PA Working Group, EAC requested a letter of support for a borough-based petition
The Lower Gwynedd Township Board of Supervisors heard a presentation in their last meeting from those representing the Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) for PA Working Group. The group had asked the board, via email prior to the presentation, for support regarding a petition initiated by several boroughs throughout the state.
Carlisle, Hatboro, Lansdowne, Media, Narberth, State College, and Swarthmore are among the municipalities that have asked that the state consider implementation of a CCA program in Pennsylvania. Township Manager Mimi Gleason prepared the supervisors by writing a memo explaining the program and its features.
“A letter of support implies that Lower Gwynedd Township would consider implementing CCA if or when it is authorized for second-class townships,” Gleason wrote. The legal proceeding is currently before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), on whether or not to allow such programs in the Commonwealth.
Gleason noted that the board should be clear on the entire petition prior to supporting or not, and thusly asked questions prior to the July 23 meeting of the supervisors to gain clarity on what was being asked.
“The board’s endorsement would indicate support for the petition for a declaratory order, not just CCA,” said Gleason. Up until the July meeting, the supervisors had not had time to learn about or discuss a CCA program.
In short, the supporting parties responsible for the petition said that the ask for support would be to seek local authority to include CCA in Lower Gwynedd Township’s future. The program allows the township to “procure renewable energy for all eligible residents in the community to protect their residents and environment by decreasing the pollution from the electric utility default supply.”
Should the CCA program be permitted in the state, the township would purchase the power source on behalf of township residents and businesses. The power would then still receive transmission and distribution through its existing utility company.
“CCA’s are an attractive option for communities that want more control over their electricity sources, more green power than is offered by the default utility, and/or lower electricity prices,” said the documentation provided from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “By aggregating demand, communities gain leverage to negotiate better rates with competitive suppliers and choose greener power sources.”
Introduced as “one of the leaders for the CCA for PA Working Group,” Bill Sabey, who has worked with many environmentally concerned partners, was present at the July meeting to answer any questions the supervisors may have.
“This [CCA program} allows governments to procure power on behalf of the residents and businesses,” said Rea Monaghan, a council member on the Lower Gwynedd Township Environmental Advisory Council (EAC). Monaghan introduced Sabey to the supervisors.
Should any municipality opt to start a CCA program, residents and businesses would be given advanced notice, along with the option to opt out of the program. In such cases, those persons or entities would continue to receive electricity from their current supplier. Should they not opt out, they would be automatically enrolled in the CCA.
Objectives of the program include:
The CCA program supporters said that electricity costs are often lower with a CCA, as the collective buying power of entire communities can garner lower prices. Delivery and maintenance is still handled by the local utility company, and customers still would receive a single utility bill that reflects a change in supplier.
Current supporting municipalities are banking on the constitutional rights to protect the health and environment of its citizens in order to get their Declaratory Order approved in Pennsylvania. Supporters argue that the CCA offers residents a “compelling public benefit.” It is not yet known if the PUC will permit such programs to proceed.
Prior to the petition, Lower Gwynedd Township had already prepared a “Ready for 100” resolution, stating the goal to have a Renewable Energy community. CCA supporters noted that this would fall in line with the RF100 goals. A full copy of the petition was included in the supervisors “packets” on July 23.
Sabey, who lives in Plymouth Township, has been involved with the CCA program for two years. He said that the CCA aims to provide a higher percent of renewable energy than currently offered by PECO.
“We’re asking for letters of support from similar Ready for 100% Clean Energy communities, like you,” said Sabey, who noted there were 44 municipalities in Southeastern Pennsylvania region with similar goals as Lower Gwynedd, 19 of which are in Montgomery County.
“We felt like this was a good support group to ask to support this ask of the PUC,” he said. Noting most information was provided in the supervisors’ packet, Sabey said he was mostly there to answer any questions the board may have and “provide any background that you may like.”
Danielle A. Duckett, chairperson for the Lower Gwynedd Board of Supervisors, thanked Sabey for his willingness to be there.
“We are a Ready for 100 municipality,” said Duckett. “I think some of the concerns that just come to mind initially is that this isn’t our form of government.”
Noting that Lower Gwynedd is a township, and not a borough as the seven petitioning municipalities are, Duckett said there was worry that the program may not serve Lower Gwynedd’s needs. She said that, as the township also does not have membership in any CCA or offer electricity, it may not be the right “fit.”
“It would be us inserting ourselves in a level of government that is not applicable to a second-class township,” said the chairperson. “While we may support on the face of it as individuals, it would be akin to us inserting ourselves into a level of government that wouldn’t be applicable to us, as it relates to any matter.”
Duckett said that, while the township could write a letter of support, “it wouldn’t have a lot of credence.”
“We don’t have the authority,” she said, of Lower Gwynedd’s second-class township standing. “It seems like this is a legal proceeding, so in addition, it’s not a petition as much as it’s a legal that you would go in for with the PA Public Utility Commission. Having the support of a second-class township who has no authority, who has no standing, who isn’t a party to this in any respect … I don’t know how that would be applicable.”
Sabey said that, as it is a public docket, any letter of support for the program is helpful.
“Even though townships won’t benefit from this, we’re trying to show we have enough interest,” said Sabey. He noted that, should the borough version pass, the same would be sought for townships, too. He also said that he was asking the board, as a government body, to show support.
“Just because it is a larger entity,” said Sabey, explaining that individual people may not carry the same “weight” as a municipal government. “By representing your goals to reach 100% green electricity, you’re also interested in this, being able to push Pennsylvania forward in reaching higher and higher goals in reaching renewable electricity in order to help you meet your goals.”
