The City’s website HHOH.org, now has notice of Energy Aggregation being on the ballot on its front page. This will lead you to the “Just the Facts” page. Within that page you can find a Power Point Presentation on Energy Aggregation the Impact Group created to educate our residents on this issue. Toward the end of the PP presentation you can find the ballot language:
OFFICIAL QUESTIONS AND ISSUES BALLOT
PRIMARY ELECTION – MARCH 15, 2016
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
ELECTRIC AGGREGATION
CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS
A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage.
Shall the City of Huber Heights have the authority to aggregate the retail electric loads located in the City of Huber Heights, and for that purpose, enter into service 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.
YES
NO
Please review the rest of the PP presentation before reading the rest of this post. Update: Even better than the PP presentation is the presentation given by City Manager Rob Schommer at the Feb 8th council meeting. Please watch the video. The presentation starts at 16 minutes 40 seconds of the video.
Understanding the next section of this article depends on you having looked at the power point or watched the video I link to above. The section after that I address the question why would the city pay a third party when residents can already pick their own.
Of course I have some items to augment the official discussion.
The first item I would like to address only comes into play if you have been listening to the discussion from some of the proponents. They make a statement that you need to ignore. This statement goes like this “The only thing this vote does is give the city the ability to go out and negotiate. It doesn’t mean it will actually be implemented.” This is a poor argument because I believe it is said in the hopes that it can convince residents not to worry about what comes after the election. In fact, this ballot measure is the only time residents have the power to stop council from implementing the plan. There will be public hearings but council is not bound by public hearings like they are bound to a vote. This is actually quite important because a yes vote on aggregation never expires. This city council could commit to making sure terms that say anyone could opt out at anytime but will the council that negotiates the deal six years from now might not have that same outlook.
Now let’s look at the issue in the context of what was presented in the slide show.
The first slide I’d like to address is slide 6 of 16. If staff and council lived up to the commitments made during the public discussions prior to the passing of the ordinance, this slide contains the only issue that brings doubt to a yes vote. In this slide it tells us that the City will hire a firm to negotiate with the energy providing company in order to determine the rates and terms of the program. As it turns out the firm that does these negotiations doesn’t do it for free and they will have to be paid. Today the City is briefing that these fees could be paid for in one of two ways; 1. directly from the General Fund or 2. as part of an additional fee added to the bills of those people that take advantage of the program. (Please look at the comments below concerning the second option).
When the assistant city manager from Troy came down and briefed the deal they got, I computed that the negotiating fees only cost $4 per household that took advantage of the program. I also believe that most of the residents in Troy if they took advantage of the program would save $50 to $150 a year. Not only that but the verbal brief from this representative tells us that Troy negotiated a deal where there were no opt out fees ever. Meaning that if a resident failed to opt out initially, was in the program for a few months, then decided they wanted to go with another company then they could switch. Also, the rate they negotiated was very good and set for 3 full years. Evaluating (i.e. making a calculated “bet”) that we could do similarly to Troy, I’d be willing to take the chance and vote yes on this ballot measure.
Unfortunately, here comes the rest of the PP presentation to implant doubt. First of all, in the last paragraph of page 6 it states, “The consultant that is hired will require a fee for services rendered. This cost will either be paid by the City as a lump sum, or as a prorated fee for the homeowners at approximately $15 a year, or a little over $1 a month on their bill.” This contradicts my understanding of previous discussion in two ways. First a prorated fee for homeowners that shows up on their bill was specifically ruled out by council (it seems that this has changed, I'm researching what all was said in public meetings) and secondly I have no idea where $15 a year came from. On one hand spending $15 to save $150 might make sense and even spending $15 to save $50 puts us ahead. But because there it is possible that negotiations won’t lead to anything close to these savings, I would not be willing to spend that money up front. Also, playing into this decision is that we know what Troy paid for this service and it calculated to $4 a customer. Not sure why anyone would be good with paying 4 times that rate.
