Community Choice Aggregation
| Company type | Non-profit public agency model |
|---|---|
| Industry | Energy procurement |
| Founded | 1997 |
| Headquarters | United States |
Area served | United States (Massachusetts, Ohio, California, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia) |
| Products | Electricity supply services, renewable energy procurement |
Community Choice Aggregation (CCA), sometimes referred to as Community Choice Energy or municipal aggregation, represents an alternative model to traditional investor-owned utility energy procurement in the United States. In this framework, local governments consolidate the purchasing power of customers within their jurisdiction to negotiate alternative energy supply agreements. CCAs make decisions regarding power generation sources on behalf of consumers. By leveraging collective buying strength, these entities secure large-scale contracts with energy producers, which can lead to cost reductions or the provision of cleaner energy options compared to conventional utilities. Currently, eight states have enacted legislation enabling CCAs: Massachusetts, Ohio, California, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia. As of 2024, CCAs collectively serve approximately 15% of the U.S. population across more than 1850 municipalities.
How CCAs operate within electricity distribution
CCAs function as local, non-profit public agencies responsible for sourcing electricity generation on behalf of their communities. Once a CCA is established, it acts as the default provider for the electricity supply portfolio delivered to customers within its service area. The existing utility company continues to own and maintain the transmission and distribution networks, including metering and billing services. Governance is typically vested in a board formed by the initiating municipality, often consisting of elected officials who oversee procurement decisions, rate setting, and the administration of local energy initiatives.
Importance of renewable energy
CCAs have achieved national prominence for their leadership in delivering green power and advancing climate goals while simultaneously lowering electricity costs. They have been acknowledged by organizations such as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the EPA for maintaining renewable energy portfolios that significantly surpass those of incumbent utilities at competitive prices. Major metropolitan areas served by CCAs have adopted energy mixes that are considerably cleaner than those offered by local utilities or direct access providers, often without additional charges. Recognized for their innovation in green power, several CCAs have received EPA’s "green power leadership awards," examples include MCE Clean Energy, Oak Park in Illinois, and Cincinnati in Ohio. By 2019, Sonoma Clean Power delivered 91% carbon-free electricity and enrolled around 2,000 customers in its premium EverGreen Service, which provides 100% renewable energy sourced from regional solar and geothermal facilities. The agency also has plans to develop and operate six solar installations near Petaluma.
Across the nation, only about 13% of CCAs provide dedicated "green power" products; the majority prioritize reducing customers' electricity expenses. California’s CCAs lead in renewable electricity offerings due to state mandates but frequently surpass these requirements voluntarily. Between 2011 and 2018, California-based CCAs procured 24 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity eligible under Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), with 11 TWh exceeding compliance thresholds. Of the 72 U.S. cities and counties powered entirely by clean energy, 64 are served by California CCAs. In New York State, approximately half of active CCA sales consist of green energy products. Other states such as Illinois, Massachusetts, and Ohio also have CCAs providing renewable options; however, most do not automatically offer voluntary renewable energy products.
Legislative foundation for CCAs
In the United States, Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs) are legally permitted in nine states: Massachusetts, Ohio, California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, and New Hampshire. For CCAs to be established, state legislation must first authorize their formation. To date, only states with deregulated electricity markets—where the generation of power is separated from transmission and distribution—have enacted laws enabling CCAs. This deregulated environment allows CCAs to procure electricity generation services on behalf of consumers without owning the transmission infrastructure. However, deregulation exists in just 17 states plus the District of Columbia; the other 33 states continue to operate under regulated utility frameworks where a single entity controls generation, transmission, and distribution.
