Eagle Energy To Purchase Power and Resell Same Power Back to ConEd - Part 4

What can the solution be that will serve the Town and its residents the best way possible regarding energy storage units in our Town? Several things come to mind, including developing Energy Storage laws, a Citizens Committee to administrate the application and approval process for proposals of energy storage locations poised and ready to be submitted, in progress and operational or soon-to-go online. Of course, anything that might be put in place could easily be compromised by Mr Feiner and his Town Board, negating any real hope of positive change for the Town. How so you ask? He could go back to his cadre of hand-picked submissives he routinely uses on committees who will do his bidding under the guise of their own genuine concern.

There is a Battery Energy Storage System Model Law Guidebook for Local Governments that exists from NYSERDA, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. The Model Law is designed to help local government officials and Authority’s Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) adopt legislation and regulations to responsibly accommodate battery energy storage systems in their communities. The Model Law lays out procedural frameworks and substantive requirements for residential, commercial, and utility-scale battery energy storage systems. So there it is, a no-brainer solution for Mr Feiner, his Town Board and the Town legal department to create and adopt a law regarding battery power storage.

This Model Law references a “Battery Energy Storage System Model Permit” that is available as part of NYSERDA’s Battery Energy Storage Guidebook. The Model Permit is intended to help local government officials and AHJs establish the minimum submittal requirements for electrical and structural plan review that are necessary when permitting residential and small commercial battery energy storage systems.

The Model Law isn’t intended to be adopted precisely as it is written. It’s simply a guide. A municipality is not required to adopt this Model Law. Municipal officials are urged to seek legal advice from their attorneys before enacting a battery energy storage system law. Municipalities must carefully consider how the language in this Model Law may be modified to suit local conditions, comprehensive plans, and existing land use and zoning provisions.

Interestingly, it’s noted that before enacting this Model Law, a comprehensive plan outlining the goals and policies for the installation, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of battery energy storage systems must be adopted by the local governing board (city or common council, town board, village board of trustees). Some local governing boards can satisfy this requirement by updating an existing comprehensive plan while others must adopt a new comprehensive plan. And while our Comprehensive Plan morphed from a Comp Plan to a political document addressing things that really didn’t matter, it’s an opportunity to right that wrong as well.

There are several other considerations that municipalities should adhere to, including but not limited to, adopting a resolution or policy statement that outlines a strategy for municipal-wide battery energy storage system development. The Town should appoint a Battery Energy Storage Task Force (“Task Force”) that represents all interested stakeholders, including residents, businesses, interested non-profit organizations, the battery energy storage industry, utilities, and relevant municipal officials and staff. The Town should prepare an action plan, adopt or amend a comprehensive plan to include battery energy storage system planning goals and actions, and develop local laws and/or other regulations to ensure the orderly development of battery energy storage system projects with the Task Force being apprised during the development and planning phases of these projects.

The Task Force should conduct meetings on a community-wide basis to involve all key stakeholders, gather all available ideas, identify divergent groups and views, and secure support from the entire community. The Task Force should also conduct studies and determine whether existing policies, plans, and land use regulations require amendments to remove barriers to and facilitate battery energy storage system development goals.

The Town’s Battery laws should always incorporate and establish a training program for first responders, local staff and land use boards. Municipalities are encouraged to utilize State and Federal technical assistance and grants for training programs when available. This should all happen as a partnership with adjacent communities to adopt compatible policies, plan components, and zoning provisions for battery energy storage system projects.

For a change, the Town is in the unique position to do the right thing for all involved. While we are not confident that will happen, we are hopeful that Mr Feiner’s Town Board is less concerned for him to foot their campaign costs and stand up for the residents. During each campaign we hear them all say, “I will fight for you.” And, once in office, they forget who we are. This has to change. To that end, the Planning Board and the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations have filed appeals questioning the Building Inspector’s interpretation of the Town Zoning Ordinance in connection with the proposed Knollwood Country Club project. The appeals will be heard by the ZBA on February 18, 2021.This is a first step in the right direction. Maybe now we can get closer to getting A Better Greenburgh.