Moving on to the next slide and we see a bullet that says, “You may opt-out every three years without paying a switching fee”. The terms of the opt out are something that we as a City will negotiate. I am sure at the time of ordinance adoption the previous Council made it clear that “anytime” opt out is the only option that they would accept. I’m perplexed as to why there is a sentence in this brief that makes it appear that our residents will be stuck for 3 years if they don’t opt out during the initial opt out period. Update: after reviewing the video from the Feb 8th meeting at 31 minutes 20 seconds I'm even more perplexed because the City Manager specifically states that council made a commitment not to charge any cancellation fees if a resident cancels outside the official opt out period.
Generally, I’m in favor of this ballot measure, however, remembering my first point that a yes vote never ends makes the inconsistencies found in this PP presentation very troubling. If staff and our $48,000 a year marketing firm can't even put together a document that accurately talks about what council committed to just two months ago, why should we believe these commitments will still be in effect ten years from now. Staff needs to clean up the PP presentation to represent what council discussed and directed staff to brief and make it clear that they understand their direction so that they don’t waste our time and money after the election. Otherwise, I’ll be advising residents to vote no this time. That’s also a risky course of action because electricity prices are very low and if we delay we may lose the opportunity to lock them in before they rise to normal levels.
If you live in Huber Heights (and DP&L is the electric supplier) you can compared your current rate with other offers by looking at this website
Why would the city pay a third party when residents can already pick their own
There are two reasons: First, based on the comments by the Troy representative I believe it is possible for a city to negotiate a deal that is better than any other deal available at the time of negotiations. Second most people do not constantly monitor their rate and are paying much more than the best deal they could get today, therefore having an automatic enrollment would more than likely save those people a lot of money. Key for either of these two reasons to be compelling enough for people to vote yes would be the ability to opt out or cancel service without any cancellation fees.When thinking about the first reason there are a couple things to keep in mind. 1. The best rate that a person or city could get today doesn't mean that there won't be a different rate next month or even next week. This makes comparing what Troy negotiated more than a year ago with what is available today a (mostly) useless exercise. You need to compare what they negotiated with what a single person could have gotten by themselves on the same day the Troy rate went into effect. Now what happened since then is important and if rates are significantly lower today than the city rate then a resident isn't saving money. Troy program is advertised to be no opt out or cancellation fees ever. So in this situation a Troy resident that sees a lower long term rate can jump on it. Your present Huber Heights Council has committed to this same way to handle fees. What the 2020 City council might do, who knows? 2. Opinion: For a resident that is paying attention to their rates and always picks the lowest rates at the best time of the year to do it, then the savings that person will see probably isn't as high as the 10 or 20%. that is quoted by proponents of the system.
The second reason will offend anyone that does monitor their electric rates every month and actively selects plans. That's because this program should really help those that don't. For instance this month a person that has not chosen an electric supplier paid 7.2 cents a KWH. Suppose the city was able to get the lowest rate available on the Energy Choice website which is 5.25 cents. Being automatically enrolled at this price would mean that customer would save 27% on the electric delivery portion of their bill. Though it will seem hard for those that constantly monitor to understand, the majority of electric customers don't always keep track of their rates and a lot of them pay much more than the best rate.
