ESCO Probably Costing You Money Instead Of Saving It

From Ella Preiser,  Communications Administrator, Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations

A Message to All:

At this time when so many people are out of work and small business owners are concerned about their survival, some Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations (CGCA) representatives are deeply troubled that the Greenburgh Town Board has not taken the opportunity to inform people about a possible way to save some money.

The CGCA urges you to check your monthly Con Edison bill.  If the bill indicates your electricity supplier is Constellation and your supply cost is 7.709¢ per kWh, you were probably enrolled in this ESCO (starting January 2019) by the Greenburgh Town Board.  If enrolled, you have been paying considerably more than those of us who “opted out” of this ESCO.  Please review the attached table which provides information on the kWh costs per billing cycle for seven different property owners who did “opt out.”  These figures were taken from actual Con Edison bills.  The first five properties are residences. Properties #6 and #7 are small businesses.

For anyone who isn’t familiar with the “history” of the Town’s involvement with this ESCO, attached is information you may find helpful.  At the very least, skip to the last lines of the document below which illustrates the cost savings ($37.15 and $115.53) for a single month for two different properties.  Paying the higher price could be very costly over the two-year contract.

The Greenburgh Town Board is not alone.  Twenty-six other Westchester municipalities participate in this CCA.   The concept was good but it is not working to the advantage of electricity users.  The ESCO named Constellation is raking in millions of dollars from residents and small business owners.

If you are paying too much, contact the Town Board for an explanation of why they did not keep you informed.  Feel free to pass this message on to your neighbors.

Stay safe and well.

Ella Preiser, CGCA Secretary

First Document:

First CCA Contract – How it began – Modest Savings

In 2015, the Town Board discussed with residents the possibility of participating in a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program.  The concept was simple and good – if a large number of users joined together to purchase huge numbers of kilowatt hours of electricity, they could negotiate a cheaper price. Supervisor Paul Feiner issued an email blast 9/29/15 claiming that participation in a CCA could reduce our Con Edison bills by “hundreds of dollars.”  

In January of 2016, the Town Board passed a local law granting Westchester Power authority through a CCA program to procure electric supply from an ESCO (Energy Supply Company) for a two-year contract for all unincorporated Greenburgh residential and small business users who did not “Opt Out.”  The program began with June 2016 meter read dates at a fixed cost of $0.0738 per kWh for the “Basic Supply Option” or $0.0768 for the “Green Option.”  The cost was subsequently increased for residential users to $0.0770 per kWh for the “Basic Supply Option” and $ 0.0800 for the “Green Option.”  There was no penalty to “Opt Out.”

In April 2018, residents received notice from Westchester Power that the rate of the soon-to-expire contract would “remain in place until your January 2019 meter read date.”  No approval for this extension was given by the Town Board. Once again residents were made aware they could “Opt Out” of the program without penalty.

Resident Ken Stahn had opted out of the program. Despite his repeated requests to the Town over the two-year period, no information was provided to the thousands of residents and small business owners the Town Board had enrolled in this ESCO. Thus, unincorporated Greenburgh electricity users had no way of knowing whether they were actually saving money and/or whether they should take advantage of the “Opt Out” provision.   The Council of Greenburgh Civic Association (CGCA) was asked to get involved.  Following a unanimous vote at the June 19, 2018 CGCA meeting, a letter was sent to Supervisor Feiner seeking information.  

The CGCA received a response.  In an email blast on July 24, 2018, Mr. Feiner reported that over the 25-month period from June 2016 through June 2018, residents in the “Basic Supply Option” had saved an average $7.78/month, residents in the “Green Option” saved $6.00/month, small business owners in the “Basic Supply Option” saved $2.01/month, but it actually cost small business owners in the “Green Option” 22 cents a month.  

However, for the very first time the public learned that only 52.67% of the savings actually came from the supply cost per kWh that had been negotiated.  Much of the total savings (47.33%) came from a $1.20/month billing and processing payment charge to each customer and sales tax avoidance (3% for residential and 7.375% for small businesses) on the delivery portion of the monthly bill. Savings from avoiding these two charges had never been mentioned earlier.  And, these two savings were not unique to the ESCO in which the Town enrolled users, but rather were available to any customer enrolled in any ESCO.  

