Sustainable Energy ESCO Finally Loses Power

Greenburgh residents received an email from Mr Feiner about one month ago stating that Sustainable Westchester, an Energy Service Company (ESCO) was shutting down – finally! Here's what he said:

Westchester Power will discontinue providing residents with renewable energy at the end of the year

Sustainable Westchester has informed us that the Westchester Power renewable energy program will be discontinued at the end of this year. This decision results from practical implementation challenges associated with recently-adopted State outreach and education mandates. Sustainable Westchester has concluded that these regulatory requirements cannot be met on a schedule consistent with the program’s continued operation.

Starting with this December’s utility bill, customers who take no action will be returned to [Con Edison/NYSEG] as their default supplier of electricity.

As an alternative, customers may select another Energy Services Company (“ESCO”) for electricity supply. 

We originally reported on this apparent scheme being pushed, no, rammed down our throats, without regard to what residents wanted or would actually save. In fact, Mr Feiner knowingly lied about the amounts that could be saved, saying residents could save upwards of "$400 – $600 per month! The reality however was far from that. Most months saw that the Sustainable Power ESCO was not saving residents money. Rather they were higher than ConEd's rates. Once we learned that we had been opted IN to the program, many residents went through the process of opting OUT, then contacted ConEd to put a lock on their accounts so operatives like Mr Feiner and others could not do this to us again.

Here's a few excerpts in blue from an earlier February 2, 2016 article:

He also recounts, “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.” Not only did this not happen, but it was reported in the Rye Record newspaper that they failed to do this, stating, “Failure to observe even the minimum outreach requirements imposed by the commission results in an inadequately informed customer base.”

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 Ardsley 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. So while residents were sincerely trying to provide validation and correct the misinformation and contradictions, Town Hall was not listening – again! 

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 run by a group of attorneys from a hedge fund group 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. In fact, one of the active participants in this Opt IN scheme was former New Rochelle Mayor, Noam Bramson. He was mayor of New Rochelle until he retired from New Roc and joined Sustainable Power as their Westchester Executive Director. Nice gig if you can get it! Apparently, they decided to terminate this program due to new outreach and education requirements from the State Public Service Commission.

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. Many 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?

Mr Feiner stated 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 and that we have the ability and luxury of waiting until this model is proven and can supply real numbers instead of projected ones. 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 required of all residents. ALL residents, you may ask? Yes, Mr Feiner had signed up all residents in the Town to participate. They must opt-OUT to be excluded. How will you know?

Others continued to monitor and prove that Sustainable Westchester was a flop. The unfortunate result of this is that while Mr Feiner is quick to point at President Trump and the Republicans for rising prices, our own home-grown democrats have forced residents to pay more than they should have by being forced into this scheme! Just remember, the entire Town Board members ALWAYS voted in favor of having Greenburgh residents/taxpayers participate in this fiasco. Not one of them ever questioned the stupidity of this type of program. Thankfully, after ten years it'll finally go away – for now. It needs to stay away and stay out of our resident's way. If they want an ESCO, they can get it on their own. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh!

ESCO Scam Perpetuated On Taxpayers Again

 A Message to All From the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations:

The original intent was to wait a few more days to receive Con Edison bills for the month of December and then issue a 2020 year-end table demonstrating the cost difference to five residents who “opted out” of the ESCO contract for electric supply in which the Greenburgh Town Board enrolled nearly 12,000 resident and small businesses users.

However, in response to a number of calls, the Executive Board of the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations feels it necessary to reply to some misinformation that the Town released Wednesday (1/13/21) in an email blast regarding the new 18-month ESCO contract.

The Town’s email stated:  “We’re happy to announce that the Town of Greenburgh and our neighboring communities will be renewing our participation in Sustainable Westchester’s Westchester Power (WP) program.”  In fact, more than half of Greenburgh’s “neighboring communities” – Town of Mount Pleasant, Village of Elmsford, Town of Scarsdale, Town of Eastchester, City of Yonkers – have never participated in this Westchester Power program.

While it is true that the Westchester Power program did offer a “clean electricity supply choice since 2016,” Greenburgh residents and small businesses were not part of that choice.  Instead, the Town enrolled Greenburgh residents and small businesses in the “standard option” which means they have been paying for electricity to be supplied mainly by fossil fuels and nuclear.  Thus, no tons of greenhouse gases have been mitigated.