| Legal Authorization for Community Choice Aggregation | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| State | Year | Authorizing Legislation | Authorizing Legislation Name |
| Massachusetts | 1997 | M.G.L. ch.93A §1 | Utility Restructuring Act of 1997 |
| Ohio | 2001 | Local Ballot Measure | N/A |
| California | 2002 | Assembly Bill 117 | Electrical Restructuring: Aggregation |
| Illinois | 2002 (residential) | 220 ILCS 5/Art. XVI | Electric Service Customer Choice and Rate Relief Law of 1997 |
| New Jersey | 2003 | Assembly Bill 2165 | Government Energy Aggregation Act of 2003 |
| New York | 2016 | PSC Case 14-M-0224 | Order Authorizing Framework for Community Choice Aggregation Opt-Out Program |
| Rhode Island | 1996 | RIPUC No. 8124 | Utility Restructuring Act of 1996 |
| New Hampshire | 2019 | NH RSA 53-E | Aggregation of Electric Customers By Municipalities and Counties |
Early development
Massachusetts pioneered the CCA model with legislation first drafted in 1995 by Senate energy committee director Paul Douglas Fenn and enacted two years later in 1997. The regions of Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard created the Cape Light Compact and played a crucial role in advocating for the initial CCA legal framework. Founders Matthew Patrick (then a Falmouth Selectman) and Barnstable County Commissioner Rob O'Leary subsequently served in the Massachusetts legislature. Between 1995 and 2000, Fenn launched the American Local Power Project and worked alongside Patrick to draft and promote similar CCA statutes in Ohio, New Jersey, and additional states.
Massachusetts
The Cape Light Compact holds the distinction as the first operational CCA in the country, providing services to roughly 200,000 customers while implementing robust and transparent energy efficiency initiatives alongside solar projects on public buildings throughout Cape Cod.
By March 2019, nearly 150 municipalities in Massachusetts—including major cities such as Boston and Worcester—had adopted community choice aggregation programs.
Ohio
Established following state legislation in 2000, Ohio’s largest CCA—the Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council (NOPEC)—serves around 500,000 customers spanning 112 municipalities across eight counties. NOPEC transitioned its energy portfolio from coal and nuclear sources primarily to natural gas complemented by renewable energy, resulting in a 70% reduction in air pollution associated with its power supply. Unlike California’s CCAs, NOPEC offers both electric service (510,000 customers) and natural gas service (400,000 customers). The organization has since expanded to include 228 communities within 14 counties.
In 2020, Columbus approved a city-wide electricity aggregation program aiming to deliver 100% renewable energy by early 2023. To support this effort, vendor AEP Energy intends to develop new wind and solar projects within Ohio.
Overview
In 2002, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 117, which laid the groundwork for Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) within the state. This legislation classifies CCAs as local, non-profit electric service entities managed by elected officials, requiring automatic enrollment of customers while allowing them the option to opt out. Notably, CCAs are legally recognized not as utilities but as non-profit electric service providers.
Subsequent to AB 117, the California Public Utilities Commission undertook rulemaking between 2003 and 2005, resulting in regulatory decisions that established a formal framework for CCAs and authorized local governments to initiate their own CCAs by the end of 2005.
Paul Fenn, who was instrumental in drafting the initial CCA legislation, founded Local Power Inc. and advocated for CCA implementation in response to California’s energy crisis. The bill, sponsored by Assembly Member Carole Migden, became law in 2002 following efforts involving San Francisco and several other municipalities.
The early stages of CCA development encountered resistance from investor-owned utilities (IOUs). In 2010, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) invested over $46 million to support Proposition 16, which sought to impose a two-thirds voter approval requirement for establishing CCAs or municipal utilities. A grassroots coalition opposing this measure spent less than $100,000 and ultimately succeeded in defeating it.
San Francisco was a trailblazer in CCA adoption with an ordinance crafted by Fenn in 2004 aimed at developing 360 MW of solar, wind, and energy efficiency projects financed through solar bonds and the H Bond Authority—facilitating nearly $1 billion in investments for green infrastructure. A plan adopted in 2007 set a target of achieving a 51% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2017. Sonoma County and San Francisco partnered with Local Power Inc. to promote energy localization strategies centered on renewable resources and efficiency improvements.