Comments
Small print is one reason I may end up voting yes
Agreement:
2. Price. Starting with the first billing cycle of this Agreement through the last billing cycle of the initial Term, the price will be as stated above under the heading “Generation Service Charges." You are responsible for, and your price does not include, applicable state and local taxes and/or EDU charges, which will be billed by the EDU. During the term of this Agreement, you agree to pay AEP Energy a price for all applicable combined Transmission Services Generation Service and Generation-Related Charges as specified in “Generation Service Charges” listed above including any applicable taxes, if any. For the “Term” listed above, all kilowatt- hours (“kWh”) of electric energy metered by the EDU shall be billed at the rate per kWh specified above. In addition to AEP Energy’s charges, you will be charged by your EDU for Distribution Service and other EDU charges and fees. An average residential customer, using 750 kWh of electricity on a monthly basis, would incur approximately $35 to $40 per month in such EDU charges and fees. Also, AEP Energy will charge you for any and all fees, costs, and obligations for transmission or ancillary services imposed by a Regional Transmission Organization (“RTO”), such as PJM Interconnection, LLC, or an Independent System Operator (ISO), such as the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator (MISO) or any successor organizations (collectively, referred to as the RTO), that are not otherwise reimbursed to AEP Energy, regardless of whether such charges are greater than, less than, or equal to the charges you currently pay for these services (“RTO/Transmission and Ancillary Services Charges”). Note that if, due to a change in market conditions, we wish to lower the price per kilowatt hour charged to you under this Agreement, we may do so without your consent, provided there are no other changes to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. AEP Energy will pass through to you any RTO/Transmission and Ancillary Services Charges, which may be variable, related to AEP Energy’s providing electricity to you and any additional or increased fees or charges that are beyond AEP Energy’s reasonable control. These fees and charges could include, but not be limited to, fees for switching, disconnecting, reconnecting or maintaining electric service or equipment, changes to capacity related charges, transmission or transmission-related charges, or changes to retail electric customer access programs that are imposed or changed by any statute, rule, regulation, order or other law, or procedure, tariff, rate class or other process or charge, promulgated by any governmental authority or EDU or other regulated service provider. These fees and charges will be passed through to you and added to your price.
Payment of Negotiating Fees
"In every discussion leading up to the passing of the ordinance council made it clear that this cost would not be passed on to the specific residents that signed up for program. Instead this cost would be paid directly by the City through tax revenue. Although, I thought it would be better to split this fee and ask the specific residents that took part in the program to pay it, most council members were concerned that by doing this there would be criticism that the City was collecting extra fees and looking to make a profit. To avoid having to explain to voters why there was an extra fee, the decision was made to just pay the negotiating fees from the General Fund.
There are two reasons why this is a decision point for me as to whether to vote no or yes. First paying from the tax revenues means there will be less money in the General Fund to do things like build a skate park or pay the salaries of our employees (including police and fire but also city hall staff). Second even if the deal they negotiate stinks and no one signs up for it the City will still pay the negotiating fee. "
I removed this section because there were two choices mentioned in the December meeting. I reference how you can listen to this statement below. I also reference an instance after that makes it appear that council would be paying for the fees out of the general fund.
The January 19th work session had a very long discussion on the Energy Aggregation ballot measure. If you go to 1:48 minutes into the video you will hear the City Manager confirm this. After this meeting the Secretary of State rejected the ballot language that was suppose to ensure residents there wouldn't be extra fees added to their bill to cover these costs. That doesn't change the fact that council committed to pay the fees from tax revenues.
mms://agendaquick.hhoh.org/dcr2/WS011916.wmv
To show that I don't always register/hear everything that is said, you can go to the Dec 14th Council Meeting video and listen to the City Manager speak at 1 hour 41 minutes. At that time he does say there are two options with one of them applying the negotiating fees (administration costs) to those in the program.
mms://agendaquick.hhoh.org/dcr2/CC121415.wmv
Last edit: by Thomas McMasters
Council Member Richard Shaw's Thoughts
After reviewing the comments above and on several other threads, I issue this brief statement. I have to agree with Ed Lyons on several points listed above. In the time given, I believe the information gathered has been properly distributed throughout the city.
1. Energy Aggregation meetings will be held on February 17th at 10 AM and again at 6 PM at city hall.
2. Information regarding Issue 1 is on Twitter & Facebook
3. The City’s website contains information and a PowerPoint presentation for Issue 1.
4. Documents on Issue 1 can be found at City Hall and by contacting â€ceANY†councilmember.
5. This presentation including Q&A has been presented at 2 public council meetings and a Chamber of Commerce meeting.
6. Information mailers will be sent out to residents regarding Issue 1.
7. The Ward 2 and Ward 1 community meetings open to all residents have and will address Issue 1.
In my opinion, at the ballot on March 15 the decision is pretty simple:
Vote â€ceYesâ€: If you want your elected officials at city hall to engage in further discussions regarding the details of an Energy Aggregation plan.
Vote â€ceNoâ€: If you can find a deal on your own and you don’t want your elected officials shopping for a premium energy price.