Eagle Energy To Purchase Power and Resell Same Power Back to ConEd - Part 3

So, we’ve laid out in the two previous articles that Mr Feiner will invariably ensure success for another non-resident, outside developer with a proposal that not only has no boundaries, but promises nothing for the Town except for a few fees and a minute amount of tax revenue as they seek to have a direct underground connection with the ConEd substation in Elmsford next to Bed Bath and Beyond. The link will go to their currently proposed battery storage array setup they are proposing on the Knollwood Country Club. 

While seeking more information, we learned that there are two additional applications for solar powered battery storage to be built in Greenburgh on Central Avenue. As far as we can tell, the difference between these applications is that the Knollwood Country Club proposal is fed with direct power from ConEd and is not impinging on residential housing. The other is intended to be put in the Greenville and Midway Shopping Centers behind the buildings but nearer to residences. Apparently, these two will be solar powered energy storage units similar to what has already been installed at 660 Tarrytown Road, Tarrytown & 555 Taxter Rd , Elmsford.

While digging into this Knollwood Country Club debacle – debacle because Mr Feiner has suggested a compromise only after the Knollwood Country Club proposal gets its approval, we learned that these other proposals are similar but different and are being requested by IPP Solar based on the current installations at 660 Tarrytown Road.& 555 Taxter Rd.

They are now seeking to install 2 more energy storage units comparable to what was installed in the West Elmsford section of Greenburgh. Designated by some as Greenburgh’s wild, wild west, this is an area bereft of zoning adherence or concern to neighborhood concerns and plights. It’s where Mr Feiner ignored the Glenville Civic Association’s concerns about Stop and Shop and later, Brightview Assisted Living. It’s too bad for them that one of the Town Council members didn’t live there. Then they never would have been built.

Regardless, these energy companies are seeking to install storage array units seemingly throughout the Town. We haven’t heard of any other communities being saddled with these, so it appears once again that Mr Feiner’s Developer Open Invitation policy is starting to spread as more and more outsiders look to install money making devices in our Town without much if anything coming back to the taxpayer. So regardless of how they are acquiring the energy, they will be making money simply by selling it back to ConEd at a higher price.

At 660 White Plains Road, the unit itself sits in what might be considered the flow of traffic for the office building - it’s in front of or the Marriott Hotel nearby (see picture). Surrounded by posts to stop vehicles from coming into contact with it.

 

 

 

While another “done deal” is quickly materializing, Mr Feiner has promised a proposal to issue a Moratorium on applications for battery energy storage systems, solar farms and wind turbines. Make no mistake, this is no compromise nor does it address the battery storage system that he is pushing to install in the Knollwood Country Club property! Why isn’t it a compromise? Here’s what he “proposed” about how his Town Board shall proceed (our highlights in red):

1) We accomodate [sic] Knollwood by stating that, if a special permit has satisfactory conditions regarding the environment, public safety and absolute restriction on any further battery energy storage facilities on the land now owned by Knollwood, then the Town Board does not see any reason that the application cannot move forward at this time. 

2) Most importantly for the community, the Town is providing immediate notice that a moratorium may be imposed. Potential applicants are on notice as of today, December 29, 2020, that they could be subject to the moratorium on any and all applications for battery and energy storage facilities, solar farms and wind turbines.
… The moratorium will have a fixed date and not be subject to renewal. This is in response to concerns some people had that moratoriums tend to get extended. My goal is not to delay… 

As is so typical for Mr Feiner, rather than protect the environment, the residents and ultimately the Town, he’s doing his usual double-speak rope-a-dope to appear as though he cares. When, in reality, all he truly cares about is the developer. This has to change. Only then, will we get A Better Greenburgh.

