In defense of Boston-area municipal clean energy programs
These programs support renewable energy investments and jobs, let renters choose clean energy, and maintain competitive prices. Since its start, Somerville's basic rate has been below Eversource's basic rate for 16 out of 17 rate cycles, and Somerville's default rate has been below Eversource's basic rate for 15 out of 17 rate cycles. A true accounting of Somerville's program shows we have saved 29,000 annual participants a total of $26 million since July 2017 compared with Eversource.
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
That's why
Katjana Ballantyne
Mayor of Somerville
Consider the full impact of Boston Community Choice program
Your recent article on the Boston Community Choice Electricity program presents a misleading picture of the program's costs and uses inflated assumptions about the electricity usage of Boston residents to estimate savings.
Advertisement
The article's first chart implies that BCCE charges residents more than Eversource for electricity. This is deeply misleading. Data filed with the Department of Public Utilities indicate that since the launch of BCCE in 2021, the average customer on the standard, or default, plan has saved approximately $800 compared with Eversource basic service.
Further, the article inflates how much residents can save by switching from the standard to the basic plan. It assumes a monthly usage of 900 kilowatt-hours, while the city's data show the average BCCE customer uses less than 420 kWh per month — more than doubling the estimated bills and savings of the average resident.
Within Greater Boston, aggregation programs have been a resounding success. Of the 81 municipalities served by Eversource and National Grid, 61 have aggregation programs, with eight more launching this year or awaiting approval. While there are opportunities to improve communications about program options and to see that low-income customers are automatically enrolled into the most affordable tier, aggregation programs are a proven way for municipalities to both save residents money and promote greater usage of renewable electricity.
Jeremy Koo
Assistant director of clean energy
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Boston
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
14 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Seven years, three OUIs: Does the State House have a drinking problem?
In 2022, Democratic state Representative David LeBoeuf of Worcester Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Democratic state Senator Michael Brady of Brockton Alcoholism is a disease. Any person struggling with alcoholism should be treated with compassion, empathy, and help in finding treatment. But driving while drunk is a dangerous choice. All three lawmakers faced the typical sentence for first-time offenders: a 45-day loss of license, enrollment in an alcohol education course, and payment of fees and fines. In each case, the charges were continued without a finding, to be dismissed if the offender maintained a clean record for a year. Advertisement To their credit, each man took responsibility, apologized, and pledged to improve. 'What happened was completely unacceptable. I make no excuses. I am committed to taking the necessary steps to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again,' Lawn said. In many ways, the Legislature is similar to any employer: It has a diverse body of members with different struggles. 'It's a testament that addiction affects everybody in all walks of life,' said former representative Timothy Whelan, a Republican from Brewster. 'I think it's more of a human issue than it is related to any one particular field of endeavors.' But interviews with 17 current and former lawmakers paint a picture of an institution where, particularly in the House, drinking with colleagues can be one way — though not the only way — to get 'in' with leadership and build the social bonds that make one a more effective lawmaker. As one current representative, speaking on condition of anonymity, put it, 'Being social is part of being in the building, and being social in America as an adult generally involves drinking.' Former representative Denise Provost, a Democrat from Somerville, said she never personally witnessed overconsumption, but 'as in the rest of the culture, whenever there was hospitality, there was frequently alcoholic beverages served or on offer.' Multiple current and former lawmakers said there are legislators who keep alcohol in their offices and drink with colleagues. One person recalled walking in on an alcohol-fueled party with lobbyists and lawmakers in an office during a late-night session around 2018. Several lawmakers said drinking in the State House isn't common but tends to occur during late-night sessions, particularly budget weeks, when lawmakers have to sit around for long hours, often with little to do. Advertisement Max Ratner, a spokesperson for House Speaker Ron Mariano, said in a statement, 'The Speaker does not condone alcohol consumption by Members and staff inside the State House, and expects them to use common sense and act responsibly at all times.' One former lawmaker told me he believes alcohol should be banned inside the State House, as it is in public buildings like firehouses and police stations. While that may put a damper on office holiday parties, it's an idea worth considering. Of course, part of the job of a lawmaker is attending events with constituents and lobbyists, where alcohol may be served. Multiple lawmakers told me that there are also groups of lawmakers who frequently get drinks after work. Some lawmakers compared the culture to an 'old boys' club' or a high school 'cool kids' clique. House Majority Leader Michael Moran, a Democrat from Boston who didn't respond to a request for comment, has spent $2,361 from his campaign account at the 21st Amendment, a Beacon Hill tavern, since 2024 for 20 meetings with colleagues and staff, according to campaign finance filings. Since January 2024, state officials — primarily legislators — have spent $56,591 at the 21st Amendment, as well as $92,954 at Carrie Nation and $50,710 at Emmets, two other bars near the State House, according to filings with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance. All these restaurants sell food and drink, so there's no way to know how much was spent on alcohol. Advertisement Several lawmakers interviewed for this column — generally those who live far from Boston or have children at home — say they usually go home after work. Others, including some in recovery, don't touch alcohol. Some said they weren't aware of drinking beyond occasional social events. The House may be no different from other corporate cultures. Some lawmakers drink often, some don't, and a few drink excessively. Certainly, adults are free to hang out in bars after work. But when lawmakers choose to drink, they should remember that they are public role models and the mantras drilled into 21-year-olds still apply: Find a safe and sober ride home, and friends don't let friends drive drunk. Shira Schoenberg can be reached at
