Actionable Fraud or "Sustainable" Energy - Westchester County Case Study

[JBG]

First the good stuff (link) (sort of like "Puff the Magic Dragon):

New Rochelle is party to Sustainable Westchester's "community choice aggregation" energy-supply contract covering more than 20 municipalities in southern Westchester, signed in 2022. The two-year fixed contract, which expires at year's end, charges 15.5 cents per kilowatt hour for renewable energy supply and 13.6 cents for standard energy.

Jim Kuster, co-chair of Sustainable Westchester, said the growing dependence on renewables for Westchester energy is an important piece of the region's climate-change policy.

"The greenhouse gas reduction as a result of residents subscribing to the renewable option, which the vast majority do, is greater than any other greenhouse gas reduction initiative in Westchester," he said.

One would think that these hard-working public servants are busy saving the earth. After all, they are building a supplier-aggregator of sustainable, renewable power. After that it gets tricky.

Sustainable Westchester is the default electric provider for most cities and towns in Westchester County, a suburban county of New York City. Customers can opt out

Spoiler

(spoiler alert we have)

but others are "voluntarily" paying more for electricity, for the benefit of the earth. It gets trickier.

Noah Bramson, a former mayor of New Rochelle, is now on Sustainable Westchester's board. He voted, as a member of New Rochelle's legislative body, to sign New Rochelle up, shortly before his term as mayor ended. He did not disclose that he had a "volunteer" position with Sustainable Westchester. And Bramson now has a $185,000 a year salary as a board member of Sustainable Westchester. The current City Manager, who runs the day to day operations of the city, just nullified the contract on ethics ground. Her contract as manager was abruptly terminated by an allegedly "forced" resignation, see New Rochelle NY city manager Kathleen Gill resigns after 16 months.

Bare-knuckles politics at least, fraud at worst, all in service of saving the earth from "climate change."

 

[Grumblenuts]

Evidently, it's a matter of law, not "should." No talk of prison time yet, but one can always hope. Thank goodness that reporter got the ball rolling by raising a stink in the first place.

Common knowledge that the renewable sources are now cheaper than the conventional ones. No reason to be charging anyone more for "clean energy." It should be the reverse if anything.

 

[elektra]

Common knowledge that the renewable sources are now cheaper than the conventional ones. No reason to be charging anyone more for "clean energy." It should be the reverse if anything.

Renewables are cheaper? With or without the billions of dollars of subsidies? And, how much is spent, building renewables?

You say they are cheaper, how much have we spent? Why are there subsidies?

 

[JBG]

Evidently, it's a matter of law, not "should." No talk of prison time yet, but one can always hope. Thank goodness that reporter got the ball rolling by raising a stink in the first place.

Common knowledge that the renewable sources are now cheaper than the conventional ones. No reason to be charging anyone more for "clean energy." It should be the reverse if anything.

Renewables are not cheaper, especially with baksheesh built in for politicians and "non-profit" board members.

 

[elektra]

There was a time when the courts and laws of our country protected us against being charged more for a product we do not want.

The product being green energy.

And yes, there were laws that did protect us from being forced to pay more, that are being ignored, or rewrote.