QOD — Why Can’t Delaware’s Utilities Participate in Consumer Conservation Programs?
I know I’m late to this — it was in the NJ in late May — but I keep thinking about this and wonder WHY exactly this is:
Delmarva is currently banned from providing help with home efficiency upgrades, with the SEU designated as the primary provider in this regard. Rather than reaching 1,500 homes, the SEU could reach 30,000 homes by involving Delmarva Power in the program’s execution, O’Mara said. The bill would also allow utilities to credit some energy efficiency toward their renewable power purchase requirements after a utility achieved a full 15 percent reduction in overall energy usage through efficiency measures.
So the kind of programs that other utilities are able to offer (some of the California ones are amazing) that might help a larger group of Delawareans conserve more energy are specifically banned — and banned in favor of a smaller organization that can’t meet the need. Why is that?
Under the bill, Delmarva could offer customers help in making energy-saving upgrades to their homes, which would be paid for by the energy savings. A utility can reach more people, rather than a small nonprofit like the SEU trying to recreate that infrastructure by using contractors, O’Mara said.
“The SEU as a small nonprofit will struggle to reach tens of thousands of households,” O’Mara said.
In other places, utilities use incentive programs to help consumers to conserve energy and/or use more renewables. Some of that is a calculation that more efficient use of energy by consumers reduces the need to upgrade/expand the grid, saving on some capital costs. In some places, the utilities have air quality attainment goals — conservation reduces overall production emissions and these companies can get some attainment credit for reducing emissions via conservation. Early on, California utilities had one of the most aggressive conservation programs I’d ever seen. They were a source of everything from florescent bulbs to energy audits to very cheap financing for installations of solar or thermal systems at both homes and businesses. They even had low-income programs. Now, the California Solar Initiative is funded by ratepayers, but is offering rebates for some installations. There are other programs out there too — and most of them co-exist with state, local or even non-profit programs.
If we’re interested in energy conservation, including Delmarva in this space should be even better for consumers, right?
Tags: SEU
Think this question can be laid at the feet of our Sen. McDowell, who has kept this bill pent up in the Senate Energy Committee for two years now. Already cleared the House, unanimously, but is languishing to protect Sen. McDowell’s slush fund, the SEU.
You are correct, Bill. I think I wrote last week that Sen. Blevins should reassign this bill to another committee. There’s no excuse for allowing this consumer- and environmentally-friendly bill to be buried by a senator with a clear conflict-of-interest.
OK, I’ll bite. What (or who) is the specific way that a small, unable-to-cope-with-big-projects organization (SEU) benefits a sitting Senator? His wife’s brother-in-law is on the payroll or something? Campaign contributions from every member of the board? I’m willing to be as cynical as the rest, but specifics would be a big help here.
We wrote about the SEU pretty extensively when it was being formed. Click here for the search results. (You may have to scroll down abit.)
Only in Delaware can a member of the General Assembly create an non-profit and place themselves as the chair of said organization, which has millions funneled to it from RGGI and other sources on our electric bills. No, nothing inappropriate could happen with that……i am sure.