 

Eagle Energy To Purchase Power & Resell It Back To ConEd - Part 2

Arizona fire highlights challenges for energy storage 

While we remain confident that Mr Feiner will “green light” the Eagle Energy Battery Storage system on the Knollwood Country Club property by whatever means possible, there are still many lingering and unanswered questions. We touched on the firematic side of things in our previous article. We’d like to continue with that as we’ve discovered more information than originally thought. Specifically, an article written and published by Jonathan Cooper for the AP News, entitled Arizona Fire Highlights Challenges For Energy Storage, about an Arizona fire in an energy storage facility. The unit in question has only 4 individual units compared to the one for the Knollwood Country Club, which consists of 7.

The Arizona Public Service has been an early adopter of battery storage technology seen as critical for the wider deployment of renewable energy and for a more resilient power grid. But an April fire and explosion at a massive battery site west of Phoenix that sent eight firefighters and a police officer to the hospital highlighted the challenges and risks that can arise as utilities prepare for the exponential growth of the technology.

“This is getting attention, and I think everyone realizes that too many safety incidents ... will be detrimental going forward,” said George Crabtree, director of the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research, a partnership of national laboratories, universities and companies funded by the U.S. Energy Department. “So I think it’s being taken very seriously.” These people are experts. Mr Feiner is not, nor chooses enlightenment from experts. And, to assume (we know) his decisions will err on the side of caution and safety, past experience proves that not to be the case.

Utility-scale batteries such as these are massive versions of the same lithium ion technology that can be found powering cellphones and laptops. When the batteries in these devices get too hot, a fire can start and trigger a phenomenon known as thermal runaway, in which the fire feeds on itself and is nearly impossible to stop until it consumes all the available fuel. According to Jay Apt, of the Carnegie Mellon University’s Electricity Industry Center, “Anytime you store a lot of energy in a small space you’ve got to be very cognizant of the controls that you have to put in place so that energy doesn’t get out when you don’t want it to,”

There have been three fires in similar setups owned by APS, causing them to continue pushing forward with their plans to develop more facilities. This issue has grown in severity and has been recognized by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to the point where they have developed an online training course for first responders. Mr Feiner may not care about the safety of our first responders but this issue is too serious to ignore. Apparently he doesn't care.

The Town Board held a Special Meeting where Mr Feiner decided to create a moratorium on all future similar proposals until a decision could be made at another meeting. Just not the Knollwood Country Club proposal. His excuse was that he wanted to be fair to the Knollwood Country Club. Baloney! In a difficult financial year, which still has the Edgemont Incorporation hanging over his head like mistletoe at a Santa's Village, we’re sure he’s still starry-eyed by the suggestion of being able to get $30,000 to $50,000 in property tax payments from this. Just because someone makes a proposal doesn't mean it has to be acted upon immediately or in fact, at all. Doing business the right way will help to make for A Better Greenburgh.

Eagle Energy To Purchase ConEd Power & Resell It Back To ConEd - Part 1

There is a push into Greenburgh by a shell corporation called Eagle Energy Storage, apparently doing business as Strata Solar, whose tagline is Making Solar Work. Naturally, as long as Mr Feiner sees the word ‘solar’ or ‘green’ or ‘bio-anything,’ somewhere in the name, he’s all in. What this company is seeking to do is not so simple. And, there is a move afoot by Mr Feiner to “green light” this project without even having a law or code in place or in our Comprehensive Plan on governing these types of projects. And, apparently there are more in the pipeline.

What we’ve learned thus far is that the applicant is apparently a shell company seeking to build a battery storage structure on a portion of the Knollwood Country Club property. Then they will capture energy in the off-hours when power is cheaper in the mornings and evenings when demand and prices rise and resell that same stored power, generated by ConEd and others, back to ConEd when the rates are higher. 

 

Aided by Mr Feiner who appears to be trying to get this application through the process before any code or law is adopted by the Town (ostensibly by Mr Feiner and his Board), this proposal is fraught with unanswered issues that should be addressed before anything moves forward with this project. So much so that there is a prepared paper with answers to some of them.

One issue is that Mr Feiner and others queried the financial benefits to the town. Specifically, how much property taxes will this generate? Property taxes applicable to the project will ultimately be determined by the tax code and the judgement of the Town Assessor. This is a sneaky way to say, “Your guess is as good as ours.” The Strata Solar team estimates that the project may ultimately pay $30k-$50k per year in property taxes over the life of the project (up to $1.5mm over 30 years). Reread that sentence. It says MAY, not WILL. The actual number will be determined in coordination with the Town Assessor. This is lawyer-speak for, “We don’t have a clue.” 