** YOU THE VOTER HAVE A VOICE **
Facts: Energy Aggregation is legal. Energy Aggregation is on the ballot in a surrounding community also. Energy Aggregation has been successful in â€cemost†every community that has approved it.
I appreciate the discussion from my colleagues Glenn, Tyler and Janell. I welcome everyone to the Ward 1 Community Meeting on March 1st at Sweet Home Restaurant where this will be a topic.
Council Member Glenn Otto's thoughts
My understanding on Energy Aggregation in the City of Huber Heights
This seems to be the hottest talking issue in Huber Heights at the moment, and I believe that it should be with a public vote coming on the 15th of next month. After recently reading a lot of conversation on different social media posts, and talking about it at last night's Council session, I thought that I would share my thoughts and opinions on the subject.
First I would simply like to explain what your vote on March 15th means.
A yes vote will not establish a City program of energy aggregation, however a no vote will deny it. This vote simply gives or denies, the current and/or future members of your City Council, the permission to establish such a program. The actual details of the plan would be decided only after passage of the Issue.
Voting Yes on Issue One would mean that you would like the City Council of Huber Heights to have the ability to establish a program (on it's own, or through a third party), at any time in the future, to develop a program of Energy Aggregation, and negotiate the terms of the contract.
Voting No on Issue One would mean that you would not like the City Council of Huber Heights to have the ability to establish a program (on it's own, or through a third party), at any time in the future, to develop a program of Energy Aggregation, and negotiate the terms of the contract.
As to the terms that the City Council could include in any future contract, I cannot speak to what they will be, but there has been a lot of discussion on what could be in a potential contract, and what these things would mean to the citizens of Huber Heights.
How third party fees would be paid:
If the City uses a third party then there will likely be fees involved. There are generally two options on how those fees would be paid, either out of the City's general fund or directly by the residents who elect to use the service. If the fees are paid out of the City's funds, then all taxpayers are paying a small equal share whether they use the service or not. If the fees are split among only those who use the service, then the fees would more that likely be larger and placed directly on their bill. It is unknown at this time what those fees may be, but we have been told that Troy's fees to the negotiator of their program are $40,000 over three years (with the majority coming in the first year), and that the City of Troy pays for this fee directly out of their city's funds. It has also been mentioned that the fee, if placed on the purchasers bill, would be approximately $1 per month, or $15 per year. I believe that there should also be a mechanism to provide a â€cemaximum amount†to the third party, in order to maintain the best rate possible.
Opting Out:
If a program is established, then there would be an â€ceOpt Out†feature, and I believe that it would be important to insure that any resident of the city should have the option to opt out of the program at any time with no fee for doing so. However, the flip side of that coin is that there should only be certain times that those who opted out would be able to opt back in, if they choose to do so at a later date.
What if it passes, or fails:
Ultimately, if Issue One passes by a wide margin, then I believe that it will be the Council's responsibility to ensure that we create a program that is fully vetted to the public with the residents best interests in mind. If it passes by a slim margin, then I believe that we will have to take additional time to continue to poll the public on what is important to them, fully utilize the people in deciding what kind of program goes into place, and take our time to establish a plan that accounts for those in favor, and those against. If the issue fails, then there is no action but to move on to the continuance of doing what is best for the people of Huber Heights.
No matter what, The City should definitely continue to educate its people on different ways that they can save money, with or without the program, by using tools like the one provided on the State of Ohio's website found here: http://www.energychoice.ohio.gov/ .
I will finish by saying that I believe that anyone willing to research what you are currently paying per kilowatt hour (you can find this information on your bill), and price around by calling providers or researching them on the Ohio website, could possibly match or beat the price that is being used for The City's informational purposes (5.3 cents per kWh, as seen with Troy). The prices seem to fluctuate since my personal bill (directly through DP&L) showed 5.4 cents last month and 5.3 cents this month, The City's presentation shows a DP&L customer paying 9.4 cents, and last night Ms. Blankenship said she was paying 5.1 cents through her provider.
Ultimately, the choice is yours! Get to the polls on March 15th and place your vote whatever way you feel is best.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow his Facebook post
Last edit: by Thomas McMasters