Since then, CCA programs have expanded statewide; by November 2020, 23 CCAs were serving more than 10 million customers across over 180 cities and counties, many with goals to substantially surpass the renewable energy percentages of California’s investor-owned utilities.
In 2014, Assemblymember Steve Bradford proposed AB 2145 to limit customer enrollment in CCAs. However, strong opposition from local governments, businesses, and environmental advocates led to its rejection in the Senate, thereby maintaining opportunities for CCA expansion.
New renewable development
California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires electricity providers to incorporate minimum levels of renewable energy into their supply portfolios. All Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs) operating within California meet or exceed these mandated thresholds.
Governed by locally elected officials, CCAs adhere to both state and federal regulations. They coordinate with regulatory bodies including the California Public Utilities Commission, California Air Resources Board, California Energy Commission, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Since launching the first CCA in 2010, the sector has experienced rapid growth. By January 2020, there were 21 active CCAs serving over 10 million Californians. Collectively, these entities have facilitated more than 3,000 megawatts of new renewable energy capacity encompassing solar, wind, and bioenergy projects. CCAs have become the leading purchasers of renewable portfolio-eligible resources throughout the state.
In 2018 specifically, six out of nineteen California CCAs held Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for newly developed renewable projects. These agreements accounted for roughly 10% of CCA electricity demand and approximately 1.6% of California’s overall electricity consumption, based on an assumed average capacity factor of 30% across various renewable technologies.
Power Charge Indifference Adjustment
One of the primary difficulties faced by California's Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs) involves the establishment of exit fees, referred to as the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA). This charge enables Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) to raise rates when customers transition from bundled utility services to CCAs. Usually applied per kilowatt-hour for a duration of five years, this fee appears as a distinct line item on bills issued to CCA customers. Calculating an equitable exit fee has proven challenging, resulting in significant volatility; for instance, Pacific Gas & Electric's (PG&E) exit fees decreased by 62% between 2012 and 2013, then escalated by 211% from 2013 through 2016, followed by additional hikes mandated in 2018. Central concerns revolve around transparency, responsible oversight, and precise cost assessment to ensure that remaining IOU customers are not unfairly burdened.
The instability of the PCIA arises from ongoing regulatory discussions about what defines a "fair" charge for both IOU and CCA customers. This volatility can place CCAs at a disadvantage by increasing customer expenses. Moreover, local authorities responsible for setting CCA rates may lack sufficient expertise or face potential conflicts of interest, which could negatively influence pricing strategies.
In October 2018, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) resolved to uphold and raise PCIA fees to prevent IOU customers from shouldering excessive costs due to customer migration toward CCAs. This ruling resulted in rate increases of 1.68% for PG&E customers leaving for CCAs, 2.5% for Southern California Edison defectors, and 5.25% for those exiting San Diego Gas & Electric.
Although offering customers opt-out choices encourages autonomy, elevated opt-out levels present financial challenges for CCAs by threatening revenue consistency.
Procuring power and the role of energy marketers
Certain Community Choice Aggregators engage external consultants with expertise in energy markets to manage power procurement and scheduling. This approach is particularly common among newer CCAs that are still developing their workforce and lack credit ratings, which restrict their capacity to finance generation facilities. Conversely, several CCAs—including Central Coast Community Energy, CleanPowerSF, MCE, Peninsula Clean Energy, and Silicon Valley Clean Energy—have achieved investment-grade credit ratings from Fitch, Moody’s, and Standard & Poor’s, with others actively seeking similar recognition.
A notable benefit for CCAs lies in their emphasis on fostering local employment and supporting regional energy sources. Nonetheless, due to requirements to deliver competitively priced power, many California CCAs have entered contracts with large multinational companies often reliant on fossil fuels such as Shell, Calpine Energy, Direct Energy, and Constellation (a subsidiary of Exelon).