But since specifics have never been a hallmark of any of the Feiner administrations, they’ll contend that this doesn’t really matter. In fact, you’ll recall the ESCO that Mr Feiner placed every resident and small business into after he promised individual savings of $400 to $600 dollars a year? Not only were his figures never able to be substantiated, it turns out that everyone in the ESCO paid more for the power transmission costs than had they simply stayed with ConEd!

An issue was asked by a Town Councilperson who asked what would happen if the lines between the battery array and the Elmsford substation went down. We wanted to confirm that the battery project could in no way negatively impact the Town’s power supply. Really? Let’s actually examine two small pieces of this pie. First, the substation in question (next to Bed Bath and Beyond) has had minor issues through the years but has never actually “been down” at any point. Second, the plan is to run power lines from the substation underground and on existing poles to the Country Club. This would be no different than any other power lines on a pole. And since the battery array seems to be nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme to sell power back to its supplier, there should be no impact to the local power supply, the grid or the region. In fact, we lose power in our area more often due to fallen trees throughout the Town during storms and other weather events.

Another question was about fire department response should there be a fire at one or more of these 7 proposed units. By the way, the proposed 7 units, which could easily be increased later with more petitions from the developer. Naturally, the Town Board would approve their excuse for by-passing any subsequent code changes/requirements as they should be considered “grandfathered” as their unit was installed pre-code change. Regardless, the Authority-Having-Jurisdiction (AHJ) is the ever-capable Elmsford Fire Department. 

While the Elmsford FD is an all-volunteer department, the developer proposes any fire as only taking three-and-a-half hours to burn off. What they failed to mention is that battery fires aren’t so much about the fire, but the heat generated and keeping the units cooled off. They don’t say how long that will take, but they also mention that the second fire department who would be called to respond is the Fairview Fire Department. Interesting how they would presume that the Fairview FD would be the next department called? They also state that they have met with Chief Malone of the Elmsford Fire Department on site, and he has submitted a letter supporting the project. While we don’t doubt that Chief Malone signed off on this nor did anything wrong, but full disclosure is that he is a retired Deputy Chief of the Fairview FD. 

Make no mistake about it, for all of the lipstick being put on this proposal, for all of the upstate to downstate power considerations, for all of the solar comments (of which this project has none), of all of the clean energy issues mentioned and especially the lack of regulations and/or codes in place, the Town should slow this train down and not allow this project to move forward until numerous conditions are put in place. That’s how we can make sure to have A Better Greenburgh.

Latest ESCO News

Since 2016, when the Town enrolled all residents/small businesses into the Westchester Power ESCO program, Ken Stahn of the CGCA has been monitoring the variable rates of Con Ed versus the fixed rate of the ESCO. For the last 19 months, Ella Preiser of the CGCA has been preparing tables showing the differences in those rates.

During this contract period, Con Ed rates were consistently lower than the $0.07709 fixed rate agreed to by Mr Feiner with the ESCO. The Town has now signed a new 18 month contract with Westchester Power - Sustainable Westchester for a "green program" starting Jan. 1, 2021. Everyone who did not OPT-OUT of the current program will be enrolled in the new “green program”. Even though many residents wanted an OPT-IN choice instead of having to waste time and money with an order to OPT-OUT, the Town went ahead with the OPT-OUT program.

In response to numerous inquiries, here is information on how to “OPT-OUT” of the current contract with Westchester Power-Constellation.

Call Westchester Power (not Con Ed) at (914) 242-4725 or send an email to:
westchesterpower@sustainablewestchester.org

Be ready to give your Con Ed account # and your ESCO-Constellation reference #, if requested. It may take 1 or 2 billing cycles. According to Paul Feiner and Westchester Power, if you have already OPTED OUT of the current contract, you will NOT be enrolled in the new green contract.