Second CCA Contract – Huge Loses

Although the savings had been modest, the Town Board nevertheless voted to continue participation in the CCA for another two-year contract.  Beginning with the January 2019 meter read date, all residential and small business owners were enrolled for electric supply in the “Standard Option” at a cost of $0.07709 per kWh with the ESCO Constellation unless they “Opted Out.” 

Resident Ken Stahn, who had opted out again, noted each month his Con Edison per kWh costs were lower than the 7.709¢ per kWh costs charged by the  ESCO in which the Town had enrolled residential and small business owners. Mr. Stahn’s continued requests to the Town to provide information to the public were ignored.

Finally, on October 15, 2019, Westchester Power was invited to make a presentation at a Town Board work session.  At that meeting it was revealed that the Town had enrolled a total of 11,777 unincorporated Greenburgh residential and small business owners in the ESCO Constellation.  At the meeting, there was brief acknowledgement that the default Con Edison price for electric supply was at a historic low, but more time was spent blaming higher bills on Con Edison delivery charges.  Praise was given for the metric tons of carbon saved – although Greenburgh deserved little credit since few were enrolled in the “Green” option. It was stated electric supply costs would probably increase next year and reference was made to saving money regarding a Community Solar Project.  The need for a public update was mentioned, but there was no follow through. 

Some CGCA representatives who had opted out of the CCA contract felt the Town Board should inform the public about the higher costs to them.   Data was collected from the actual Con Edison bills of eight properties – five residential and three small businesses – from different areas.  Seven of those properties had opted out of the CCA contract but one business was enrolled.  The data revealed that the seven properties that had opted out had saved between $50 and $700 over the 12 billing periods starting in January 2019.  The one business property enrolled by the Town in the ESCO actually paid more than $1,000 in additional costs over the 12-month period.  Rest assured, that business promptly opted out when presented with this information!

At Mr. Stahn’s request, the Town Board invited Westchester Power to make another presentation at its March 10, 2020 work session.  The representatives again acknowledged that Con Edison default rates were at historic lows. The presentation included a slide showing that those enrolled in the ESCO paid $1,133,210 more for supply, with the additional monthly costs being between $5.71 and $6.92 for residents and between $4.46 and $10.07 for businesses.  However, it was emphasized that those enrolled still had savings over the past three years.  Also emphasized was the amount of carbon saved, likely Con Edison cost increases later in the year, the community solar project and how helpful Westchester Power could be to utility users.  

Ella Preiser, Dorrine Livson and Ken Stahn attended the meeting.  Two tables were presented showing the data collected for the eight properties. Westchester Power representatives were dismissive of the data provided because it contained actual (four-decimal place) per kWh supply costs and did not include a small “Merchant function charge.” They emphasized Con Edison’s rates were unpredictable and the bill was difficult to read.   The Town mentioned the need to provide information to the public.  The next day (3/11/20) at the regular Town Board meeting, Mrs. Livson mentioned the more than one million dollar cost to Greenburgh users and tens of millions to other Westchester County electric users. She asked the Town to release such information.  The Town once again remained silent.

At the April 22, 2020 meeting, held via Zoom, Mrs. Livson again asked the Town Board to inform the public about the electric costs.  The Board agreed to invite Westchester Power to the first work session in May.

ARE YOU PAYING TOO MUCH?

See the attached table which has been revised and lists the one-decimal place costs Con Edison recommends to compare ESCO charges. To determine if you are paying too much, examine the electric supply page on your Con Edison bill and compare the cost per kWh with those shown on the table for the seven properties.  

Contrary to the information presented on March 10, it may be costing you far more than the $6 to $10 per month Westchester Power mentioned.  Just as an example, following is computation illustrating the cost differences of recent bills for Property #5 (residential) and Property #6 (business).  As you can see Property #5 saved $37.15 in just one month and Property #6 saved $115.53 in one month.

1374 kWh @ 7.709¢/kWh = $105.92 + 4.24 (4% sales tax) = $110.02           

1374 kWh @ 5.100¢/kWh = $  70.07 + 2.80 (4% sales tax) = $  72.87

4086 kWh @ 7.709¢/kWh = $314.99 + 26.38 (8.375% sales tax) = $341.37

4086 kWh @ 5.100¢/kWh = $208.39 + 17.45 (8.375% sales tax) = $225.84

                                                                                               

Also note:  Westchester Power cannot rely on 47% savings from other sources on this contract.  The $1.20 per month billing and processing fee remained at $1.20 for businesses but was reduced to 60¢ per month for residents in 2019 and is now 64¢ per month.   Since last spring, the monthly bills no longer mention sales tax avoidance (now 4% for residential and 8.375% for small businesses) on the delivery portion of the bill. 