Boston Globe
3 days ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's attack on in-state tuition for Dreamers is bad law — and worse policy
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Other surveys — by the Advertisement Among the targets of the administration's hostility, none elicits more sympathy from the public than the so‑called Dreamers — young people brought here unlawfully as children, who have grown up as Americans in everything but paperwork. (According to Gallup, Advertisement In lawsuits filed this spring against Texas, Minnesota, and Kentucky, the Justice Department maintains that offering in‑state tuition to students without legal immigration status — even if they were brought here as small children and essentially grew up American — violates federal law. In reality, it is the administration's assault that distorts federal law. It is also a brazen power grab that tramples states' rights, to say nothing of basic decency. Beginning in 2001, Democratic and Republican legislatures decided that if young people grow up in a state, are educated in its schools, and want to pursue higher education within its borders, it makes no sense to penalize them financially merely because of their immigration status. If there are good reasons to give a break on tuition to local students who want to go to a local college, what difference does it make whether they have a passport, a green card, or neither? Yet on April 28, President Trump Advertisement But that isn't true. Federal law does not say that undocumented immigrants must be excluded from any in-state tuition benefit. It Accordingly, the states that offer reduced tuition to undocumented immigrants condition the offer on criteria other than residency. States that offer in‑state tuition to undocumented students are acting not just humanely but rationally. Such policies reflect the common-sense principle that justifies giving a tuition break to any local student: It is in every state's interest to help its homegrown young people be as successful and well educated as possible. Lower tuition makes higher education more affordable, which in turn boosts the number of local families that can send their kids to college, which in turn expands the state's population of educated adults. A more educated population strengthens the state's economy, since college graduates are more likely to be employed and to earn higher incomes. For states like Massachusetts, which suffers from high outmigration, a particularly strong argument for the in-state tuition break is that graduates of public institutions are more likely to Advertisement None of these arguments has any logical connection to immigration or citizenship. They apply with equal force to those born abroad and to those born locally. And it is irrelevant whether those born abroad were brought to America by parents who had immigration visas or by parents who didn't. Dreamers aren't freeloaders. Like their families, they pay taxes — property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, and even the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare benefits, for which they are ineligible. (In 2022, according to the latest estimate from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, undocumented immigrants Aside from the Trumpian hard core, most Americans sympathize with the plight of undocumented immigrants who grew up in this country and have known no other home. That explains why (as Gallup reports) 85 percent of them would like Congress to make it possible for them to acquire citizenship. It also explains why in-state tuition for Dreamers has bipartisan support: The states that have enacted such policies include Oklahoma, Kentucky, California, and New York. Advertisement The Trump administration's lawsuits deserve to be dismissed on their legal merits, but they also deserve to be reviled as one more example of MAGA malevolence, which is grounded in nothing except a desire to hurt immigrants — Few Americans have any desire to punish young people who have done nothing wrong. The cruelty at the heart of Trump's immigration policy may thrill his base, but it repels a far larger America unwilling to abandon its values. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Boston Globe
3 days ago
- Boston Globe
Citizens of nowhere
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Some stateless people entered the United States and remain here legally, protected by asylum or another status. But like many undocumented immigrants, most live in the shadows, careful not to attract attention and unable to do anything that requires state identification. As such, many are unable to find regular work and can only get by on jobs that pay cash and don't ask too many questions. Others take the risky step of fighting for asylum, work authorization, and other protections. Advertisement Like other undocumented immigrants, some people who are stateless remain in the country illegally because they also have nowhere to go. Amadou was allowed to temporarily reenter the United States by the Biden administration. He lives in Ohio with his family. Huiyee Chiew One such stateless person is Amadou, a 59-year-old electrician from Mauritania, who arrived in the United States more than 25 years ago, fleeing conflict that had broken out between his home country and Senegal. (Amadou is a pseudonym. His name is being withheld to protect his identity.) Advertisement Like thousands of others without nationalities, he became a citizen of nowhere for reasons beyond his control. People may become stateless because they are born to parents without nationalities — one of the world's largest groups of stateless people are the Rohingya, a Muslim minority group who live in Myanmar and face persecution. Or they live through the dissolution of their home country, like Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union, or more recently Sudan or South Sudan, or their government restricts access to citizenship for some groups — like the Bedoons, an Arab minority in Kuwait, who Born and raised in Arab-dominated Mauritania, Amadou lived an uneventful life until a border dispute erupted with neighboring Senegal in 1989. The conflict escalated into ethnic violence, and the Mauritanian government stripped tens of thousands of Black Mauritanians of their citizenship and expelled them to Senegal. Amadou was one of them. Left with nothing and without any legal documents, he survived by doing farmwork. He often went hungry. In 2000, he fled to