Check your January & February 2021 bills to make sure you are still with Con Ed for your electric supply.

After you receive confirmation that you are out of the ESCO program, you can contact Con Ed to put a block on your account that will not allow any changes without your authorization.

Telephone # 1-800-752-6633 or go to the Con Ed Website: www.coned.com and go to “Contact Us” to send an email.

Dorrine Livson
CGCA Executive Board Member
cgca1955@gmail.com

What Are You Paying For Electricity? Con Ed vs. ESCO

A letter from the CGCA Executive Board
By Ella Preiser, Communications Director

A Message to All,

The Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations (CGCA) Executive Board continues to have concerns about the fact that the Town Board has not provided the promised “updates” to the almost 12,000 residential and small business users it enrolled in an ESCO for electricity supply starting in January 2019.  The original concept was simple and good – if a large number of users joined together to buy electricity, they could secure a lower price and save money.  Westchester Power negotiated a two-year contract with the ESCO Constellation at a rate of 7.709¢ per kWh.  The price seemed reasonable in January 2019, but that monthly rate has been considerably higher than the variable Con Edison rate over the past 16 billing cycles.  The CGCA is concerned that thousands of Greenburgh users are unaware they are currently enrolled in this ESCO and it is costing them additional money each month.

In response to issues raised by resident Ken Stahn and the CGCA, the Town scheduled another meeting (5/26/20) with Westchester Power regarding this contract. Westchester Power again acknowledged that Con Edison rates have been at historic lows and noted users can “Opt Out” of the ESCO at any time with no penalty.  In an email blast (5/28/20), Supervisor Paul Feiner provided a link to that meeting but he also provided erroneous information regarding the cost and an incorrect phone number to “Opt Out” of the ESCO.  Although he subsequently corrected the information after Mr. Stahn brought the errors to his attention, the archived email on the Town’s website still contains the errors.

Don’t be confused by the Westchester Power claims that those in the ESCO since 2016 continue to have monthly cost savings.  The below table provides the variable Con Edison cost per kWh for the last sixteen billing cycles that users who “Opted Out” have been paying.  As the table illustrates, the cost to the five residential owners (Properties # 1-5) for the latest bill (mainly the month of May 2020) was 4.6 to 4.8¢ per kWh.  That is three cents per kWh (or about 40%) cheaper than the rate the ESCO charges.  Westchester Power claims the average residential customer uses 669 kWh per month.  Based on that figure, the average residential customer in the ESCO paid $21.63 more during the month of May.

ESCO:    669 x 7.709¢ = $51.57 + 2.06 (4% tax) = $53.63
Con Ed:  669 x 4.600¢ = $30.77 + 1.23 (4% tax) = $32.00

If you subtract the monthly billing and processing fee (64 cents), the savings are still huge.

With the summer months now started and the current heat wave under way, many of us will be using air conditioners and consuming huge kWh numbers of electricity.

The Town feels it has no responsibility to keep the almost 12,000 residential and small business electric users it enrolled in this ESCO informed about the additional cost they have been paying in their last sixteen bills.That is why the CGCA is posting this information and urging you to check your monthly Con Edison bill and compare the kWh cost for electricity you are paying.  Please pass this information on to friends and neighbors.

Stay safe, well and informed.

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. 

Beware Of ConEd Scammers

A reader posted this on a neighborhood website and we thought it was important enough to post here to alert our readers to exert caution when receiving what appears to be a phone call from ConEd. Please let your family, friends and neighbors know about this. If this happens to you, please call the police department and report it.

Con Edison phone scam

Con Ed scammers are still active. I had a call today - with caller ID that indicated Con Edison and their correct 800 number - from a "dispatcher" informing me they'd be turning off my electricity today due to unpaid bills. They had my address but not my account number. Of course I knew I have no unpaid bills, as I auto-pay, and I asked for the supervisor, to see what I might pull out of them, and instead he gave me a different 844 number to call - the "Con Ed billing department" - which of course it is not. I wanted to bring it to neighbors' attention, particularly because the caller ID looks legit. I didn't let the guy get as far as telling me to run down to CVS and get a debit card - but I'm sure that's where they were going. I reported this to Con Ed and government officials - I would speak to the police as well, especially f I had actually been scammed rather than the threat. Be careful - this is more insidious than the usual obvious scams.