The only thing Greenburgh residents and small businesses who had not “opted out” could rely on was a fixed rate of 7.709 cents per kilowatt hour. And, that fixed rate has been costly to those Greenburgh residents and small businesses. The CGCA urges you to compare that fixed rate price with the kWh costs listed on the attached table for five properties that did “opt out.”

Please focus attention on the column for Property #5. As the table indicates, over the past 22 months this property has paid considerably less each month for electricity than the 7.709 cents per kWh cost charged by the Town’s chosen ESCO.  The most recent cost to Property #5 was 5.5 cents per kWh, mainly for the month of November.  While this mere 2.209 cents saved per kWh may not appear great, please be aware that Property #5 is a “total electric living” household.  The owner is the sole occupant who rarely uses the oven and carefully controls indoor temperatures.  Even so, 1,544 kWh of electricity were used between November 5 and December 9.  That 2.209 cents difference amounted to a savings of over $35 for this time period.  Even greater numbers of kWh will likely be used and more savings may be possible in the colder months ahead.

Can you imagine what the electricity costs are to a “total electric living” four-bedroom townhouse, such as those at Westchester Hills, occupied by four or more family members? Electricity is used to heat or cool the rooms; run an oven for hours to cook meals including roasting that Thanksgiving turkey; heat hot water for multiple residents to take showers, wash dishes, wash clothes; dry laundry; provide lighting; and power refrigerators, TVs, computers and numerous other appliances.

The Town’s choice for the 2-year (2019-2020) ESCO contract has been quite costly for "total electric living" residents and the almost 12,000 other residents and small business electricity users.  Yet, the Town has failed to take any responsibility to inform users of this cost factor over the past two years.  This is especially troubling during this last year when so many residents and small business owners have been negatively impacted financially by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The new 18-month ESCO contract the Town approved becomes effective with January 2021 meter readings and does provide for the “green” sustainable option at a cost of 7.405 cents per kWh which is slightly less expensive that what users have been paying.  We will have to wait to see what the financial impact will be.

The Town’s January 13 email contained other inaccurate and dated information that is not worth addressing at this time. Hopefully, in the months ahead, the Town will do a better job of reading information it receives before posting it on the Town’s website.  And hopefully it will provide accurate and up-to-date information, as it promised, on whether this new green ESCO contract is to your advantage.

Stay safe and well.
Ella Preiser, CGCA Secretary

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

Should We Go With An ESCO After Losing Money For Two-Years

 A Message to All:

The Executive Board of the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations (CGCA) urges you to watch and participate (via Zoom) in the meeting tonight, September 23, at 7:30 PM, regarding whether the Town of Greenburgh should join with other municipalities to purchase your electric supply through an ESCO (Energy Supply Company).

The current two-year contract with the ESCO Constellation will expire in December.  The attached table documents information from the last nineteen (19) Con Edison bills for five households that “opted out” of this contract.  As the table demonstrates, the latest cost per kWh (mainly for the month of August) was 5.4 to 5.9 cents.  That is considerably less expensive than the 7.709 cents per kWh those still enrolled in the contract are paying.

Based on the monthly information circulated by the CGCA, Supervisor Paul Feiner has had to acknowledge that the current contract has been costly to the nearly 12,000 residential and small business electric users that the Town Board enrolled in the “standard” option.  Under the current contract, unincorporated Greenburgh is only one of three municipalities participating in the “standard” option.  Twenty-three other municipalities, including five Greenburgh villages – Ardsley, Dobbs Ferry, Hastings-on-Hudson, Irvington and Tarrytown – are enrolled in the “green” option.  The Village of Elmsford and the nearby Town/Village of Scarsdale do not participate in the current contract negotiated by Westchester Power.

Mr. Feiner is now considering enrolling unincorporated Greenburgh residents and small businesses in the “green” option of a new contract. Going “green” means obtaining electric supply from renewable sources – wind power, solar power, hydropower – rather than fossil fuels.  It costs more but it helps address climate change, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental issues.

At Mr. Feiner’s request, the CGCA reached out to the community (9/13/20) for advice on what action the Town should take.  One resident recommended the “green” option.  Every other response received to date recommended that any new contract should be on an “Opt In” basis.  More information was also requested regarding the future savings to lower-income families.

