Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Kelruss t1_jc2ydag wrote

Reply to comment by sophware in New electric company by shuckit401

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