the United States in the hope of getting asylum. To enter the United States, he used a passport obtained by a friend with connections in the Mauritanian government. Amadou knew the passport deal was illegal, but he had no other choice. He was able to use the fraudulent passport to apply for a US tourist visa and boarded a flight for New York. Once here, he applied for asylum. In the years waiting for his asylum petition to be decided, he lived in Ohio, working as an electrician. But in 2007 his petition was denied and he was ordered to leave the country. The irony is that Amadou's asylum petition was denied in part because the court said that the conditions in Mauritania had improved and that he was unlikely to face persecution if he returned — which would have been relevant if Amadou was indeed still a citizen of that country. Advertisement Lynn Tramonte, the director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance, is familiar with Amadou's case. She has witnessed how a lack of understanding among lawyers and immigration judges about statelessness in cases involving Black Mauritanians often leads to deportation. 'Every day [people like Amadou] get a reminder that no country claims you. It's like you are a ghost. But you are still a person,' says Tramonte. Amadou's former attorney, Aneesha Gandhi, says he was not immediately deported in 2007 because Immigration and Customs Enforcement was unable to obtain travel documents for him from the Mauritanian government — unsurprising given that it had revoked his citizenship. So instead, he was placed under an order of supervision and allowed to remain and work in the United States until a solution could be found. That meant reporting regularly to ICE. Amadou says he never missed a check-in. He complied with ICE's requirement to apply for travel documents through the Mauritanian embassy, but the officials there ignored his requests. As an electrician, Amadou always carries his helmet and tool bag to work. Huiyee Chiew And so years passed. Amadou worked in construction, married, and had three children. He and his wife, who is undocumented, settled down in an Ohio suburb. He allowed himself to believe he would be able to stay in the United States, even if he couldn't figure out a path to legal residency. ICE officials had told him so. Advertisement Amadou lives by his grandfather's words: 'Make it good, make it well, make it right.' He focused on working hard, paying taxes, following the law, and raising a happy family. But being stateless, he knew his life could be upended in an instant, no matter how hard he worked to make his immigration status right. Then Donald Trump took office in 2017. Stateless in the age of Trump President Trump has called the asylum system the ' Unlike the Obama administration, which prioritized the deportation of people who had recently been ordered to leave and allowed both ICE attorneys and immigration officers more discretion in individual cases, the first Trump administration targeted all noncitizens who had outstanding orders of removal, old and new, according to the In late 2018, ICE arrested Amadou without warning during a routine check-in. The officers, he recalled, were aggressive, questioning how someone like him with a removal order could have children here. He did not answer but lowered his head. They handcuffed him and took him into custody. Amadou's wife became the family's anchor after his deportation. Huiyee Chiew Amadou spent eight months in ICE detention before authorities finally obtained a temporary travel document to deport him back to Mauritania. The catch: His travel document, issued by Mauritania, only allowed him to stay in that country for 90 to 120 days. (The Mauritanian embassy did not respond to questions about Amadou's case.) Advertisement When Amadou landed in Mauritania, immigration officers barred him from entering the country, saying, 'You are not a Mauritanian.' With nowhere else to go, Amadou traveled to neighboring Senegal to meet relatives of his with the help of a friend. The only things he had were a cane to help him walk, because of a quickly deteriorating necrotic hip, and a plastic bag holding some clothes. 'You don't have papers, you don't have anything,' Amadou said. Back in Ohio, Amadou's family struggled to stay afloat. They didn't see Amadou again for six years. Living in limbo At the end of 2024, Amadou was granted humanitarian parole by the Biden administration, allowing him to temporarily enter the United States. He returned to his home in Ohio. Amadou's humanitarian parole, however, has an expiration date. He is now trying every possible avenue to find a legal way to stay. He has reason to worry. President Trump has called for mass deportations, enhanced ICE enforcement, and the rollback of parole programs. In January, he suspended asylum applications at the southern border, citing an ' Samantha Sitterley, a staff attorney at The bill, first introduced by Representative Jamie Raskin and Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland in 2022, addresses statelessness by establishing a federal definition, determination procedure, protective status, and a pathway to permanent residency and citizenship. It was written by advocates and experts in the field, including United Stateless, and stateless individuals themselves. If passed, the bill could end the legal limbo for stateless persons like Amadou. Advertisement But the chances of passing the bill seem slim for now. Realistically, Sitterley said, the Department of Homeland Security should at least adopt a statelessness definition to ensure a more consistent and humanitarian approach toward stateless people. David Baluarte, a law professor specializing in immigration at the City University of New York School of Law, and who previously worked with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees on a study of statelessness, recalled that when he started working on the issue during the Obama administration, few even knew what 'stateless' meant. And although awareness has grown, political will to do anything about the problem has not. 'The perception [of the current administration] is that they [immigrants] are the problem: 'We need to get rid of them,'' he says. 'Congress is not going to prioritize immigration legislation right now.' He is also concerned about attacks on birthright citizenship. If that constitutional right were taken away, the United States would face a growing stateless population of children born within its borders to undocumented and stateless immigrants. Amadou prays regularly and gives thanks to God for helping him get through difficult times. Huiyee Chiew For Amadou, life remains uncertain. But his years away from his family have shown him to embrace what time he does have with them. After all, everything could change tomorrow.
