STATE COLLEGE — The Intergovernmental Centre County Solar Group will not move forward with its planned solar power purchasing agreement project, pending approval of a termination agreement by the 10 participating entities.
Randy Brown, coordinator of the CCSG, said during a public meeting at the State College Area School District administration building that member organizations were being asked to consider a mutual termination agreement “in order to end their PPA agreement by the end of March.”
“The crux of the agreement is that although Prospect 14 can walk away by language allowed in the agreement, they are willing to terminate the agreement and reimburse us collectively $135,000 for our costs and efforts in this process,” Brown said.
Brown read a prepared statement saying the CCSG, “composed of 10 local government entities,” aimed to “acquire energy at reduced rates by holding their purchasing power through a 15-year power solar power purchase agreement.” The group “signed a contract with a developer in 2024” and the project “was to be completed by October 2026,” Brown said. But “due to changes to regulations and financial incentives, the developer was no longer able to move forward with the contract as agreed upon.”
Public comment included frustration over time and cost. Halfmoon Township Supervisor Ron Servello told the group, “This project has cost taxpayers their money,” and later said, “There has been warnings given in the past by a number of people including myself.”
Servello said legal agreements alone were “well over $400,000,” and added, “Here we are without anything to show for it.”
“I did not understand why taxpayers pay for a contract be written by a contractor to provide a service and a lot of money was spent to do that,” Servello said.
Former State College Borough Council member Josh Portney said the long timeline affected other sustainability efforts.
“Because we were in this deal for so long we were hamstrung pursuing because we didn’t know how much energy was going to come out of this,” Portney said. “As a taxpayer I’m concerned.”
“The county has a great array and some of the entities too have arrays on the side, but the borough doesn’t and there’s other entities here that don’t. And we could have. And I’m disappointed because we needed to and I think we’ve missed the boat,” Portney said. “I really hope that there’s some accountability here and I appreciate all of your work.”
Former State College School District board member Peter Buck, who said he helped initiate the project, argued the proposal had been designed to produce savings and meet climate goals, and said, “The one big beautiful bill killed this project.”
“And treasury rule changes killed this project. Executive orders related to the value of renewable energy certificates killed this project. It took the full power of the federal government attacking clean energy in the United States to kill this project,” Buck said. “This project was perfectly viable until the one big beautiful bill was passed. And that is a fact. There’s no way around that.”
Ferguson Township Vice Chair Omari Patterson also spoke during public comment. “I think we’re now at another point where I think there’s an opportunity to do something different,” Patterson said. “I don’t think this is the end of something. It’s the beginning of something different.”
Millheim Borough Council Vice President Robert Zeigler said at the meeting, “As much as we do want to blame Trump’s tariffs, it’s really supply issues that cause delays here and it’s also a lack of funding because for some reason Prospect 14 decided to go forward with the project without securing funding first, which is a baffling practice in my mind.”
“But regardless, you know, you guys could still do this on your own and still do the net worth gains forward if the borough, as per borough code, were to take the lead on this and coordinate with different partners to create different micro grids where they can hook up directly to these buildings and entities,” Zeigler said. “And then you would also save money from distribution costs and you would save a lot of money.”
Prospect 14’s representative Bredan Neagle said the company “worked very hard over the last many years to try to make this a reality,” but cited “actions at both the state and federal level over 2025 that brought this project to unavailable.”
“In 2025, tariffs material increased the cost of solar installations. But it was not just tariffs,” Neagle said. “In 2025, the federal government enacted the OBBA materially altering the financial framework for the projects. Projects used to be subject to a large investment tax credit and are no longer under the federal rule.”
He said Prospect 14 proposed the mutual termination with “the offer of $135,000 to help offset some of the costs.”
Brown said the $135,000 would be paid in three installments: the first “as soon as all 10 organizations accept,” the second by June 30, 2026, and the final by Aug. 31, 2026.
Consultant Gregg Shively told the group it would also need to address contracts tied to the project’s structure, including the relationship with NRG/Direct Energy, and said his recommendation was to keep certain electricity agreements in place if possible.
Brown said the goal was to receive the termination agreement in time for member organizations to begin considering it in public meetings starting Monday, March 2, with action by the end of March.
