Should I save $63 by ditching Boston's electric plan?
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Gas and electric costs have
Advertisement
In Boston,
Advertisement
It's always been there, in the fine print, that municipal plans aren't guaranteed to save you money. That's one of the reasons you're
If you're not sure if you're enrolled in a community choice aggregation plan, check the space circled on this Eversource bill.
Alan Wirzbicki/Globe Staff
Whether you
should
take advantage of that option, of course, is a personal decision — but it carries some broader implications.
If too many people drop out of their municipal plans, those plans will have less buying power, which could make it harder for them to secure lower prices relative to the utilities down the road. One way of looking at it is that by staying in and accepting slightly higher rates now, you make future savings more likely.
I doubt many consumers would find that logic convincing, though. And if you approach your electric rates as simply a hard-nosed financial decision, all that matters now is that the
For me, based on my home's past energy usage, that would translate into a savings of about $88 between February and July, when Eversource's rates will reset. (Obviously, I missed the boat on the full savings, which are now down to about $63.) At that point, if the new Eversource rates are higher than the city's, I can always switch back.
Advertisement
Another reason you might stay in the city program is because while sure, you could shop electric rates every few months and switch back and forth to whichever rate is cheaper — will you remember? And is that really how you want to spend your time? If you want to just pick one and then forget about it, the city argues the municipal plan is probably better.
'It is a price that is stable and is almost certain to give you savings over the medium run,' said Oliver Sellers-Garcia, commissioner of the Environment Department and Green New Deal Director for the city of Boston. 'For most people, my advice is, continue to stay in the program, set it and forget it. It's the easiest thing to do.'
Another reason someone might stay with the city program is environmental: The city's standard rate also includes more local renewable energy than Eversource's basic rate, so if that's important to you, it could make sense to stay.
Though if that's you, be aware that there are
And that gets us to the most awkward part of the sudden price gap between municipal plans and the utility.
Competitive electric suppliers are third-party companies that do the same thing municipalities have done: They provide an alternative to buying electricity from your utility. With competitive plans, you can pick a plan with more renewable energy or one that locks in rates for longer (or shorter) periods, depending on your preferences.
Advertisement
They've also been
But some of the arguments against the competitive suppliers would also seemingly apply to municipal programs now. Because of those city programs, customers who don't keep an eagle eye on rates are now unwittingly paying higher prices than if they just went back to the utility.
I'm not suggesting banning municipal plans. I'm glad that one of them saved me money for as long as it did. But there are plenty of competitive-supply customers who've saved money, too. The bottom line here is that nobody — not the city, not competitive suppliers, not Eversource — bats a thousand. No option is perfect, but the more of them out there, the better.
Alan Wirzbicki is Globe deputy editor for editorials. He can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
24 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
USDA Ends Funding for Solar, Wind Projects on Farmland
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) will no longer deploy programs funding solar or wind power projects on productive farmland, effective immediately, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in an Aug. 18 X post. 'Millions of acres of prime farmland is left unusable so Green New Deal subsidized solar panels can be built. This destruction of our farms and prime soil is taking away the futures of the next generation of farmers and the future of our country,' she said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
USDA ends programs for solar, wind projects on farms
By Leah Douglas and Nichola Groom WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Department of Agriculture will no longer support solar and wind projects on productive farmland, said Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins in a post on X on Monday. The move is the latest in a series of actions by the administration of President Donald Trump to stall development of wind and solar energy, which Trump says are unreliable, expensive, and dependent on Chinese supply chains. "Millions of acres of prime farmland is left unusable so Green New Deal subsidized solar panels can be built. This destruction of our farms and prime soil is taking away the futures of the next generation of farmers and the future of our country," Rollins said on X. The USDA has provided over $2 billion for renewable energy projects, like solar and wind, through its Rural Energy for America Program, according to the agency website. The agency has also supported clean energy projects for rural electric cooperatives. The USDA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. About 424,000 acres (1,715 square kilometers) of rural land were affected by wind turbines and solar farms in 2020, less than 0.05% of the nearly 900 million acres used for farmland, according to a 2024 USDA study. Most of that land stayed in agricultural production after the development of the solar or wind projects, the study found. The administration of former President Joe Biden supported solar and wind projects in rural areas and on farms as part of its effort to cut climate-harming emissions and make clean energy more affordable.
Boston Globe
6 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Courts keep shredding campaign finance laws. It's time to amend the Constitution.
Advertisement Things weren't always this bad. Generations ago, voters demanded laws to reduce the power of special interests, curtail corruption, and ensure that every citizen could speak freely and had equal representation. But over time, the Supreme Court has taken a sledgehammer to those safeguards. The crusade began in the mid-1970s with a case called Buckley v. Valeo, in which the Supreme Court invented a new legal theory: Individuals are entitled, under the First Amendment, to freely spend money to influence election outcomes, no matter how extravagant or obviously corrosive. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The idea that the First Amendment's free speech guarantee applies to money in politics isn't grounded in the text of the Constitution. Nevertheless, over the past 50 years, lawyers and judges have pushed that 'money equals free speech' doctrine to its absolute limits, dismantling basic anticorruption measures and enabling an elite class of big spenders to consolidate political power. In 2010, the Supreme Court unleashed a new flood of anonymous 'dark money' with its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which held that individuals and corporate interests can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. This July, the United States Court of Appeals in Boston Advertisement The consequences for American freedom and self-government have been grave. It's no wonder that nearly Despite the overwhelming demand for change, no meaningful legislation can survive the current judicial precedent. The Supreme Court has decided that almost any policy meant to level the playing field is inherently unconstitutional. That means there is only one way to end the corruption crisis: We must unite citizens and lawmakers around a constitutional amendment. Related : Nearly a decade ago, I cofounded American Promise, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization based in Concord. In the years since, we have built a national movement behind the how legislators should fix the problem. Rather, it gives Americans and our elected officials the freedom to do whatever makes sense for their states, such as more effective disclosure requirements, Advertisement Americans have already amended our founding document 27 times, often to correct an injustice. In fact, the 19th Amendment was eventually adopted in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Minor v. Happersett in 1874, which ruled that the 14th Amendment did not provide women the equal right to vote. The 19th Amendment effectively overruled the Supreme Court's decision by explicitly stating that women have the right to vote. The same would hold true for this new constitutional amendment, which would clarify that the First Amendment should not be interpreted to mean that money is synonymous with free speech when it comes to our elections. Together, these reforms would transform our political system for the better. Lawmakers could spend far less time fundraising and more time engaging with their constituents, preparing for hearings, and developing new legislation. The electoral incentives would also shift, and voters, for their part, could expect more competitive primary elections; better candidates with more diverse skills and experiences; and, over time, less ideological extremism. Many state lawmakers and their constituents want to reduce the influence of money and outside spending in their elections but are repeatedly thwarted when they take action. Just days after a federal court struck down Maine's election-security law, another federal judge invalidated a popular Maine law that limited donations to super PACs. Similarly, when Alaska sought to limit out-of-state contributions, federal judges struck down those efforts, citing First Amendment concerns. These outcomes are a key reason why many states are calling on Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to restore their ability to regulate campaign finance. In the early years of American Promise, people questioned whether a constitutional amendment was realistic. After all, it's a grueling process. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. They also need to win the support of 38 state governments. But momentum is on our side. Advertisement A new revolution is underway, and we have a once-in-a-generation chance to deliver on the founding promise of this country: a government by the people, for the people. It won't be easy. After all, we are fighting the most powerful forces in the world — but we have been in this situation before, and we have emerged victorious.