Supervisor Tessie McNeely reminded the board that the EAC had already given its support behind the petition, and requested the supervisors create a letter of support.
“We as individual citizens can write letters of support, there is nothing stopping us,” said McNeely. “But, as an RF100 municipality, I think it is important for us to show our support for this regulation going forward.”
Vice Chair and Supervisor Michael Twersky asked Sabey about the “opt out” clause.
“Right now, boroughs apparently can ask all their constituents to take their power supply, so they’d already have an opt-out mechanism with their code,” said Sabey. “To be able to help this work more effectively, we find that opt-out would strengthen the ability to purchase more renewable portion of the electricity because of the volume of accounts.”
Sabey said that studies in New York state among its municipalities showed that by opting in, only a handful of residents took the time to do so. However, when New York tested an opt-out option, where residents had to actively remove themselves from the CCA, the opposite occurred, and only a handful (two to three percent) opted out.
He said to leverage your purchasing power, you need the higher number of accounts. More accounts mean better costs for electricity.
“No matter what education program you do, people will just ignore it,” said Twersky. “They’ll end up getting into something they hadn’t anticipated. And that ‘getting into something’ is changing the status quo without their knowledge.”
Twersky went on to explain that, no matter the efforts made to inform its constituents, he fears that such education efforts would fall on deaf ears.
“Not that you wouldn’t educate, of course, that’s what any municipality is going to do,” he said. “It’s like switching your cable or switching your insurance. People just don’t switch, and that’s what worries me about an opt-out program. It’s basically mandatory for everyone unless you take an affirmed step.”
Sabey said that there are “built-in protections” to be sure no one is “taken advantage of” in the transition.
“The borough does have full control over choosing the price,” he said. He added that the municipality could opt to simply purchase the same combination of sources as PECO and offer it at the same price, so that “no one would be changed” in the process. It would be up to the municipality to offer constituents different options.
Twersky said that, currently, individuals already have a choice to select their own energy sources. He asked if this would mean the decision falls on the municipality instead of the consumer, to which Sabey said it is still a choice the consumer decides.
“We aren’t restricting anybody from choosing the best electric supply for themselves,” said Sabey.
Gleason asked how the municipalities would go about deciding on which energy sources or providers they would select. Sabey explained that an administrator would be selected by the municipality, who would then put out an RFP for the municipality’s needs. From there, that administrator would have the expertise and know-how to select the combination the municipality wants, based on the best prices and sources.
Gleason asked if that “administrator” is paid by the municipality, to which Sabey said yes, it would be a cost to the hiring municipality.
“That’s built into the implementation plan, and clearly defined in the petition,” said Sabey. “We rely on the ability to help us educate the public.” A first priority of that chosen administrator is to, in fact, inform the public on their choice and what it means. A “strong education plan” would be put out ahead of the options by 30 days.
“We feel it is a very fair, open process for a borough,” said Sabey.
Sabey noted that the deadline for letters of support was Aug. 5 but following that there was no “deadline” for the PUC to make a decision. There is no set time for how long the PUC will need to review comments on the matter.
“We have the opportunity to decrease the price for citizens,” said McNealy. She said this type of CCA program not only encourages competition to create more renewable resources, but also helps those that care about the environment but are unable to afford more costly renewable resources. “Even though it doesn’t affect us immediately, it will down the line.”
Sabey said that natural resources can lower costs of electricity, even below the cost of natural gas. With more efficient renewable options, the “base cost of electricity does come down,” he said. “It is starting to trend below what natural gas-generated electric.”
Sabey added that the cost of natural gas-generated electricity also goes up and down “very widely.”
“Plymouth’s electric rate changed from four cents a kilowatt hour, it’s 4.3 cents, to 6.3 cents a kilowatt hour just last November, an increase of 37 percent,” said Sabey. “We feel that by investing in renewable electricity generation, townships will be able to give themselves a better control over their budgets because there will be less variation in their electricity costs going forward.”
Sabey added that, while this petition was for boroughs, they noted in the petition that townships would be a natural second move.
“The PUC wouldn’t actually have the authority to dictate what a second-class township versus a borough or a first-class township,” said Duckett. She said that only the legislature could change code, defining the actions or abilities of a township.
Duckett also asked why the petition or letters for support did not seem to be from surrounding boroughs in the area. Sabey said that, while the group had been working on this initiative for two-and-a-half years, it took quite some time to educate boroughs. They then began working with those that the PA Working Group already had contacts or relationships with, and went out from there. While they had not reached every borough in the state, they also focused, according to Sabey, on those that were in the RF100 group, as they knew they’d be interested having already declared a focus on the matter.
Sabey did mention that Springfield, Abington, and Upper Merion EAC board members had moved the concept up to their townships’ officials. Many of those same townships were meeting the same night. Sabey did say that Uwchlan Township in Chester County had issued a letter of support.
While the PA Working Group had worked for quite some time on the project, it was noted by Supervisor Jimmy Chong that the supervisors had only seen the petition for the past few days. Other supervisors agreed, they perhaps did not have enough time to dive into the 48-page petition to make an educated decision on the matter. Sabey said that township support may still matter beyond the PUC’s Aug. 5 deadline for comment, as future decisions or a transition to townships will require similar municipal support.
Before the Lower Gwynedd Township Board of Supervisors put the consideration of a letter of support for the petition up for a vote, Vicechair Twerskey asked that the matter be tabled to provide more time for supervisors to familiarize themselves with the ask. Chong seconded the motion, and with a positive vote from Supervisor Janine Martin, the motion carried. The topic will be tabled to a later date, affording the supervisors additional time for review and a decision.