Energy resource stability and Provider of Last Resort
By 2017, California CCAs were subject to certain resource adequacy standards; however, incumbent utilities continue to serve as the Provider of Last Resort (POLR). As CCAs expand, questions have emerged regarding who would assume POLR responsibilities if a CCA were to fail. Some investor-owned utilities have indicated plans to withdraw from electricity procurement and sales altogether, raising doubts about the sustainability of this safety net. The willingness and capability of CCAs to undertake POLR obligations vary widely.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) released the "Green Book," which calls for integrated energy planning aimed at achieving renewable energy targets while avoiding problems experienced during earlier deregulation efforts. It identifies three major challenges threatening California’s core energy objectives—reliability, affordability, and deep decarbonization: increasing fragmentation caused by the proliferation of CCAs (growing from nine in 2017 to twenty-one currently, potentially providing up to 85% of electricity by the mid-2020s), uncoordinated procurement practices undermining system reliability, and risks associated with potential provider failures leading to power outages. Some critics contend that the Green Book’s cautions lack sufficient evidence.
Risks Associated with Power System Fragmentation
The fragmentation of California's power system heightens the likelihood that the state may fall short of its clean energy objectives. Currently, 40 load serving entities operate within California, including 19 Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs), which have disrupted the traditional responsibility held by the three major regulated utilities for maintaining grid reliability. Numerous CCAs lack comprehensive resource planning necessary to uphold system stability amid the transition to decarbonization.
As the state's energy landscape becomes more fragmented, regulatory bodies have raised alarms regarding resource adequacy and the practicality of reaching a fully clean energy portfolio by 2045. A report from a California administrative law judge pointed out that while most new energy resources are expected to be procured by CCAs, many prioritize their voluntary initiatives over the state’s Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) framework, complicating efforts for coordinated resource acquisition.
This challenge has spurred legislative initiatives, including California Assembly Bill 56, which proposes granting the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) authority to appoint a state agency to act as a procurement backstop, ensuring compliance with climate, clean energy, and reliability mandates.
Customer Choice in California
California’s CCAs generally provide customers with several energy program options: a default plan that reflects incumbent utilities’ energy mixes, a solar-focused program, and a premium 100% renewable offering supported by unbundled Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). These RECs mean that customers cannot directly associate their electricity consumption with specific renewable generation sources. In 2018, renewable content among these programs varied between 37% and 100%, averaging about 52% statewide. Additionally, CCAs often offer incentives such as solar rebates, net metering benefits, and electric vehicle subsidies targeted at income-qualified households.
Certain CCA programs have achieved Green-e certification standards. For example, Marin Clean Energy provides "Light Green," "Deep Green," and "Local Sol" options; however, only Deep Green and Local Sol have earned certification from Green-e—a nonprofit organization that verifies the credibility of renewable energy programs.
CCA Pricing and Consumer Protections
The pricing of CCA services relative to incumbent utilities depends on factors such as the size of the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA or exit fee), fluctuations in utility rates, and customers’ selections of renewable energy tiers. CCA websites frequently include rate comparisons with local utilities. For instance, in 2019 Clean Power Alliance offered rates approximately 1-2% lower than Southern California Edison for a 36% renewable package but charged between 7-9% more for a 100% renewable option based on unbundled RECs.
Unlike investor-owned utilities (IOUs), CCAs fall outside CPUC regulatory oversight concerning consumer protections; complaints are managed internally by CCA Boards. Moreover, CCAs do not disclose detailed cost allocations across customer categories, unlike IOUs regulated by the CPUC.
Marin Clean Energy offers ten different rate plans. Its E-1 Light Green option (50% renewable) is about 0.047% less expensive than PG&E’s comparable rate. Conversely, PG&E’s SolarChoice (100% renewable) is roughly 1.2% cheaper than MCE’s Deep Green (100% renewable) offering. Other MCE plans demonstrate similarly competitive pricing structures.
