LEOMINSTER — On Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2026, the Leominster City Council’s Legal Affairs and Ways and Means committees held a joint meeting to consider a renewed proposal to explore municipal electricity aggregation, which would allow the city to seek a bulk electricity supply rate for residents and businesses.
The matter, Order 30-26, was introduced by Councilors-at-Large Brandon Robbins and Susan Chalifoux-Zephir and referred to both committees.
In an email read aloud during the meeting, Mayor Dean Mazzarella referenced a prior council vote on the same matter.
“In 2023, we made a full presentation to the council on this exact petition, and it was voted down 8 to 0,” Mazzarella wrote, advising councilors to review the earlier meeting minutes and “survey their constituents to see how they feel after explaining the program to them.”
Chalifoux-Zephir argued the issue is worth revisiting due to rising household costs, saying constituents have complained of significant increases in property tax and utility bills.
“People that I hear from, and talk to, are having a hard time paying their bills,” Chalifoux-Zephir said.
She pointed to nearby communities that have adopted aggregation programs.
“I know that Fitchburg implemented the program, I think, two years ago, and my understanding is that they have had significant savings that have been passed on to tax payers,” Chalifoux-Zephir said.
Robbins then described the core premise of the program.
“Municipal aggregation basically allows the city to bulk buy electricity at a set rate that is oftentimes less expensive than the supply rate that people are charged by National Grid because we have the buying power of this whole city,” Robbins said. “That’s why it’s often done at a lower rate — and allows bill payers to save a couple hundred bucks on their bill every single year.”
Robbins added that the program would need to be done collectively and noted — as Councilor-at-Large Susan Chalifoux-Zephir had mentioned — that municipal aggregation typically operates as an opt-out program rather than opt-in, meaning residents would be enrolled unless they take steps to decline.
Councilor-at-Large Thomas Ardinger said he remembered opt-out being a major concern during the previous municipal aggregation discussion, saying he recalled being told residents could not opt out. Ardinger said he opposed that structure because, at the time, his bill from Constellation Energy Corporation was “significantly lower” than the rate being proposed under the aggregation contract. Ardinger added that the aggregation contract “is not locked in for any period of time,” while alternate suppliers can offer agreements lasting up to three years, which he said may be cheaper than aggregation.
Robbins told Ardinger his understanding was that residents would be automatically enrolled at the start, but could opt out at any time, adding the program would not prevent anyone from shopping for another supplier.
Ward 4 Councilor Mark Bodanza then raised procedural concerns, calling the order more like a resolution and questioning what authority the council has to direct the mayor to pursue aggregation. He also warned that most residents would not realize their supplier had changed, comparing it to gym memberships that rely on automatic enrollment and delayed cancellations. Bodanza further noted that Good Energy — the company that previously presented to the council for a municipal aggregation proposal — acknowledged its default rate was higher than National Grid’s in two out of seven years.
“It bristles me honestly that, as a consumer…I have to do something to go back to National Grid because I will not be with one of those energy suppliers,” Bodanza said. “And you want to talk about savings in Fitchburg, they have Unitil. You know anything about Unitil? Anybody can compete with Unitil.”
Legal Affairs Chair Pauline Cormier said the committees had already referred the order to KP Law for guidance on the procedural and legal question raised during the discussion — what authority the council has in this situation, including whether the council can direct the mayor’s office to pursue municipal aggregation or can only request that the mayor take it up. She said she did not want the committees to make any recommendation before KP Law responds, warning they would be “putting the cart before the horse” without that legal guidance.
At the close of the agenda item, Councilor-at-Large Claire Freda said the committees had “two issues” to resolve before making a recommendation — guidance from KP Law on procedure and authority and whether the mayor supports revisiting municipal aggregation.
Cormier said her position was to recommend granting Order 30-26 further time pending responses from KP Law and the mayor’s office, and members of both committees voiced agreement.