Resident Challenging Town Intentionally Ignored

We've reported about the flawed deal Mr Feiner and his Town Board have struck with Sustainable Westchester, a paper company created by a host of lawyers. Roughly half of their board of directors is comprised of Village and Town leaders. Conflict of interest? Probably. Will anything come of all of this? It remains to be seen. But obviously Mr Feiner's example of open government and transparency are not true. One resident, in the Town, Ken Stahn, President of the Sprain Road Civic Association, has mounted a one man crusade for the truth from Town Hall after doing research about Sustainable Westchester.

Another issue is the lack of a cohesive plan with details and too many unanswered issues. Mr Stahn addresses a few of them in his letter below. Right from the beginning, Mr Feiner sent out numerous emails stating residents (and businesses) could save from $400 to $600 a year. Yet, the limited information that has been provided is not "sustainable" based on Mr Stahn's research. In fact we believe individuals may not save enough for a cup of java at Starbucks. A major contention is that Mr Feiner and his Board passed a resolution forcing ConEd to release their list of their customer's billing information, your information, to give Sustainable Westchester the number of participants they require to proceed. The right way to do this would have been to have residents and businesses opt-IN instead of having to opt-OUT of this scheme. ABG believes Mr Feiner, and possibly others on the Board, will receive a Board of Director position with the organization in short time.

Below is an email communication from Mr Stahn that have remained unanswered.

From: KGStahn@aol.com
To: pfeiner@greenburghny.com, fsheehan@greenburgh.com
CC: gtroyano@lohud.com, tbauer@lohud.com, tbauer@tbauer.com, eganga@lohud.com, skcolucci@news12.com, ssamin@dailyvoice.com, lleavitt@scarsdalenews.com, tlamorte@rivertownsenterprise.net
Sent: 3/16/2016 7:45:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Open and Transparent Gov't not alive Sustainable Westchster and Ardsley Chase

Paul,

I have been waiting for a response from you or Francis regarding answers to questions I sent you and Francis about the MOU that the Town has entered into with Sustainable.  After reviewing the video of the March 9th 2016 Town Board Meeting the game has changed.

What Mike Gordon suggested to us at least 10 public and work sessions with the Board was not what I heard at the March 9th meeting and you have refused to discuss it with me. He said a 2 year fixed rate of maybe 32 months, but we were told a variable rate for 3 years and now he is adding Green Energy at a possible higher price!

Fact:  The PSC has just released a statement that if a consumer goes with an ESCO on a fixed rate or that has more than 30% of renewal energy they will not be entitled to a refund should the Con-Ed regular pricing be less that what the ESCO is supplying.  

Sustainable has contracted with Con-Ed Solutions at a rate that follows:

7.381 cents for what we get now called Brown Energy (oil/coal/gas)

7.681 cents for Green/Renewable Energy

They have not added the tax to that supply charge.

My most current Con-Ed bill.

6.729 cents for what is called Brown energy

7.200 cents is what I paid with taxes added.

All these prices are per kilowatt hour.

Why was gas dropped from the process? We were told it would be included.

Please check your own Con-Ed bills and do the math. We have not even started and we will be paying more than we are currently being charged. How is that saving money?

Is that why you have refused to respond to my 2 phone messages to your office and 2 to your personal cell and one tweet?  Is that being open and transparent?

As for Ardsley Chase back in October of 2014, I met with Rich Fon and did a walk around with him.  Your number 2 person at the DPW.  We identified 10 issues.  Since then only 2 have been addressed and now several more have risen.  For the past 5 months your staff has given me the run around to 5 different departments with no resolutions and in many cases no response after my initial discussion with the person.  All fingers have pointed to Garrett Dequesne and for the past 30 days no response from him and since March 3rd since you said you would get him to contact me as of this e-mail no contact.

Again, no open and transparent government.

But you do have time to champion Mail issues and the Ardsley Dobbs Ferry Bridge issues, why so you can get positive press time as an activist. 

You’re on the wrong end of the Energy issue so you run and hide. Why not get press time and tell people they might want to check out this new energy deal and maybe opt-out because we acted too fast.

