|
|
|
Is PECO as green as it claims?
The energy company is looking to scale back the requirements of a statewide program that improves energy efficiency.
Is PECO as green as it claims?
In 2008, Act 129 went into effect, requiring Pennsylvania’s seven major electric utilities, including PECO, to reduce their customers’ energy consumption and peak demands. As a result, utilities are now offering opportunities for customers to receive rebates and other incentives to improve energy efficiencies — and the programs have worked exceptionally well. Not only did PECO praise its own efforts in a March 2012 press release (“In response to Act 129, Peco has implemented energy efficiency programs dedicating over $50 million dollars to programs and products that increase energy efficiency”). But people in the environmental community also give kudos to Act 129; PennFuture’s Andrew Sharp calls the act’s first phase “an unqualified success.”
But the Public Utility Commission recently issued regulations for phase 2 of Act 129, scheduled to start in May 2013, and PECO is challenging them. PECO’s “Petition for Reconsideration” specifically objects to the phase 2 energy-reduction goal of 2.9 percent. The company wants to reduce spending on the program, thus reducing energy efficiencies.
“As written, Act 129 Phase 2 would result in $256 million cost to customers with a target of 1,125,843 megawatt hours in energy savings,” PECO spokeswoman Cathy Engel Menendez writes in an email. “With PECO’s suggestions the cost to customers would be $165 million with expected energy savings of nearly 728,000 megawatt hours. The company feels that these changes would help ensure the best, most fiscally sound use of customer funding.”
Reached by phone, Engel Menedez adds that the phase 2 requirements “do not provide us the flexibility to continue current programs.” PECO also want all calculations to be based on revenue numbers from 2011, not 2006.
“PECO is filing this petition because they are adamant that they think their goals should be lower,” says PennFuture senior energy policy analyst Courtney Lane. PECO, she says, is “saying the cost that customers pay is burdensome to the customers.” But, she explains, every dollar spent results in $8 of savings for customers, so saying they are trying to lower the cost to customers is “just a creative way for PECO to get out of having to invest in energy efficiency and have it look like they are protecting their customers.”
Lane believes that the law as written does allow PECO the flexibility to continue existing programs, which will be less expensive anyway since PECO has already invested in setting them up and paying for hardware, such as switches on A/C systems to cycle them down during peak times. And, says Lane, the request to use 2011 numbers is just a way to reduce the budget for Act 129.
Check out yesterday’s Inquirer editorial on the topic. PennFuture has an online form to let customers contact PECO.
The Public Utility Commission will rule on PECO’s petition this Thursday, Sept. 27.
- ActiVman
- adventures
- Arts
- Ask A Man-About-Town
- Award Tour
- Awards
- Bad Idea Factory
- Beer
- Below the Curve
- Bikes
- Booze
- Brian Hickey
- BRT
- Budget
- Budget Fuss
- Business
- Casinos
- City Council
- City Hall
- CouncilMANIC
- CP Abroad
- CP in the Community
- Criminal Justice System
- Day Tripper
- Death and Taxes
- Delaware River
- Design
- DROP
- Drugs
- Dubious Distinction
- Elections
- End of Days
- Environment
- Fashion
- Film Fest
- Financial Meltdown
- FrackTrack
- Free Library
- Gambling
- Gay Stuff
- Get Lit
- Greenstorming
- guns
- Hall Monitor
- Health
- Health Care
- Hello, Kitty
- Holidays
- Ice Cubes
- Iggles
- Immigration
- In Memoriam
- Labor
- Lawsuits
- Letters
- LGBTQ
- Maps
- Marcellus Shale
- Media
- MMA
- Mummers
- Music
- MUST READ
- Mysterious Mysteries
- Nation
- News
- Non Sequitur
- Opinion
- PA politics 2010
- Parking Wars
- Parks and Recreation
- People Send Us This Stuff
- Philadelphia Police
- Philadelphia Union
- Philaphemera
- Philly From Scratch
- philly madness
- Photos
- Poverty
- PPA
- President Obama
- Print Edition
- Prisons
- Protest
- Readers Write
- Real Estate
- Rock Bottom
- Schools
- Science
- Screwing Philly
- SEPTA
- snow
- So Lush
- Soccer
- Sporting Life
- Sports Complex
- State Politicians
- State Politics
- Street Art
- Strike
- Stuff We Like
- Taxes
- Taxi Drivers
- Tech Fetish
- television
- The Budget Crisis
- The City Paper
- The CLOG
- The Human Condition
- The Mayor
- The Phightin Phils
- The World
- Things that make you go hm
- Tinfoil Hats Off
- Under the Table
- Under the Tables
- Urban Development
- Urban Planning
- urban wildlife
- Video Poker
- We Call Shenanigans
- Weather
- Web Junk
- Weekend Omnibus
- White House
- What We've Found
- Women's Issues
- Flyered Up!
- How 'Bout That Weather?
- it's always sunny in philadelphia
- Stu!
- Shopping
- get out
- 10-track mind
- ArtsFlash
- Bloggity
- Bruce Being Bruce
- Colleges
- Comedy
- Gigantic Surprises
- Hello Canary
- Hello Puppy
- errata
- get lost
- Inside The Fishbowl
- Library Closings
- Local Support
- Movies
- Murder
- Night Moves
- Recycling
- radio
- Scientology
- Sex
- Sixers
- Skeeze Police
- State Politicians Screwing Philly
- That's a cool stencil!
- Theater
- Things We See
- This Week
- This Week in Oates
- University City
- WIN
- What we don't heart
- trailer!
- what we heart
- Feeling Guilty
- Askadelphia.
- Broke in Philly
- Contest
- Dance
- Dear Paper Doll
- Do A Good Thing
- Education
- Film Fest Schism
- G20-20 Vision
- Goodbye
- Gossip
- Great American Heroes
- PATCO
- Pearl Jam Week
- Puppy
- Stars of the Photostream
- sustainability
- Lower Merion Webcam-Gate
- The Cycle
- Equality Forum
- Bureaucrat of the Week
- Animals
- ElectionEar
- Photostream