Employment and Labor Relations
In California, customers served by CCAs remain technically customers of investor-owned utilities (IOUs), as IOUs continue to provide transmission, distribution, meter reading, billing services, customer support, and infrastructure maintenance. Pacific Gas & Electric emphasizes that CCA customers still depend on PG&E’s physical infrastructure and operational services.
The majority of IOU workforce efforts concentrate on system maintenance, upgrades, and customer service functions; meanwhile, new employment opportunities have arisen in constructing and operating clean energy facilities commissioned by CCAs as well as staffing call centers.
CCAs contribute to unionized employment by entering into power purchase agreements with new renewable projects exceeding 3,600 megawatts capacity. These projects frequently employ union labor across various trades such as Carpenters, IBEW locals, Ironworkers, Laborers, Millwrights, Operating Engineers, Plumbers and Pipefitters, and Teamsters.
Unionized workers also staff many CCA call centers. For example, representatives at Energy Choice California’s call center became members of IBEW Local 1245 in 2018. ECC—a woman-owned enterprise managing call center operations for Calpine Energy Solutions (which provides data management and customer contact solutions for 17 out of 21 California CCAs)—is unionized.
Nevertheless, labor unions have criticized CCAs for insufficient local job creation and reliance on non-union labor through contracts with large multinational firms. The Western Labor and Management Public Affairs Committee (Western LAMPC) publicly reprimanded Marin Clean Energy for sourcing most of its power from out-of-state non-union companies such as Shell and expressed disapproval of Sonoma Clean Power’s agreements with Constellation Power due to lack of firm local labor commitments.
In San Diego, IBEW locals voiced apprehensions about potential union job reductions linked to the city’s establishment of a new CCA; they advocate for union wage standards and participation in construction projects. Conversely, electrical unions in Los Angeles support CCAs provided union jobs are preserved throughout development activities.
Marin Clean Energy
Marin County introduced California's inaugural Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) initiative, Marin Clean Energy (MCE), on May 7, 2010. MCE supplies energy that is 60% to 100% renewable at competitive and stable pricing, substantially cutting greenhouse gas emissions while reinvesting millions locally in energy projects. As a load-serving entity managing a peak demand of 1,000 MW, MCE serves over 480,000 accounts, encompassing more than one million residents and businesses across 34 member jurisdictions in Contra Costa, Napa, Marin, and Solano counties.
Sonoma Clean Power
Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) launched on May 1, 2014, following a feasibility study conducted by the Sonoma County Water Agency in 2011 and the advocacy of the Center for Climate Protection. SCP delivers cleaner, locally generated electricity at rates lower than PG&E. The program includes Sonoma County and all eight qualifying cities: Cloverdale, Cotati, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, and Windsor. In 2016, Mendocino County along with Fort Bragg, Willits, and Point Arena joined the SCP Joint Powers Authority after approval from the governing board.
Lancaster Choice Energy
Lancaster Choice Energy (LCE) started providing renewable electricity to municipal customers in May 2015 and expanded to general public enrollment by October of the same year. By April 2017, nearly 70% of Lancaster’s 147 MW peak demand was met with renewable sources. The city aspires to become the first net-zero municipality in the United States by producing more clean energy than it consumes through strategic partnerships and enhanced building efficiency standards. By late 2016, LCE served approximately 55,000 accounts and offered a standard Clear Choice plan with a minimum of 36% renewable content alongside an optional Smart Choice plan that is fully renewable. LCE’s initial solar facility, developed by sPower, generates 10 MW locally—sufficient to supply roughly 1,800 households.
CleanPowerSF
CleanPowerSF was established by the City and County of San Francisco in May 2016.
Peninsula Clean Energy
Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), created in February 2016 through unanimous approval from San Mateo County and its 20 cities, commenced operations in Fall 2016. It stands as California’s largest community choice energy program. By June 2017, PCE offered a base product containing at least 50% renewable energy and reducing greenhouse gases by 75%, all priced below PG&E’s rates. Additionally, PCE provided a fully renewable option that was considerably more affordable than PG&E’s equivalent offering.