I would like to see the written plan the Town has for the three detention/retention ponds at the Ardsley Chase Development to control the mosquitoes to help ensure no West Nile or Zika viruses.  Including Ardsley Middle School, there are, on most days, about 850 people within .5 miles of those ponds. A concern for us that live near but apparently you do not share the same concerns.

Respectfully submitted.
Kenneth G. Stahn
644 Ardsley Road
Scarsdale, New York 10583
e-mail kgstahn@aol.com
 
The public was sold a bill of goods by Sustainable Westchester and Mr Feiner that is simply not true! The cost savings touted are not going to be anywhere near as large as they promised. The new suprise inclusion of utilizing renewable energy sources promises higher costs and less savings for residents. Opting OUT of this program may be the only way to stop the lies and manipulations of the political system. It must end. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Mayor: "Why We Voted No!"

We’ve posted numerous stories about Mr Feiner and his Town Board's insistence on moving forward with Sustainable Westchester’s Community Choice Aggregate plan. This plan offers to save utility users money by purchasing the energy supply through Sustainable Westchester, a 3-year experimental program that appears to be set to begin as a not-for-profit and changeover to a for-profit entity once they can prove out the concept using our money.

ABG is against this plan for several valid reasons: 1) all taxpayers are being entered into this plan and must opt-OUT if they don’t want to participate; 2) it has “big brother” written all over it; 3) the resolution adopted by the Town Board (presumed per Mr Feiner’s instructions) forces ConEd to release your private information from them to this company; 4) There is no guarantee that participants will save money. In fact, it’s been said that we may wind up paying even more; 5) Many have said since this is an experiment, let them prove it out with other communities and if it winds up being a good thing, let us opt-IN; 6) Many of the Sustainable Westchester’s Board of Directors are community leaders, Town Supervisors, Mayors and such. This seems like a conflict of interest to ABG staffers.

Here’s the letter from Croton-On-Hudson Mayor Dr Greg Schmidt as it appeared in the Gazette:

A LETTER FROM DR. GREG SCHMIDT, MAYOR, WHY WE VOTED NO, SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT - FEB. 4, 2016

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT - This letter by Mayor Greg Schmidt was published in this week’s (2/4/16) issue of the Gazette.

To the Editor:

Here in the village over the last two weeks, there has been a significant amount of discussion about a pilot program in New York State called Community Choice Aggregation (CCA). A good bit of this discussion has included inaccurate or outright false information. I’d like to set the record straight.

At the January 19, 2016 Village Board meeting, our board chose, as other communities in Westchester have similarly done, to decline to participate in this pilot program at this time. While all of the board members who voted against participation generally agree with what we believe are the goals of such a program, we voted against participation in the program at this time because of our principled concerns about the lack of public outreach regarding the details of the program in the months after the enabling law was passed by the prior village board, the uncertainty about whether residents and small businesses would actually save money, and the lack of transparency and accountability of Sustainable Westchester (SW), the not for profit corporation which will be the administrator of the program.

In addition, there was another, overarching concern. Our approval of the CCA as an opt-out program would change the relationship between Croton residents and Con Ed by inserting the Board of Trustees in the middle. This is unprecedented in New York State. Since most people pay no attention to the details of their Con Ed bill, we knew it was likely that many busy residents, senior citizens, small business owners, or anyone else who didn't respond to or understand the significance of the communications they received about the program – which in many cases would be their first and only direct communication from the village about it – could end up paying more for their energy costs because we opted them in without their express consent or understanding.

Although the NYS Public Service Commission approved the opt-out plan SW requested for the pilot program, it also stated that “the Commission has had a longstanding policy, underlying the Uniform Business Practices and implementation of retail choice programs, that affirmative customer consent is required in order for a customer to change suppliers.” We have made the decision that the village will not be joining the initial round of the CCA. However, to serve those village residents who wish to participate in such a program on an individual basis, we will continue to work with SW to prioritize the implementation of an opt-in option for Croton residents, and residents of the many other municipalities in Westchester which have chosen, as we have, to decline participation in the first round.

Dr. Gregory Schmidt
Mayor

Finally, as we continue to research this issue, we found another community that decided to opt-OUT. See what we uncovered below:

BREAKING NEWS: TOWN OF CORTLANDT DECLINES TO APPROVE COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION (CCA) CITING...