Beware of ESCO Scam Mailing

With all of the junk mail the post office delivers on a daily basis, it’s easy to get it confused with legitimate mail. Couple that with scammers, identity thieves and the like, it’s no wonder that some people are easily duped. Mr Feiner has continually railed against the postal service for poor service and spotty mail delivery, but as a government entity, can we really expect a change? This is more an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Regardless, a new mailing found it’s way into our offices from a company called North American Power of Norwalk, Connecticut. Make no mistake about it, this is a solicitation from an ESCO trying to sign up unwitting residents to use them as your power supplier with a confusing and official looking document. 

Notice there are several telltale issues with this very official looking document. First and foremost as you remove the paperwork from their envelope, the first thing you’ll see is CONEDISON CUSTOMERS: Please COMPLETE, SIGN and RETURN this Emrollment Consent Form/Terms of Service in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. This is nothing more than an attempt to fool ConEd customers into thinking this is official and from ConEd and to act immediately. YOU SHOULD NOT!

We have previously written about ESCO's and especially the ESCO that Mr Feiner got into bed with here in the Town of Greenburgh, Sustainable Westchester (ESCO). Mr Feiner and his Town Board enrolled all 90,000+ residents into it without their authorization or approval. Next, he and his Board passed a law forcing ConEd, most likely your current supplier, to release your information to this group of lawyers. Finally, after extensive studying of ESCO’s elsewhere, it was proven that the savings are minuscule at best, if at all.

You are certainly free to choose who you wish your energy supplier to be, whether it’s ConEd or someone else. Keep in mind though that ESCO's are not providing you with the energy itself, but the transmission of it. You’ll still be paying ConEd for your energy and now another company for the transmission of it. If you look on your current energy suppliers bill, you’ll see the transmission rate and your cost. It’s usually only a couple of dollars at most and sometimes only manages to be pennies. And, once you sign in, you cannot easily or inexpensively opt-out. Another ploy they’ll use is to tell you they are using “green” energy. That too is difficult to validate and worth further investigation. 

Do what you will, but we are simply providing a caveat emptor for those who may not be aware of what ESCO’s are about or trying to do. We just want you to be informed. It will make for A Better Greenburgh.

Storm Highlights Frustrations

It seems that every politician is trying to grab more and more headlines during the two most recent storms. Newly elected County Executive George Latimer has had numerous television clips showing him basically yelling into the phone at ConEd executives. Anyone who has gone to and had to deal with the Town Board at a meeting will certainly empathize with his level of frustration. These first 100-year storms and now 500-year storms seem to be happening every year, often several times in one year. But why? There is no easy answer to this unless you are a politician. Of course, it’s climate change – or is it?

In Mr Feiner’s most recent email blast, he says:
“I'm very aggravated. Thought and hoped that everyone would have their power back yesterday as Con Ed promised earlier in the week. Was wrong. Although many residents did contact me--delighted that their power was restored sometime yesterday, others are still out. As of 9 AM there were 338 homes in Greenburgh out of power, down from over 1000 at some points yesterday. Last week there were over 4,000 outages. Con Ed has not been notifying local officials from anywhere in the county what streets they are going to next. We can yell, scream, beg them to help. We can highlight hard luck stories. Sometimes they listen. They also have not always responded to some of our requests. Every municipal official I speak with from other communities has shared similar stories. And some communities are worst off --have more outages.” Now he is starting to know how residents feel whenever we’re trying to get answers from him and his Board!

Mr Feiner has also gone to great lengths to highlight some of those without power or the resources to be able to leave for a stay with relatives, friends or simply a hotel. We truly sympathize with those people without power and with damage to their homes. Oddly, the hotels in our area are all rather expensive, now including a new 3% room tax that Mr Feiner and his Board, along with Assemblyman Abinanti and Senator Stewart-Cousins could not wait to impose on guests. Their claim was that this would not cost residents because they, ahem, don’t rent rooms in Greenburgh. How’s that working out now? Karma.