The Executive Board of the CGCA is making no recommendation but rather providing the following information so residents can better understand what is being considered and are in a better position to ask questions.

As noted, those who have not “opted out” of the current contract are paying 7.709 cents per kWh for electric supply.  According to Westchester Power, the average resident uses 669 kilowatt hours a month.  Thus the average bill for the month, including 4% sales tax, would be $53.63 for electric supply.  If you were enrolled in the “green” option, it would cost 7.959 cents per kWh and the average monthly bill, including tax, would be $55.38 for electric supply.

As the attached table indicates, Property # 1 and Property # 2 paid 5.5 cents per kWh.  This means an average monthly bill for 669 kWh, including tax, would be $38.27.  The savings for the “standard” option equals $15.36 which is 28.6% lower than the ESCO charged.  For the “green” option, the savings equals $17.11 and is 30.9% lower.  Even if one subtracts 64 cents for the monthly billing and processing payment fee, the monthly savings would be substantial.

According to the CGCA’s understanding, any new contract the Town participates in would be for the “green” option and would be offered on an “Opt Out” basis.  Savings of 10% on their electric bill would be promised to “x” number of lower income residents and the Town could be eligible for up to $250,000 in grant money for sustainable projects.  Westchester Power plans to go out to bid this month for a new contract, with a starting bid lower than 7.65 cents per kWh.

If you wish to participate in tonight’s Town Board discussion on this matter, see instructions below:

PUBLIC DISCUSSION Advance signup via PublicComment@GreenburghNY.com is required. Please mention ESCO or Sustainable Westchester in the subject line or the body of the email. Sustainable Westchester 100% Renewable ESCO

Ella Preiser, CGCASecretary

Electric Rates - Con Ed vs. ESCO

 A Message to All:

The Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations (CGCA) Executive Board is providing you information documenting the kWh cost for electric supply paid for the last eighteen (18) billing cycles by those who “Opted Out” of the contract with the ESCO Constellation in which the Town Board enrolled almost 12,000 residential and small business owners.

As the below table shows, the latest cost (mainly for the very warm month of July) was 5.9 cents per kWh to five households that “Opted Out” versus the 7.709 cents per kWh that those still in the ESCO are paying.  Air conditioners use a considerable amount of electricity, and this mere 1.8 cents per kWh cost difference has added up to a substantial sum of money saved for the month of July.

The current two-year contract expires in December.  At the August 11, 2020 Town Board work session, Dan Welsh from Westchester Power discussed a meeting he held earlier that day with about 20 participating municipalities regarding a new contract to purchase electricity from an ESCO.  The decision was made to go out to bid once again for a “fixed rate” contract with a starting price of 7.65 cents per kWh.  That is a bit less expensive than the current contract.  At the meeting Supervisor Feiner mentioned the CGCA opposes the current “Opt Out” provision.  Mr. Welsh noted an “Opt In” option wouldn’t work and recommended that going “green” solves a lot of problems.  Although the cost would be a couple of dollars more each month to each resident, the green option addresses climate change, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and environmental injustice.  Mr. Welsh noted low income residents could receive savings through the Community Solar program.

Stay tuned for what the Town Board decides.

Stay safe and well.

Ella Preiser, CGCA Secretary

A Memo from The Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations

Starting January 2019, the Greenburgh Town Board enrolled all residential and small business owners for a two year contract with the ESCO Constellation at a cost of 7.709 cents per kWh of electricity.  Meanwhile, Con Edison variable rates have been at historic lows over the life of this contract to date.  

The Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations has been keeping track of the cost per kWh of some residents who “Opted Out” of this contract.  They have been saving money each month.  Visit the CGCA website and view the posting of July 27th which includes a table showing the cost per kWh that these “Opted Out” residents have been paying. https://cgca.info/news

Contact the CGCA if you need help understanding your Con Edison bill.

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. 

Second Times A Charm: The Scam Continues

We wrote on July 6, 2015 that Mr Feiner and his Town Board were opting-in all residents and businesses in the Town to automatically be enrolled in an unproven, unverified and unvetted startup energy company. This was done by a group of attorneys looking to develop a model they could use throughout the country to sell utility transmission of their existing ConEd power. They came up with a catchy politically correct name and the scheme was hatched as, naturally, a not-for-profit company called Sustainable Westchester and they named numerous political leaders to their Board of Directors. What could go wrong?

