Leominster committee hears case for municipal aggregation; legal affairs recommends leave to withdraw

Leominster City Council subcommittees on March 5 heard from petitioners and Marlborough City Council President Mike Ossing on a petition asking the mayor to research and pursue municipal aggregation, a bulk purchasing program that lets a municipality competitively procure electricity for residents and businesses.

Ossing described municipal aggregation as a voluntary program that the municipality can design — choosing contract length, renewable content and optional tiers — while residents may opt out after receiving notice. He said Marlborough has run a program for more than 20 years, which he said produced long‑term savings and greater rate predictability compared with National Grid’s six‑month “basic service” price swings. "You competitively bid it," Ossing said. "Customer participation is voluntary." He recommended consulting brokers such as Colonial Power, Good Energy and Mass Power Choice and described an outreach and DPU/DOER review process the council would follow.

Petitioners Councilor Brandon Robbins and Councilor Susan Shalifo Zephyr framed the item as a tool to help residents manage rising costs. Robbins said the packet provided to councilors included municipal best practices and examples of neighboring cities’ outcomes.

Councilors pressed on practical details: how automatic enrollment works, the mechanics of opting out, protections for residents with third‑party supplier contracts, language access and whether longer contract terms yield lower rates. Ossing said municipal programs typically mail a postcard at enrollment and provide online or phone opt‑out options; he also cautioned about some third‑party suppliers that may charge to exit contracts and cited pending state legislation aimed at reducing predatory sales practices.

Ossing shared model figures: using an industry standard household consumption of 600 kWh, his example showed a modeled household saving of about $16 over a six‑month period under the current contract compared with the basic service rate; he also cited aggregate savings in Marlborough presented to the committee (described in the presentation as roughly $37 million over 20 years). He stressed that those totals translate into modest per‑household amounts when averaged.

Council members were split about whether to give the mayor authority now to execute contracts. Some members said the mayor already has procurement authority and that a municipal program could provide predictable supply and possible savings. Others said they would want the mayor to bring any negotiated contract back to the council for review before enrollment and expressed concern about automatically sweeping residents into a program without robust outreach, especially older residents and those with limited English proficiency.

After discussion the Legal Affairs committee voted a recommendation to give the petition leave to withdraw without prejudice, asking for additional outreach and mayoral input before the council takes further action. The committee’s recommendation is procedural and does not adopt a municipal aggregation program; councilors said they expect more informational sessions with brokers and additional data before considering a final vote.