BREAKING NEWS: Cortlandt Declines to Approve Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) Memorandum of Understanding. According to two separate sources the Town of Cortlandt declined to approve the CCA MOU at their most recent meeting, citing a need for additional information. It is not known whether that additional information will be forthcoming before Sustainable Westchester's newest deadline of 2/16 to enroll.

Many communities are voting to not participate and the list is growing. This is a tell-tale sign that leaders in other communities are doing their due diligence and letting the taxpaying residents remain confident that the process is working - for them. We believe that as other communities line up to oppose Sustainable Westchester, it requires a hard, laser-focused second look by Mr Feiner and his Town Board. In fact, it would prove that they have our best interests at heart should they come back and admit that they acted too hastily and are withdrawing their original approvals and endorsements. And, as many have stated, let them prove to us that this will work. Finally, let us opt-IN instead of having to opt-OUT! Only then will we see A Better Greenburgh.

Pound Ridge Joins Croton and Says "No" to ESCO

ABG recently learned that Pound Ridge's leadership reviewed the proposal from Sustainable Westchester and voted against adopting it in their February 4th meeting. In watching the Board's meeting, the Pound Ridge officials expressed serious concerns about their program, some similar to those expressed by the village board majority and in Mayor Schmidt's recent letter to the Gazette (which ABG is trying to locate).

Additionally, new information has surfaced - in which it is detailed that Sustainable Westchester may not go with the lowest cost provider when narrowing down the bids list and is looking at solely "renewables", which one Pound Ridge official categorized as a "bait and switch". We also learned that Sustainable Westchester's CEO Mike Gordon was present during the meeting.

Watch the meeting here:

http://poundridge.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=13

Concerns about the administrative costs have also risen versus any alleged benefit, etc., given the fact that taxpayer funds would be utilized. Comments by Mr. Gordon about how other communities have joined this ESCO were essentially dismissed by Pound Ridge officials who described those decisions as having been made "will-nilly" given the obvious concerns about the program. 

The Pound Ridge board voted unanimously NOT to participate at this time, waiting to see if the initial roll-out goes well--if need be "18 months down the line". The Sustainable Westchester representative indicated that bids would go out on February 22, offering another "new" deadline, should the Pound Ridge Board could decide to re-vote before then. These officials clearly declined but apparently Sustainable Westchester is holding out for a last minute "hat-trick".

Please also note that on Sustainable Westchester's website, Croton on Hudson's approval of the program is still being shown as "pending" as seen in the screen capture image below. That is simply untrue. The vote was taken and the answer was no.

It remains to be seen how this will play out, especially given the volatility of the fuel industry of late. But it is refreshing to see politicians who have their constituents best interest at heart and not looking to merely ride the publicity wave. We can only hope to see this kind of concern someday in Greenburgh. Only then will we see A Better Greenburgh.

An Experiment With Your Money

ABG was recently contacted by another concerned citizen through another blog to bemoan the actions taken by their previous Village leaders. Their blog site, EveryThingCroton, has posted about the Feiner-like shenanigans with the Sustainable Westchester organization in their community. Apparently, we are not the only lucky ones. But things changed for them when a new administration was elected, replacing the old guard. We’ve posted links (below) to two of their posted stories that seem eerily familiar. Initially, our first concern was that Mr Feiner and his Board were enrolling all Greenburgh residents into this program - whether they wanted to or not. Secondarily, there were no guarantee of savings, only guesstimates for savings (if any), and too many unanswered questions before undertaking this experiment.

EveryThingCroton has raised many of the same questions, issues and ethics of how Sustainable Westchester’s Board of Directors are operating. Croton’s new administration seems to have similar concerns.

http://everythingcroton.blogspot.com/2016/01/this-weeks-gazette-letter-on.html

http://everythingcroton.blogspot.com/2016/02/theyre-at-it-again-croton-dems-get-your.html

ABG has raised the issue of Sustainable Westchester’s Board members being Town and Village leaders throughout Westchester County. The unanswered question for ABG staffers is when and if Mr Feiner and his Town Board will become ordained by Sustainable Westchester and join the ranks of the paid non-producers? ABG also wonders how and why these other government leaders have been allowed to sit on a Board of Directors that their respective communities are actively doing business with? Or, maybe doing business for? Regardless, something downwind doesn’t smell like flowers.

