People 1, Con Ed 0
Today in Sunnyside, Queens, representatives of Western Queens Power for the People were joined by Assemblymember Richard Brodsky to announce a settlement with Con Edison stemming from the nine-day blackout in western Queens. Under the terms of the settlement, residents who were affected by the blackout will receive a $100 rebate in their August or September bill, along with a written apology from Con Ed. Businesses will receive slightly more.
The settlement is unprecedented. Never before has a public utility given out a rebate without the recipients being required to fill out a form, and never before has the rebate gone directly on to the bill. This rebate also comes with no strings attached -- any resident or business owner who feels he or she should get more can still sue Con Ed.
Some more details of the settlement:
Con Ed will eat the $46 million cost of dealing with the blackout. They will also spend about $17 million, split between the rebates and "greening projects" in the community. The total cost, $63 million, will be borne entirely by Con Ed stockholders; the company will still be required to make the upgrades they promised as a result of getting their recent rate increase.
Western Queens Power for the People is an ad hoc group made up of local residents who were very upset at the way Con Ed was treating the victims of the blackout. For almost two years, they fought tooth and nail to hold Con Ed responsible. That they were able to accomplish so much, especially in light of the political support Con Ed received from "certain quarters" and the lack of laws protecting consumers from their negligence, is an amazing achievement.
In a related note, Assemblymember Michael Gianaris released a statement denouncing the settlement, calling it "another slap in the face" from Con Ed. I'm not sure why.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2006 blackout | Con Edison
The rest of the story
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 24 April 2008 - 2:40pm.
As I said in the original post, if businesses lost more they can sue Con Ed for the full extent of their losses. The real problem is that our laws are written in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for them to recover anything from Con Ed. Meanwhile, since most of the residents affected by the blackout suffered little or no monetary loss, the bulk of the $100 they get will be true payment for their inconvenience. It amounts, for most people, to more than one month free.
As you know from taking on powerful special interests in your neck of the woods, it's not an easy task. Add the burden of overcoming laws that were written by the special interests to protect the interests of the special interests. Pile on the minimal support they received from a very few elected officials (just because people said things on television doesn't mean they helped) and the direct opposition they faced from some others. The fact that this grass roots organization was able to get a significant settlement from a multibillion dollar corporate monopoly is a remarkable achievement.
Let me fix the title for you
Submitted by Steve Perez on 25 April 2008 - 9:00am.
People 1, Con Ed 0 Con Ed 100
My bold prediction: ConEd's failure to invest in renewable energy will lead to blackouts and increased rates this summer. Giving us plenty more chances to win this "victory."
Renewable energy isn't nearly enough
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 25 April 2008 - 9:34am.
The largest (though not the only) problem is that we're wasting an awful lot of energy. If we implemented some simple energy efficiency measures, we could avoid blackouts.
For example, Intro 264-2006 would prohibit businesses from propping their doors open when their air conditioning systems are on. It was introduced by Gale Brewer, and is co-sponsored by Garodnick, Gioia, Gonzalez, Koppell, Lappin, Liu, Mark-Viverito, Martinez, McMahon, Monserrate, Nelson, Recchia Jr., Vallone Jr. and Weprin. It has had two hearings but no real action, and is stuck in the committee on Environmental Protection (Jim Gennaro, Chair). If your Councilmember isn't on the list of sponsors, make a phone call (you can get the info at the City Council website). If your Councilmember is on the list, call to say "thank you."
Another idea: Require large office buildings with centralized air conditioning systems to decentralize the systems. Currently, many office workers are kept in the cold all summer, because those systems can't be turned off in areas that are cool enough. If it costs too much to retrofit, a tax rebate could (and should) be made available.
These two ideas would not only save energy, they would save the most energy at peak times, during the hottest summer days. In addition to lowering the peak demand and helping avoid blackouts, we could also tear down the oldest, most polluting power plants (the ones that are only in operation during peak times).
Meanwhile, the same group that got this deal from Con Ed will be watching to make sure that the upgrades they promised in exchange for their recent rate increase are put into place quickly and efficiently. If you don't think Con Ed has been held fully responsible, don't just complain, get involved and help with the fight.
Hack politicians
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 27 April 2008 - 11:51pm.
I have been reading, with more than a little disgust, some of the statements of outrage (or "outrageous statements") by politicians at all levels of government, over this settlement.
First, let me reiterate a few facts and add one more. Fact 1: Without this settlement, the people and businesses who are getting a little money would get nothing. That's right -- nothing! Fact 2: People and businesses can still sue Con Ed if they want. They can take their rebate checks, cash them, and still try to get more. Fact 3: The law protects Con Ed to an absurd degree; their lobbyists have done a tremendous job of covering their assets.
Fact 4: None of these "outraged" politicians was at the negotiating table. Not one. This was accomplished by a small group of local residents who got together on their own, worked very hard for nearly two years, and accomplished something amazing. Now that a settlement has been reached, in which the community is getting $17 million more than anyone who understands the situation thought they could have gotten, these hack politicians are muscling their way into the story with mock outrage and demagoguery.
The only politician at the table with them was Assemblymember Richard Brodsky. The rest of them -- the "outraged" ones -- were nowhere to be seen.
They should be ashamed of themselves!
I don't know, but I've been told that $100 does not
adequately compensate residents and businesses for the costs they incurred as a result of the black-out. Restaurants and food stores lost significant amounts as refrigeration failed. Under Con Ed's offer they get no compensation for those losses. And you thought people would be happy?