Silicon Valley Clean Energy
Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) began delivering service on April 3, 2017. It supplies electricity free of greenhouse gas emissions to twelve communities in Silicon Valley: Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, and unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County.
Ava Community Energy (formerly East Bay Community Energy)
Ava Community Energy (Ava), previously known as East Bay Community Energy (EBCE), was founded in October 2016 by Alameda County along with the cities of Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Oakland, Piedmont, San Leandro, and Union City. Ava began providing electricity to commercial and municipal clients in June 2018 before extending service to residential customers by November that year. In 2021, Ava expanded its coverage to include Newark, Pleasanton, and Tracy.
Stockton and Lathrop voted to join Ava in 2022 and 2023 respectively; their service launches are scheduled for 2025.
Ava offers two distinct plans: Bright Choice delivers a cleaner energy mix than Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) at a lower cost; Renewable 100 provides entirely California-sourced wind and solar power at a rate slightly higher than PG&E’s comparable option.
Central Coast Community Energy (previously Monterey Bay Community Power)
Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) delivers renewable and carbon-neutral electricity to more than 400,000 customers across 33 municipalities in Monterey, San Benito, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara counties. Beginning commercial operations in March 2018 and extending service to residential customers by July 2018, 3CE reinvests in the local communities by providing reduced electric generation rates along with energy program incentives. It stands as the largest Community Choice Aggregator (CCA) by geographic coverage.
San Jose Clean Energy
On May 16, 2017, the San Jose City Council authorized the establishment of San Jose Clean Energy, making San Jose the largest city in California to implement a CCA.
Clean Power Alliance
Founded in 2017 and commencing service in February 2019, Clean Power Alliance supplies electricity to residents within 29 cities and unincorporated areas across Los Angeles and Ventura counties. Municipal utilities such as those in Los Angeles, Burbank, and Glendale maintain their own local energy providers.
Clean Power Alliance offers three distinct rate options based on renewable energy percentages: a 36% renewable plan priced at 1% less than Southern California Edison (SCE) rates; a 50% renewable plan matching SCE rates; and a fully renewable 100% plan available at a 9% premium. Rate decisions are overseen by a 31-member board representing each participating city and county.
San Diego Community Power
In 2019, San Diego’s city council approved the formation of a CCA intended to serve San Diego along with neighboring cities such as Chula Vista, La Mesa, Encinitas, and Imperial Beach. Anticipated to launch by 2021 as California’s second-largest CCA after Clean Power Alliance, the program aims to provide electricity rates roughly 5% below those of incumbent utility San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E). This initiative supports San Diego’s ambitious climate objective of reaching 100% renewable energy by 2035—ten years ahead of the statewide goal. A solar facility with a capacity of 150 MW paired with four hours of battery storage is planned for completion in 2023.
Concerns have been raised regarding municipal governments’ limited expertise in energy procurement and potential exposure to market fluctuations. Labor unions have criticized the plan as "labor weak," while environmental advocates call for excluding nuclear and fossil fuel sources from the energy portfolio.
California Community Choice Association
In 2016, six Community Choice agencies—CleanPowerSF, Lancaster Choice Energy, MCE, Peninsula Clean Energy, Silicon Valley Clean Energy, and Sonoma Clean Power—collaborated to create the nonprofit trade organization California Community Choice Association (CalCCA), which convened its first meeting in San Francisco in October of that year.
Emerging CCAs in California
A number of California municipalities are actively developing Community Choice aggregation initiatives, including San Diego and Butte County. Additional areas such as Fresno County and San Luis Obispo County are also investigating or implementing CCAs to broaden local energy alternatives.
Illinois
Illinois passed legislation authorizing CCAs in 2009, which by 2014 allowed more than two-thirds of the state’s residents, including those in Chicago, to participate in community electricity programs. Under the leadership of former mayor Rahm Emanuel, the initiative prioritized decreasing reliance on coal and expanding renewable energy sources.
