Editorial: Don't make us pay more to use less energy

Text Size: A | A | A

The New York State Energy and Research and Development Authority — a rudderless ship now that CEO Paul Tonko has resigned in search of greener pastures — has done a decent job promoting energy-efficiency among state utility customers, but not a great one. Still, the idea of a private utility, National Grid, starting up a program that would basically compete with NYSERDA’s effort does not strike us as particularly productive — mostly because National Grid proposes to raise rates not only to cover the program’s costs but the amount of money it would lose if the program succeeds and customers consume less power.

National Grid is primarily a middleman in the power business. Thus if people — for any reason — started buying more energy-efficient refrigerators, replacement windows and furnaces, and they did a better job insulating their homes, the company wouldn’t make as much money. Too bad, but not a justification for letting the company raise rates.

Consumers are supposed to be rewarded for using less energy, not penalized. While everyone would be rewarded under National Grid’s plan in terms of air quality, the net financial impact would be nil.

What the state needs to do is make NYSERDA more aggressive, not just doing more to spread the gospel to New Yorkers about these energy-efficient products, but giving them more help to buy them. The money could come from an additional utility tax (known as a system benefits charge) or from general revenues, which the state isn’t exactly flush with at the moment. But better administration of a statewide program at NYSERDA — as opposed to a competing program run by one of the state’s utilities that ends up raising rates — makes more sense for ratepayers.

comments

May 8, 2008 1:01 p.m. [ Suggest removal ]

bobbrindel ( no real name given ) says... In this editorial you denounce National Grids plan to charge consumers more to cover losses if energy consumption is reduced. Yet you editorialize in favor of a law to ban Styrofoam, and other polystyrene plastics I would assume, under the false notion that waste will be reduced. Essentially we are talking about the same thing. By banning Polystyrene products the cost for School districts, Supermarkets and small businesses will increase 30% and the replacement products will not biodegrade with our current waste practices of land filling or incineration. So you advocate higher costs to cover the expense of producing less waste, the only problem is we wont produce less waste and the people who least can afford it will be left holding the bag while the population in general is no better off.