The list accessible on the website for Sustainable Westchester shows the following Board members. We’ve highlighted in bold the community servants that we take issue with being Board members as their communities are utilizing Sustainable Westchester’s energy experiment. It seems very much like a conflict of interest.

We also have provided common-knowledge information about the others below (when we could find it). As always, you should come to your own conclusions.

- Noam Bramson (Mayor, New Rochelle)
- Chris Burdick (Supervisor, Bedford)

- Joe Carvin (President, One World United & Virtuous): a hedge fund lawyer, was the former Rye Town Supervisor who recently ran against Kristin Gillibrand for her Senate seat and lost.

- Dan Chorost (Environmental Attorney): He is a law partner who regularly litigates complex Superfund matters. Dan blocked construction of a natural gas pipeline through critical environmental areas of Westchester County on behalf of Cortlandt. ABG wonders if he does this to foster more returns for Sustainable Westchester?

- Sara Goddard (Founder, Rye Sustainability Committee): She authored the report on sustainability for Rye.

- Mike Gordon (CEO, Joule Assets): He is responsible for conceptualizing and developing products and services for Joule Assets. He specializes in serving end users in deregulated wholesale electricity markets.

- Peter McCartt (Media and Marketing, Business Development): Peter sits on the environmental committee for the Town of Eastchester.

- Herb Oringel: Is the Treasurer and one of the founders of the Northern Westchester Energy Action Consortium as well as Sustainable Westchester.

- Camilo Patrignani is the CEO of Greenwood Energy. Greenwood is in the U.S. and seven countries in Latin America. They are part of the privately owned international Libra Group which controls over 30 subsidiaries operating across six continents. Libra has substantial renewable energy interests as a prime operator in Europe. Greenwood has a strategic relationship with EuroEnergy which undertook the Libra Group’s first solar investment in 2005 through the acquisition of a local developer. Other Libra subsidiaries are involved in shipping, aviation, hospitality and real estate as well as a range of diversified investments.- Tom Roach (Mayor, White Plains)

Laura Rossi: is the Executive Director of the Westchester Community Foundation. Prior to her career in philanthropy she practiced law in New York City and Westchester, and worked for local and statewide nonprofits on behalf of women’s rights and farmworker rights.

- Nancy Seligson (Supervisor, Town of Mamaroneck)

- Mike Spano (Mayor, Yonkers)

Another article, linked below to the EveryThingCroton site, was subsequently posted as this article was being written. It is from the Croton Mayor detailing some reasons as to why they voted against Sustainable Westchester for their Croton community. Read about it here:

http://everythingcroton.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-letter-from-dr-greg-schmidt-why-we.html

While there is rarely any resistance to cavalierly going against a proposal with any scrutiny, if any, the Greenburgh Town Board usually seems to find themselves on the wrong end of many decisions as the abjectly follow Mr Feiner’s mandates. We believe this to be the case with Sustainable Westchester, especially, now that fuel and energy costs have plummeted for whatever the reason. It should be incumbent upon this administration to not jump into every suggestion put before them. Obviously, leaders from communities such as Croton are capable of doing their due diligence and making good decisions for their taxpayers!

Isn’t this the kind of politics most people complain about in disgust and why politicians are thought of so poorly? Of course it is. People are fed up with government and politicians being on the inside track and claiming this is just business as usual. It’s also very possible that while no one is technically breaking any laws, the appearance of impropriety is enough to question their motives. 

We seek to have these handsomely funded businesses with well-paid employees not be given an easy pass simply because they have the not-for-profit moniker. Many not-for-profits do legitimate and worthwhile work. This not-for-profit, during this upcoming three-year experiment, promises to become a for-profit business when this experiment concludes – on your dime! ABG is pretty sure this was never the intent for not-for-profit businesses. However, having lawyers and politicians working the system to their advantage until they can “prove out” their business model is just wrong! It must end. Croton is seemingly on the right path. Some day Greenburgh may follow. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

ESCO Approved! Cheaper Energy?

We’ve again received the daily campaign email from Mr Feiner, this time alluding to potential savings by mandatory participation in an ESCO or Energy Savings Co-Operative. He states you could save money up to 8 to 14%. What he doesn’t tell you is that it is 8 to 14% of your energy supply fee, one of the smallest portions of your energy bill. And, the claim is based on four New Jersey communities who are participating in an ESCO, not necessarily the same company he and his Town Board are forcing all of us into. The delivery charge is what is highest and Con-Ed just asked the Public Service Commission (PSC) for another increase of 1.8% of your current rate or about 4 dollars or per month. Mr Feiner needs to fight with the PSC if he really wants to help.

