goose_juggler t1_ir3sg5w wrote
Burlington has suspended the program due to “market conditions.” 🤦♀️
ChainmailleAddict t1_ir7mgrk wrote
Burlington can't even get their WATER under control, and they voted against someone who wanted to fix it because they'd rather have a wealthy neoliberal lawyer from Bedford jack up their utilities
goose_juggler t1_ir7pxn6 wrote
Ugh, agreed. That general mentality was mostly what that facepalm was for.
ChainmailleAddict t1_ir7u5i3 wrote
Team Timmy! We'll get him next time.
commentsOnPizza t1_ir44oha wrote
It could be that they didn't find any supplier willing to commit to a contract that was with a rate they thought was favorable. I think I noticed one town lock in an 18¢ rate for 2 years which probably won't be great for most people.
> due to market conditions, which prevented the Town from obtaining satisfactory aggregation pricing
If we're expecting around 34¢ this winter and then 11¢ for 18 months after that, locking in an 18¢ rate for 24 months might leave customers in a nice place this winter and an expensive place for a year and a half after that (assuming that most customers don't know they can opt out).
It's still a bit surprising, but it might be that they started negotiations a month or even a few weeks later than most towns and energy prices soared in the meantime. Europe is looking at a winter where it will be ungodly expensive to heat their homes - and Germany is still shutting down its nuclear plants despite the crazy energy prices they're seeing.
I'm still surprised that Burlington couldn't find a satisfactory price.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments