Thursday, January 21, 2016


The following are highlights only from today's Gazette article: Croton Passes on Bulk Electricity

-Editor's note: Everything Croton continues to receive anonymous comments insisting that the head of Sustainable Westchester (former mayor Leo Wiegman) is an unpaid Executive Director of the organization. This is false. It has already been established in multiple forums that Mr. Wiegman is salaried.

Highlights from the article which you are encouraged to read in its entirety:

--Residents and small businesses who use Con Ed have already been placed into the program automatically. To get out, they must affirmatively opt out of the program. 

--The vote was 3-2; Trustees Pugh and Gallelli voted for the CCA Memorandum of Understanding/contract; Trustees Walsh and Anderson, and Mayor Schmidt voted against.

--The Gazette states: The former all-Democrat board, under the administration of Mayor Wiegman, would have almost assuredly have passed the measure....After Mayor Wiegman, a private energy consultant was appointed Executive Director of Sustainable Westchester last year, he recused himself during deliberations and votes regarding Sustainable Westchester and CCA  (Editor's Note: all such votes were carried unanimously by the all Democrat board without exception. In short, instead of these votes being 5-0, they were 4-0.)

--Under questioning at the recent board meeting, Sustainable Westchester's representative admitted repeatedly that they cannot guarantee you will receive a lower rate. Indeed The Gazette states: "Under one of the expected CCA bidding scenarios, instead of guaranteeing rates lower than Con Ed's (or NYSE&G's), bidders could propose a fixed rate on an average of Con Ed rates over the prior 12-month period. To that extent, if Con Ed or NYSEG rateswere to decrease over the two or three year period of the Sustainable Westchester/CCA contract with the chosen ESCO, it is possible that Sustainable Westchester's rates could be higher." (Also both Trustee Walsh and Mayor Schmidt, per the Gazette, "noted that Sustainable Westchester 'cannot guarantee' that its charges would be lower than Con Ed's.")

--While Mayor Schmidt said he fully supports the concept of a CCA, he "continued to say he had several unanswered questions which needed to be responded to, such as what Sustainable Westchester will be doing with the significant amount of profits it would realize as the supplier to possibly 100,000 plus Westchester customers." 

--The SW representative was asked if the board could be given an additional two weeks to consider the proposal, get answers etc. The SW answer was no. It does not PER THE GAZETTE "conform to their timetable".  

--Mr. Walsh stated that he would have voted for the program if it had been an "opt in" program (where you the consumer get to decide). He also stated that he didn't believe enough residents were aware of the program. 

PETITION UPDATE, EDITOR'S NOTE: Unfortunately we continue to get reports of petitions circulating in the village in which the unknown carriers are insisting that savings are guaranteed, can be as high as 10%, and that the program is 100% renewable. This is simply not true. It is their stated intent to force a re-vote "yes" into the Wiegman program. In addition, an email is circulating--and several residents have sent your editor copies--in which the writer states that the program will "serve to lower our electricity rates". Once again, per Sustainable Westchester's own representatives and in the Gazette, there are NO guarantees that your rates will be lower.


  1. is this going to happen every time they don't get their way?

  2. They've been in the delis. I said there was no guarantees and the renewables were a separate component not the regular thing being signed up for. No one besides me knew what the girl was talking about and people just went back to their lives.

  3. I actually ran into someone this morning who said you can't believe a word that is in The Gazette. I guess they think the videotape is wrong too.

  4. The Gazette article is biased against Sustainable Westchester. This article makes SW look bad when it isn't.

    1. No the article is FACTUAL. All you have to do is look at the videotape. If you are unhappy with the content of the videotape and the article, you might want to contact Sustainable Westchester instead.

  5. Better to be safe then sorry the Mayor and trustees made the right call for now!

  6. Thanks for the highlights. I went to go get the Gazette and read it all and listened to the videotape section twice (that wasn't easy).

    As I understand CU rejected this program because of the having to op-out, because they had unanswered questions, because SW would not give them two more weeks because it didn't fit into SW's timetable, and because they wondered where all the money that SW would make would go and because the previous board of Leo and company didn't do enough outreach to the community. They also had problems with the fact that rates were not guaranteed to be lower.

    Why I am repeating all this? Because I just got Ann gallelli's decoding agendas email and this is what She has written as the ONLY reason WHY CU VOTED AGAINST THE SUSTAINABLE WESTCHESTER WEIGMAN PROGRAM:

    She says
    3. Discussion of Outreach and public education regarding the Community Choice Aggregation program. The board will discuss how and when more outreach on the program purposes and execution might occur. The Board previously voted against entering the CCA program on a 3-2 vote for the reason that more outreach was needed. The discussion will be on what form and when this might occur.

    OKAY WELL THAT'S NOT TRUE. THE GAZETTE AND THE VIDEOTAPE show that there were MANY REASONS why the mayor and Walsh and Anderson voted no. And why having voted no and the next cycle is like a year or more away is it on the agenda that they'd like to know when outreach will occur.

    The vote is over. There doesn't have to be any outreach until the next cycle. Why are taking about this still? The budget is coming up. Shouldn't we be focusing on that instead. Who put this on the agenda?

    1. I am not on Trustee Gallelli's private distribution list. You should send your questions to her directly or attend Monday's work session.

    2. @DonDe: Croton United never took a position on the CCA. The 3 trustees voted "No" but for very different reasons. Greg Schmidt was troubled by the lack of transparency as to the money, and also the lack of community outreach. But he was open to the idea in principle. Ken Walsh was opposed because he feels that this is not something which people should be forced into. Bob Anderson noted that the MoU was not acceptable (and indeed White Plains & Greenburgh had also felt that way) and Bob was wary about agreeing to purchase electricity on terms which have not even been put out to bid. Unlike the Dems who would vote in lockstep no matter what the substantive merits, the 3 CU trustees were not in agreement among themselves. They all voted "No" but for different reasons. If SW had bothered to be respectful to our elected officials and treat them as the officials in Pleasantville, etc were treated, the outcome of that vote may have been different.