After the storm always seems to be a political free-for-all to see who can beat up the big bad utilities for not doing something right, not doing anything at all or not doing enough. One way or the other the news media will jump at each one of their attempts to point fingers and replay it incessantly. The utilities are Public Service organizations, regulated by what must seem like billions of regulations put in place by, yes, politicians. This seems to be a sort of Catch-22. One thing the politicians never do is to blame themselves!

Mr Latimer, while new in the County Executive position was a County Legislator, Assemblyman and Senator before assuming this new position. So none of this is new to him, and he has not done much in his previous positions to alleviate any of these difficulties. He remains culpable to a degree and should not get a pass because he’s in a new position. Mr Feiner on the other hand, has been in office even longer and actually exacerbated the problem.

After Hurricane/Tropical Storm Irene, the Fulton Park Civic Association leaders met with Commissioner Victor Carosi and Richard Fon about trying to get the trees in the area trimmed to prevent further trees from coming down and taking out wires. To their credit, and the efforts of many, a good number of problematic trees were taken down. Because of that effort, no trees have come down onto wires, causing any power outages in that corridor. This type of maintenance needs to happen regularly. Mr Feiner, while always happy to talk about issues, is also very unwilling to take action – unless of course he can get publicity from it. Instead of focusing on the 2% tax cap – which isn’t really followed anyway, Mr Feiner should focus on spending some money on maintenance for the taxpayers well being, instead of $6.5 million fines from guilty verdicts as with the Fortress Bible Discrimination case.

Indirectly, however, Mr Feiner has had trees removed by authorizing all of the overdevelopment throughout the Town. Yes, hundreds and maybe even thousands of trees and pervious space have been removed or will be removed to permit zone-busting, oversized and inappropriate buildings wherever a developer asks for it. The latest will be the former Elmwood Country Club, which succumbed to a falling membership and sold the property to a developer seeking to alter the property’s zoning to create 175 townhouses.

Each time we create more impervious space through these types of construction projects, the remaining permeable spaces wind up getting abnormally inundated with water. As the area saturates more and more, to the point of over-saturation, the soil’s stability is undermined and the trees, usually the older, taller and heavier ones come down. Maintenance of the large trees, as well as a reduction of these over-sized projects and a stricter adherence to our zoning and building codes would surely help.

Several years ago, after Hurricane/Tropical Storm Irene, Mr Feiner lied to a flood ravaged resident on Old Kensico Road that F.E.M.A. would purchase their home to help them get “out from under”, that resident learned an inconvenient truth: Mr Feiner will say anything without regard to whether it is true or not! Regardless, yesterday Mr Feiner sent out another Feiner email blast that Town employees had finished clearing the trees off of all roadways. Yesterday. Why is that important? Because the utility workers were often unable to access their power equipment until the Town cleared a way for them to get in and operate safely. So, while we feel bad for those residents who have been suffering without power, there is plenty of blame to go around, starting with Mr Feiner’s and his administration.

We will continue to get more severe storms such as this. Mother Nature, while full of surprises, can afford some predictability that will allow us to be better prepared. First, we must dredge the Bronx and Saw Mill Rivers to help storm water flow unencumbered. Second, we must have a tree trimming initiative that operates all of the time, not just when it’s convenient for a TV sound byte. Third, any new construction should mandate underground wiring. Fourth, Mr Feiner needs to operate during storms at the County’s Emergency Command Facility in Hawthorne. That’s where government leaders, utility leaders, police, fire and other heads of organizations operate from during an emergency. Why does this make sense? Because Mr Feiner could simply turn to the head of ConEd and ask direct questions and get direct answers.

There are other things that need improvement such as our sorely neglected infrastructure. How this Town operates is woefully inefficient and it shows up painfully for the abused and beleaguered taxpayers time and time again, especially highlighted during storms. This has to change. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

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.

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.