He also recounts the last Town Board meeting from Wednesday where, “...the Town Board unanimously approved a resolution authorizing the Town Supervisor to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") affirming that the Town and Sustainable Westchester, Inc. agree to participate in a Community Choice Aggregation program ("CCA") to procure energy supply from one or more Energy Service Companies ("ESCOs") for the residents of the Town of Greenburgh.”

In Mr Feiner’s email he repeats the same information multiple times, almost trying to convince everyone that this is a good deal. In fact, Ken Stahn of the Sprain Road Civic Association, met with, studied, and presented his findings to the civic associations’ umbrella organization, the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations, the Town Board and others. However, despite Mr Stahn’s pleas to slow down the process to acquire answers before jumping into this, he was summarily thanked and dismissed by the Town leaders. It’s ABG’s belief that Mr Feiner told his Town Board how to vote and they did as they were told.

While Sustainable Westchester has a cool sounding, environmentally friendly name that would evoke a feeling of energy conservation and environmental friendliness, the reality is that this is an experimental program being started by a group of hedge-fund attorneys looking to initially do their testing as a non-profit and if they are successful, change to a for-profit venue. With Mr Feiner and other elected leaders blessing this operation without answers to important questions, people may be lulled into a false sense of security. Simply, Mr Feiner has made us all guinea pigs for this test program!

ABG, Ken Stahn and others have all questioned the logic of people having to opt-OUT of this scheme because Mr Feiner and his Town Board want it that way. What we and many others have been saying is that residents and taxpayers should have to opt-IN to this experiment. After all, government should not have the right to decide on what and how you spend your money. Opt-IN, not OUT should be the standard. Some of the community leaders that Mr Feiner has referenced that are participating in this experiment have been appointed to Board of Director positions on the Sustainable Westchester Board of Directors. Does this sound like a conflict of interest to you? What’ next, telling us which cell phone or television service we can buy?

Mr Feiner states that Sustainable Westchester is “leading the way...” and “Their application to form the first pilot community aggregation program has been granted, and the rest of the state is watching and waiting.” Mr Stahn had expressed reservations about being the first, again guinea pigs, and that we have the ability and luxury of waiting until this model is proven elsewhere and can supply real numbers instead of projected guesses. He also stated that the falling costs of energy around the world is making the entire project even more suspect and asked Mr Feiner and the Board to not rush into anything. A three year minimum commitment is mandated to all residents. ALL residents, you may ask? Yes, Mr Feiner has signed up all residents in the Town to participate. They must opt-OUT to be excluded. How will you know? The Town will mail you a postcard that you must return to be opted-OUT. Maybe he has another plan to improve post office performance.

The language used in the contract was boilerplate at best and wrought with mistakes and inaccuracies. Mr Feiner had no problem at that time accepting it until Mr Sheehan decided to slow that runaway train down. After rewording the contract, there were still problems and Mr Stahn remained vociferous about it. Yet, each time Mr Stahn sought to rectify issues and get clarity and answers, the ESCO representatives provided little if any. Mr Feiner, supposedly with our best interests in mind, did nothing to assuage these fears and questions.

Mr Feiner has stated in his campaign that he, “Will keep you updated on the company that Sustainable Westchester will enter into an agreement with and will advise residents how to opt out of the program if you do not want to participate. It's our hope that program will start later this year.” Mr Stahn had contacted Mr Feiner and said, “One last thing Paul is on the air waves pushing something that he has no idea yet what pricing the RFP has generated.”

Mr Stahn has told ABG that he is willing to discuss with anyone the details, strengths and pitfalls of this project if they reach out to him. Feel free to contact him if you have questions.

Kenneth G. Stahn; e-mail kgstahn@aol.com; cell 917-642-7516

This is a sketchy plan without any real safety net for residents. It’s also sketchy because we are all being forced in without having a say-so. The postcard option seems flawed. You may recall when you received the notice to have your home re-evaluated for the Town revaluation project. It looked like junk mail and many residents simply threw it away! That might be what these people are counting on to keep their enrollment numbers up to what they need. Time will tell. Until then, tell Mr Feiner and his Board that you will make your own decisions, not him. It is how we will get A Better Greenburgh.