would utilize the “percent off pricing.” The price paid for electric supply would be lower than the generation charge from Ohio Edison.  In this case, the customers would receive a six percent savings. Each customer would be given the opportunity to opt-out of the program at least every three years without paying a switching fee.
Suter explained that whatever utility the village chooses would get a list of customers from Ohio Edison. There would be a screening process in which those with bad credit or other financial red flags will be weeded out. Those customers with level billing would lose that option with this program. A letter would be mailed to eligible customers who would then have 21 days to send that letter back in order to opt-out of the program.
“If they send the letter back, they are saying they don’t want anything to do with it,” said Suter. “If they take the aggregation rate and say Ohio Edison comes and offers nine percent savings, they would have 12 months to opt-out without paying any additional fees, kind of like a ‘get out of jail free card.’”
If council were to pass the ordinance, the issue would be posed as a question to voters on the ballot: “Shall the Village of Enon have the authority to aggregate the retail electric load located in the village, and for that purpose, enter into services agreements to facilitate for those loads the sale and purchase of electricity, such aggregation to occur automatically except where any person elects to opt out?”
“The residents say whether they want you to represent them or not on the ballot,” said Suter.  “You will have some voters who don’t want anyone to make decisions for them.”
Councilman Steve Trout did not see the harm in allowing residents to vote on the issue during the May primary.
“This wouldn’t prevent residents from going out and finding better rates,” he said.  “The bottom line is, it’s still up to the individual to shop for their own service or have this program.”
Many residents may not be aware that they currently have the choice to shop the market for better rates as individuals.  
“I know I have the choice, but if I would only save $4 per bill, I don’t like the idea of signing a contract,” said Councilwoman Denise D’Agostino.  “And with today’s financial limitations, level billing is key.”
Councilwoman Diana Ballard pointed out that right now FirstEnergy is the only company offering generation in this area.
“We are asking for public approval to go out and see what we can do to aggregate for them. We’re not committing to FirstEnergy or Ohio Edison. They would be approving the opportunity to see if we can go out and get a better deal,” said Trout.
“This proposal is good and solid, but there may be others out there that could offer something better for you,” Suter added.
If voters were to approve the aggregation program, council would then develop a plan of operation for the Aggregation Program after holding at least two public hearings where residents could voice their concerns. The program would go into effect 30-45 days after voter approval.  

“I personally am not in favor of an  opt-out program,” said Ballard. “I don’t think it’s right to force residents to do something because they don’t want to get out and vote or mail a letter within 21 days. If they don’t opt-out, they’re in. I would be in favor of an opt-in program then they won’t pay opt-out fees later.”
Councilman Steve Bowers reported that he has already had residents approach him with negative comments regarding this type of action.
“I have had people tell me whoever supports this, they won’t support them,” he said. “They feel it’s not fair for anyone up here to make the decision to take their freedom of choice away.”
“It would take a lot of work from the village to make sure the constituents understand they have to opt-out if we implement this,” added Councilman Rick Hanna.
D’Agostino expressed concerns for the elderly population not understanding the letter.  She would worry that many of them would be the ones who wouldn’t get the letters sent back in time.
“You’ve got to answer to your constituents, but in my personal opinion, you have a lot of flexibility with this program,” said Suter. “Someone who says ‘don’t butt into my life’ will send the letter back. If they don’t opt-out are they getting hurt? No, they’re saving money and they can still opt-out later.”
D’Agostino suggested that council should take steps to educate the public then consider placing the issue on the November ballot. Suter couldn’t guarantee that anything on the current FES proposal would be available after this voting cycle. Mayor Vernon commented that if the voters approve the aggregation program, council can still decide not to adopt it.
“Wouldn’t you think their voice would be at the voter box? By giving someone the option we did due diligence. We are asking are you in or out,” said Trout before making a motion to suspend the three-reading rule for this emergency ordinance.
There was no second to the motion so it failed.  Because the deadline for submission to the board of elections was Feb. 18, this issue will not be on the May 4 ballot.
“I don’t think we’re doing due diligence if we don’t educate people before putting it on the ballot,” added Bowers.
Comments (0)
Only registered users can write comments!