Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Aggregation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Motion to reconsider North Kingstown electricity aggregation fails after public concerns raised
Summary
Councilor Hill Ross sought to change her Nov. vote on the town's community aggregation electricity supply agreement, citing constituent concerns and rate volatility. The motion to reconsider failed for lack of a second after public comment highlighted uncertainty about savings and opt-out enrollment.
Councilor Hill Ross sought on Feb. 24 to change her prior vote on the town's electricity supply agreement and moved to reconsider the matter, saying she wanted to change her vote "from yes to no." She cited constituent concerns and reports that consumers may face higher charges when returning to the default utility.
Several public commenters urged caution or asked for more information. Ricky Thompson, of 194 Plain Road, said he had checked the program's structure and told the council, "with a good energy program, number 1, they're not vetted the same way when they look to change their rates as Rhode Island Energy" and that the program's rates "could pretty much change at will." Thompson said a state contact called the anticipated savings "a tick of a savings. Pure and simple."
Tom Bridal, who said he had followed the item over two years, told the council he was concerned about finality after votes. He told councilors that reconsideration should be reserved for new information, not as a fallback when members regret a prior vote: "Reconsideration should be the exception, not the fallback position." Dan Manning and Karen Salvatore also asked about monitoring and due diligence for the new supplier.
Councilors discussed the procedural requirements for reconsideration under Robert's Rules. Town Solicitor Mr. Callahan explained the steps: one councilor must make a motion to reconsider and a second is required to bring it for a vote. Councilors asked for a second; none was offered, and the motion to reconsider failed.
The town manager has previously provided background materials to the council and residents about the aggregation program. During public comment several residents urged the council to appoint a staff member or council designee to monitor the supplier rates after implementation to ensure the program is delivering savings.
Ending
Because the motion to reconsider failed for lack of a second, the council did not reopen the contract vote. Councilors and residents said questions about ongoing rate monitoring and consumer protections remain relevant and could be raised in future meetings or budget discussions.
