Energy Efficiency Charge on Vermont Electric Bills

My December monthly bill for electricity from Green Mountain Power shows the new Energy Efficiency Charge increasing 34.7% per kWh for residential customers. Well, it wasn't expressed that way. I had to do my own arithmetic. The letter accompanying the bill should have shown the percentage changes in these charges for the various customer classes, Residential, Commercial, Industrial, etc. Instead, the new charges and the present charges are shown in $/kWh ( Residential increasing from $0.00496 to $0.00668 per kWh).

No one relates to tenths of a cent per kWh. The letter would have been more relevant if it had stated why these rates were increased by such a large amount and when the decision was made to do so. (I presume by a recent order of the Vermont Public Service Board). An explanation for the magnitude of the increase should also have been included in the letter.

For what it's worth, I believe the participants in Efficiency Vermont who are the primary cost causers and beneficiaries of the program should fund the program through part of their electricity savings over a fixed term in addition to the monthly kWh surcharge. If the program operated in this manner, Efficiency Vermont could be funded primarily by the savings in electricity usage by those who most benefit and the surcharge on all customers could be reduced commensurately now that the program is up and running.

I expect the next legislative session in Vermont again will tackle the issue of expanding Efficiency Vermont beyond electricity to all forms of energy. In the last session the proposal passed but was vetoed by Governor Douglas and his veto was sustained in a special session in July 2007. The primary problem was the funding mechanism ( a tax on Entergy Corporation, owner of Vermont Yankee despite a previous deal the company had with the Legislature). Any proposal to expand Efficiency Vermont should include a funding protocol that includes substantial payment via the savings that accrue to the beneficiaries of the program. For example, if a customer saves 100 Kwh/month in electricity by using the services of EV, 20% (pick a number) of the savings should go to EV.

One could argue that the saver spent some money for property improvements in order to save that $50. That may be true, but if the payback on those expenses in reduced usage and a lower bill occurs in, say, 5 years, paying more into the EV fund might extend the customer's payback period a couple of years, but that's a reasonable trade-off. As it is now, the beneficiary pays EV little or nothing for the specific services received. Fairness suggests that they should...from the savings they receive by improving their energy efficiency.

The general education component of EV should be funded by all electricity users but the services provided to individual customers should be funded by that pool of customers that have implemented energy savings with building or equipment improvements.