Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Kelruss t1_jc1v2tb wrote

It’s community choice aggregation by the City, the company is there because they provided the lowest bid, and they can be replaced when their contract is up. I’m sure it won’t surprise you, but PPL, who owns RI Energy, also financially supports Republicans. GoLocal wants a scandal because it’s GoLocal, but the City follows an RFP and bidding process that’s not about how a company donates, it’s about whether that company is fit for purpose in their proposal (often that means: the cheapest).

Bottom line: utility companies going to utility company. The difference here is that the goal is to shift us to renewables without wrecking our bank accounts, and ultimately to provide a cheaper greener service as more renewables come on line. My understanding is that they do that by negotiating energy prices as a collection of municipalities, rather than us as individual ratepayers being stuck with the whims of RI Energy and the PUC.

So you can either switch to the cheaper, greener option, or you can opt out.

27

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jc24sfw wrote

yeah the political donations angle is kinda dumb when PPL and National Grid do the same thing.

5

sophware t1_jc2bl3i wrote

That depends. Many companies "contribute to the GOP" because they contribute to both the Dems and the GOP. This is not definitive b/c it's from about 10 seconds of work on my part, but my first search result showed "National Grid USA" giving more to the Dems since 2010. Almost always at least 50% more, often many times more. Take a look and notice 2022:

https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/national-grid-usa/C00048702/summary/2020

5

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jc2mylm wrote

>That depends. Many companies "contribute to the GOP" because they contribute to both the Dems and the GOP.

And that's the case with NextEra too, hence why it's a non-issue.

Being an ethical consumer who cares about this stuff is great, but for something as essential as electricity where there's so few options, there's no good option for that.

1

sophware t1_jc2pa32 wrote

I'm not sure if I made this clear, but according to a brief look, national grid gives overwhelmingly more to the Dems than the GOP. Are you saying it's the same with nextera? Do you have a source?

1

Kelruss t1_jc2ydag wrote

FWIW, NextEra is similar to PPL, they gave strongly to Republicans while that party was in power, then hedged in 2020 and gave more or less evenly, then switched to Dems in 2022 (they were maybe more strongly associated when Republicans than PPL was in earlier cycles - albeit, some of this is before Citizens United). It’s notable that National Grid gives much less than any of the others (less than $200K total nationwide in many years), and it operates only in the Northeast US, which is a heavily Democratic area. Meanwhile, NextEra comes out of Florida and is largely a southern company. That geography undoubtedly has influence on which politicians they give to.

This isn’t to excuse any of these companies nor to suggest that their political spending is without consequence, but again, the political spending here is beside the point as the goal is cheap energy prices that match the renewable goals of the municipalities involved. That’s just not something that’s possible as individual ratepayers under the PUC arrangement with PPL. Neither of these companies is ideal, but the goal of community choice aggregation is laudable, and seems worth supporting to me (especially if it’s cheaper and greener).

3

sophware t1_jc3aj6w wrote

What makes me question the potentially better points is the statement that neither of these organizations is ideal. It is dismissive and misleading. One of these two companies gives in a much different way than the other, at least with the little information we have discussed.

I have voted Republican in the past. Putting me in the same boat as Both Sidesers when I'm far left of liberals is just plain stupid. I'm not saying your comment goes that far, but the statement that "neither of these companies is ideal" is bad enough is simplistic to the point that it makes me question the the rationality and judgment of the person at the time they're making the rest of the comment.

1

Kelruss t1_jc3ib31 wrote

I think you’re misinterpreting me? I didn’t make a value judgment as to your politics; I certainly didn’t suggest anything about Both Sides here. Nor am I trying to be dismissive about concerns. But there is a lack of acknowledgment I’m seeing about who has agency here and the limited scope of our choices as consumers. The CCA program puts our municipalities in a much stronger position as negotiators on our behalf, it increases the use of renewables, and it’s cheaper. The other option currently available doesn’t deliver that. Those are our two options, at present.

There are/were efforts to have the State “nationalize” RI’s energy company, but that’s a huge lift. But even if that’s an end goal, meanwhile, with CCA, we can organize within our municipalities and hold them to account much more easily than we can with the PUC. We can push for changes with the next RFP, especially now that people are much more aware of it.

1

sophware t1_jc3ncdq wrote

I think you're misinterpreting how I'm interpreting you.

I didn't say you made a value judgement as to my politics, though I can see how a cursory reading could result in that mistake. No worries. What is a worry is the phrase "neither of these companies is ideal".

You seem to have some very good points to make. I'm most likely to choose to make time to dig into them with someone who:

  1. doesn't say "neither of these companies is ideal"
  2. is able to read my comments and recognize that my objection is to the statement "neither of these companies is ideal"

You may not want to see the connection between "neither of these companies is ideal" and Both Sidesism, but its clear to me.

I appreciate the steps people take to be better at critical thought. It's not clear to me that what I'm seeing is an improvement.

We go from "they give to the GOP so they're bad," which is oversimplified and a hot take to "all companies give to both sides so don't worry about it," which is arguably much worse.

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jc2wjnx wrote

If you look up on NextEra on OpenSecrets, their 2022 cycle donations were 60/40 in favor of Democrats. Earlier cycles tilt the other way but the larger point is that if you want a utility company where you're not going to support shit you disagree with, you're probably going to have to go Ted Kaczynski and find a cabin in the remote woods.

1

sophware t1_jc39d4z wrote

"everybody gives to both sides" doesn't cover it in this case. It's significantly misrepresents the difference in the influence of these two companies. That is, with the limited information given so far.

Follow your own logic. Assume I'm not Ted kaczynski. Therefore, assume I'm going to have to make compromises. Assume I've accepted that there isn't a utility company that does zero I disagree with. The idea that that means I have to consider these two companies equal is stupid.

This binary thinking is childish.

1

shuckit401 OP t1_jdbk02n wrote

I think it's an oversight on your part when say it's kinda dumb. When you have a chance of impacting a comPany by choosing not to spend your $ with them.

I don't think its kinda dumb at all. It could be a grassroots effort to affect your beliefs in where you spend your money. If enough people did the same, kinda dumb turns into kinda a lot of $.

Kinda smart.

1

shuckit401 OP t1_jdbkqh8 wrote

After further reading, I've become to. Understand that some of the comments here may be from people who are smarter than me. But, that's why I posted it. To encourage some discussion and see if my thoughts were In line with anyone else's.

I just can't believe that ANYONE would blindly vote Republican across the board.....

I don't eat chick fila anymore. Because I don't share in that companies values. Who are consistently against some of our marginalized members of society. Myself included.

I thank everyone for their opinions and time.

1

AnteaterPopular6575 t1_jc52ruv wrote

What the cheaper greener option you speak of? A different company for RI Energy?

1

Kelruss t1_jc6m0ml wrote

It’s the offering from the cities that are participating in community choice aggregation (CCA). Together, they’re effectively saying, “we’d like to buy more renewables in our power supply, but keep the price low.” They got a bidder who was able to do that (in this case, it’s a 5% mix from NextEra) and now those of us in the CCA communities are all automatically being switched to that company starting in May. Unless you opt out for RI Energy, who provide no renewable power and are more expensive over the same time period.

1