By October 2013, 671 municipalities in Illinois, accounting for 80% of the residential electricity market, had implemented CCA programs. By the end of that year, 91 local governments representing 1.7 million residents had secured electricity supply composed entirely of renewable energy through this framework.
Savings generated by CCAs peaked in 2013, with consumers collectively saving over $250 million. However, once fixed-price agreements expired and market prices normalized, these savings declined. By mid-2016, 114 communities had either paused or terminated their CCA initiatives. Chicago’s initial enrollment of approximately 750,000 households largely returned to traditional utility service by 2015.
Early Illinois CCAs offered roughly 30% cost reductions compared to utility rates during a transitional period featuring a rate freeze. Total savings reached $258 million in 2013 but decreased as contracts adjusted to prevailing market prices. Over a two-year span, many CCAs experienced an additional $188 million in costs relative to default utility rates due to the structure of short-term contracts.
New Hampshire
In 2019, New Hampshire updated its enabling legislation for CCAs, with the Public Utilities Commission finalizing regulations toward the end of 2022. The Community Power Coalition of New Hampshire was established in 2023 with participation from a dozen municipalities. By late 2024, fifty-two communities had joined the program and another twenty were preparing to launch their initiatives.
New Jersey
Although New Jersey enacted CCA legislation in 2003, active aggregation efforts did not begin until 2013. That year marked the start of programs in Bergen County, Passaic County, and fifteen additional municipalities focused on reducing electricity costs and, in some cases, increasing renewable energy usage.
New York
The New York State Public Service Commission integrates CCA within its "Reforming the Energy Vision" (REV) strategy, which emphasizes localized energy planning and the utilization of distributed energy resources. CCA legislation was introduced in the State Assembly in February 2014. Subsequently, Governor Andrew Cuomo issued an order in December 2014 directing the PSC to implement CCA under its regulatory authority.
In December 2014, Sustainable Westchester petitioned the PSC to initiate a CCA pilot project in Westchester County. The PSC approved this demonstration program in February 2015, authorizing Sustainable Westchester to issue requests for proposals and award contracts for electric and natural gas supply on behalf of participating municipalities. This pilot served as a model for potential statewide CCA adoption.
Sustainable Westchester launched operations in 2015 as New York’s first active CCA. Comparable projects are progressing in Ulster County, Sullivan County, Hudson Highlands, and other areas.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island’s Utility Restructuring Act of 1996 deregulated its electricity market by allowing consumers to select their generation providers and permitting the establishment of CCAs. However, at present, residential and small business customers cannot participate; only municipal entities are eligible.
Rhode Island Energy Aggregation Program (REAP)
Managed by the Rhode Island League of Cities & Towns, REAP includes participation from 36 out of 39 municipalities as well as four school districts. It supports electricity procurement by issuing requests for proposals, evaluating bids from certified generators, and selecting suppliers tailored to each municipality’s needs. In 2012, REAP reported achieving cost reductions ranging from 20% to 30% compared to standard offers.
Advantages and disadvantages
Community Choice Aggregation presents several advantages, including enhanced customer autonomy, reduced energy expenses, greater integration of renewable energy sources, and positive environmental impacts. Participants are automatically enrolled but retain the option to withdraw, providing a degree of flexibility. CCAs typically achieve lower prices by procuring cost-effective wind, solar, and geothermal power, which decreases dependence on natural gas and contributes to lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
On the other hand, CCAs encounter political and financial obstacles such as resistance from investor-owned utilities (IOUs), exit charges, and the intricacies involved in opt-out mechanisms. For instance, Pacific Gas and Electric Company backed California Proposition 16 in 2010 with the intent to limit the growth of CCAs across the state. Likewise, San Diego Gas & Electric established a distinct organization dedicated to opposing CCAs within San Diego County.