August 29, 2000|By Dan Thanh Dang | Dan Thanh Dang,SUN STAFF
Under a new conservation initiative, the Maryland Energy Administration and six nonprofit groups submitted proposals to the Public Service Commission yesterday that, if adopted, could help consumers save money, reduce electric usage and cut pollution.
While both sets of proposals most likely would cost millions of dollars to implement, long-range savings would far outweigh the amount invested in reducing electricity demand, smart energy use and renewable energy sources, agency officials predicted.
"Our proposed funding levels would generate cost savings far above that level to residential, commercial and industrial customers, and also provide environmental benefits to all Maryland residents," said Geraldine A. Nicholson, MEA assistant director. "It will help us meet our energy demands by using existing energy more efficiently."
The PSC solicited the proposals last month to comply with the Electric Choice and Competition Act of 1999, which deregulated the electric industry in Maryland.
The PSC will recommend the best proposals to the General Assembly in a report Feb. 1. The legislature is expected to use them in enacting a program.
"Maryland needs energy efficiency programs because they save us money, cut pollution, create a net increase in jobs and reduce the likelihood of blackouts from excessive electricity demand," said Daniel L. Shawhan, energy advocate at MaryPIRG.
Other proposals offered by the energy administration and the nonprofits included:
Providing incentives for customers who correct duct leakage, repair airflow and sealing problems in heating and air condition units.
Offering rebates to customers who use high efficiency lighting systems, appliances and home electronics.
Offering rebates to builders of new homes and renovation companies that install energy efficient equipment and appliances. Also included would be rebates for buyers of energy efficient homes.
Both sets of proposals call for creating programs that would help educate the public.
Maryland's successful conservation programs were either phased out or killed in anticipation of electricity deregulation, according to Tracey Stuart-Paul, acting director of the integrated resource planning division for the PSC.
For example, some rebate programs ended because they became standard practice, such as installing low-energy lighting systems in buildings.
Also, utility companies that do not own generating power plants in a deregulated market are not required to pursue energy saving techniques.
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. currently offers residents $5 to $10 off their bills a month during the summer for installing remote-control switches that lower temperatures in water heaters and turn off air conditioners at peak hours.
"There are times in the summer when we ask consumers to help us get through the peak load and we credit them for that. We offer people energy management ideas," said Rose Maria Kendig, a BGE spokeswoman who had not seen the conservation proposals and could not comment. The nonprofit proposals would cost about $264 million to implement over a three-year period. The MEA plan could cost $60 million to $115 million a year depending on what programs the PSC recommends to the General Assembly.
Both sets of proposals envision paying for the programs through a small, uniform surcharge - about 75 cents to $1.50 per month, according to MEA estimates - added to residential electrical bills. Commercial and industrial customers would be charged a comparable rate.
But customers would actually pay less because they will reduce electricity use, according to MaryPIRG and the MEA, the organizations say.
