Township tables request to back boroughs’ Community Choice Aggregation petition to PUC

Lower Gwynedd Township supervisors on July 23 heard a presentation on a regional petition asking the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to issue a declaratory order confirming boroughs’ authority to form Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) programs and to allow participating municipalities to procure electricity on behalf of residents and businesses.

Ria Monahan introduced Bill, a CCA advocate from Plymouth Township, who said the petition asks the PUC to confirm that borough authority in Pennsylvania code allows boroughs to aggregate electric procurement and offer a higher renewable energy percentage than the default utility mix. “This petition is really just asking the PUC to allow this under current borough authority which is already in Pennsylvania code,” Bill said, adding that the request is intended to remove uncertainty and allow several Ready for 100 municipalities to proceed.

Board members and staff pressed presenters on implementation and legal questions, including whether the CCA construct would be opt-out (automatic enrollment unless residents opt out) or opt-in, how an administrator would be selected, and what consumer protections would exist. Bill said an administrator would run the RFP and education campaign, and that the proposal includes a longer customer notice period (30 days) than current switching windows.

Several supervisors asked whether the petition’s relief would extend to second-class townships. Presenters acknowledged present authority is clear for boroughs but said they hope the PUC will interpret or open the path for broader municipal participation later. Board members expressed concern that second-class townships—like Lower Gwynedd—do not currently have the same statutory authority as boroughs and that the PUC may not have power to change municipal classifications.

Members also noted the petition’s public-comment deadline (August 5) and said they had received the petition and proposed support letter too late to complete a careful review. After discussion, a member moved to table the request so the board could study the petition’s 40-plus page filing and proposed letter language; the motion was seconded and carried.

The board did not send a letter of support at the July 23 meeting. The petition remains on the PUC public docket for comment through August 5, according to presenters.

Next steps: supervisors asked staff to provide more time for review and to return the item to a future meeting if the board chooses to submit comments or a support letter.