First, when we first posed this disaster waiting to be approved after getting a tip from inside 177 Hillside Avenue, we did some digging. We came to find out that many area politicians we in an enviable position to further the Sustainable Westchester agenda which simply was to enlist as many unwitting and unknowing participants as possible from their communities. We had maintained then, as we do now, that if it were truly worthwhile and on the up-and-up, the Town Board would have advertised this and had residents opt-IN. But it wasn't a good deal for residents no matter how much lipstick they smeared on this pig!

Here are the Board of Directors as of the initial offering as we reported back in 2015:
- 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)

Sure we know that people come and go. Politicians get elected or ousted from office all the time - except in Greenburgh, so we reached out to what was then Sustainable Westchester and is now known as Westchester Power, A Program of Sustainable Westchester and wondered why the name change? We couldn't find out. We did get a response to an email inquiry we sent Westchester Power (below). The two questions we asked Westchester Power were simple: What is the difference between purchasing the transmission of ConEd's energy supply from ConEd or Westchester Power and who are the Board of Directors for Westchester Power? Going to the website link they provided (below), not much has changed regarding their Board from two years ago. 

"Sustainable Westchester is a member-based non-profit corporation.
Our members are the municipalities
of Westchester (all but 3 at this point) and the board is made up of
representatives of those municipalities
and some private individuals. The board make is shown
at https://sustainablewestchester.org/board-of-directors/.

As for comparing with Con Ed, we are insignificant in comparison.
They are a  huge public utility and we are
a community non profit. The Westchester Power electricity
purchasing program that we administer has a
significant number of customers (around 100,000, or
approx 1/3 of the residential and small business accounts
in Westchester), but we have 5 full time and 4 part-time
staff working out of our Mount Kisco officce to cover
that and all of the other Sustainable Westchester activity
(electric vehicle, energy efficiency, waste and
recycling programs). Con Ed covers Westchester and
NYC and has over 15,000 employees. 

Hope that's helpful. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Wishing you and yours a great Thanksgiving,

Dan Welsh

Program Director

Westchester Power

A Program of Sustainable Westchester

914-242-4725"

As an aside, we find it interesting that City of Rye,with Sara Goddard as their sustainability leader and Westchester Power Board of Director, has now implemented a plastic bag ban and a 10-cent fee for paper bags from merchants. And a separate law was also passed in November requiring food establishments to hide plastic straws and not offer them to patrons unless requested. I wonder if they realize that chipping away at their tax base can have more negative consequences to their business community and ultimately their Village than a couple of biodegradable plastic straws in a landfill? 

After two years and constant monitoring by the Sprain Brook Civic Association President Ken Stahn, he has repeatedly reached out to Mr Feiner and his Board seeking clarification as to the savings, or in this case the lack thereof, that Mr Feiner promised of $400-$600 per homeowner should they enroll in the ESCO. Not only have no homeowners reaped any substantial savings if they switched from ConEd to Sustainable Westchester, rather there were months that saw ConEd being less costly for the transmission of their own energy than Sustainable Westchester. Whenever Mr Stahn would push Mr Feiner even more for answers, Mr Feiner would forward the questions to Sustainable Westchester, Now Westchester Power to either be ignored or answered with non-conclusive jargon.

Below are the rest of the documents that came out in this mailer that has the Westchester Power logo as well as the Town logo. While we believe it is an illegal use of the Town's logo, gimmicks, con-games and questionable actions out of the corner office never cease to amaze. The hope is that you, the overwrought junk-mail recipient, looked at this mailing, thought it was junk and put it in your recycle bin. This is exactly what Westchester Power and Mr Feiner want you to do. If you respond as they hope, you are automatically enrolled. Why is Mr Feiner so keen on this shady method of operation? It's the same as locks, which are said to be designed to keep honest people out. Don't fall for this scheme. Opt-OUT by going to the Westchester Power website (www.westchesterpower.org) or calling them (914-242-4725) and tell them you want out! It's the only way we'll get A Better Greenburgh.