Are we interested in this? Two potential problems: 1. How much is this a sales pitch vs. information sharing? 2. Groton not able to participate in MTC bnefits because Groton Electric, a municipal power provider, opted out of the fee that funds the MTC).
Leo _________________________________ Leo Laverdure 558 Longley Rd. Groton, MA, 01450 leo.laverd...@charter.net, 978-448-5700 home, 978-430-9388 cell, 978-448-2621 home office Re-educate, reduce, reuse, recycle, re-localize! _________________________________
-----Original Message----- From: grotonlo...@grotonlocal.org [mailto:grotonlo...@grotonlocal.org] On
Behalf Of gcoppol...@alterisinc.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:24 AM To: i...@grotonlocal.org Subject: [Info Contact] Solar Infomational Session
I work for Alteris Renewables, an integrator of solar, wind, and thermal systems in New England. Because Groton Local and Alteris share similar missions to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, I decided to reach out to you and your group.
One of the ways we partner with local environmental committees is that we offer to deliver a short presentation on solar PV systems to respective groups in the region. Our presentations typically provide an overview of the solar industry, the cost and return on investment of a solar array, the environmental impact of installing a system, and an update on the Massachusetts solar rebate program/federal tax credits.
Probably the most relevant topic is the MA solar rebate program. On October 6th, the MTC announced that Governor Patrick’s initial goal of having 27 megawatts of solar power installed in MA had been met. The second phase of the program is currently being revised and the MTC expects to announce part of the new program by the end of the month. I am pretty sure your members would be interested in learning about the updated program so they’re able to share their knowledge with the Maynard community.
If you think a seminar with a presentation is something your group would like to take advantage of, just let me know and we can work together to make it happen.
Warm Regards,
Greg Coppolino Renewable Energy Consultant
Alteris Renewables™ 197 W. Central Street Natick MA 01760 Tel: (800) 339-7804 Cell: (781) 727-3140 Email: gcoppol...@alterisinc.com Web: www.alterisinc.com Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Greetings from Concord, another municipal utility town.
As the Alteris email notes, the state is in the midst of making big
changes in its solar funding programs. I won't even begin to try to
explain the changes, because 1) my understanding is incomplete and 2)
the new program(s) are not finalized. But as best as I understand,
municipal utilities may have opportunities with respect to solar
projects that they didn't have before.
Also, it's worth mentioning that Littleton recently decided to join
the RET (I *think*; they're not listed at
http://www.masstech.org/IS/mandate.htm just yet).
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Leo Laverdure <leo.laverd...@charter.net> wrote:
> Are we interested in this? Two potential problems:
> 1. How much is this a sales pitch vs. information sharing?
> 2. Groton not able to participate in MTC bnefits because Groton Electric, a
> municipal power provider, opted out of the fee that funds the MTC).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grotonlo...@grotonlocal.org [mailto:grotonlo...@grotonlocal.org] On
> Behalf Of gcoppol...@alterisinc.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:24 AM
> To: i...@grotonlocal.org
> Subject: [Info Contact] Solar Infomational Session
> I work for Alteris Renewables, an integrator of solar, wind, and thermal
> systems in New England. Because Groton Local and Alteris share similar
> missions to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, I decided to reach out to
> you and your group.
> One of the ways we partner with local environmental committees is that we
> offer to deliver a short presentation on solar PV systems to respective
> groups in the region. Our presentations typically provide an overview of
> the solar industry, the cost and return on investment of a solar array, the
> environmental impact of installing a system, and an update on the
> Massachusetts solar rebate program/federal tax credits.
> Probably the most relevant topic is the MA solar rebate program. On October
> 6th, the MTC announced that Governor Patrick’s initial goal of having 27
> megawatts of solar power installed in MA had been met. The second phase of
> the program is currently being revised and the MTC expects to announce part
> of the new program by the end of the month. I am pretty sure your members
> would be interested in learning about the updated program so they’re able to
> share their knowledge with the Maynard community.
> If you think a seminar with a presentation is something your group would
> like to take advantage of, just let me know and we can work together to make
> it happen.
> Warm Regards,
> Greg Coppolino
> Renewable Energy Consultant
> Alteris Renewables™
> 197 W. Central Street
> Natick MA 01760
> Tel: (800) 339-7804
> Cell: (781) 727-3140
> Email: gcoppol...@alterisinc.com
> Web: www.alterisinc.com > Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Funds from MTC have been depleted and was I told it is better to wait and see how the new program coming out in 2010 is structured.
Brian Did Concord Light decide to join MTC?
This was my input:
1) If this is purely a sales pitch I personally would not be interested but if it is mostly an informational session I think it would be very useful.
Energy rebates are available without being a member of MTC. 2) GELD initially decided to not join for several good reasons, and I requested that we continue to discuss MTC membership as it evolves. I am also looking into alternatives to MTC to encourage interested customers to use Solar H/W and Solar PV.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: grotonlocal-energy@googlegroups.com [mailto:grotonlocal-energy@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian Crounse
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 10:34 AM
To: grotonlocal-energy@googlegroups.com
Subject: [GrotonLocal-Energy] Re: FW: [Info Contact] Solar Infomational Session
Leo,
Greetings from Concord, another municipal utility town.
As the Alteris email notes, the state is in the midst of making big
changes in its solar funding programs. I won't even begin to try to
explain the changes, because 1) my understanding is incomplete and 2)
the new program(s) are not finalized. But as best as I understand,
municipal utilities may have opportunities with respect to solar
projects that they didn't have before.
Also, it's worth mentioning that Littleton recently decided to join
the RET (I *think*; they're not listed at
http://www.masstech.org/IS/mandate.htm just yet).
Brian
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Leo Laverdure <leo.laverd...@charter.net> wrote:
> Are we interested in this? Two potential problems:
> 1. How much is this a sales pitch vs. information sharing?
> 2. Groton not able to participate in MTC bnefits because Groton Electric, a
> municipal power provider, opted out of the fee that funds the MTC).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grotonlo...@grotonlocal.org [mailto:grotonlo...@grotonlocal.org] On
> Behalf Of gcoppol...@alterisinc.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:24 AM
> To: i...@grotonlocal.org
> Subject: [Info Contact] Solar Infomational Session
> I work for Alteris Renewables, an integrator of solar, wind, and thermal
> systems in New England. Because Groton Local and Alteris share similar
> missions to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, I decided to reach out to
> you and your group.
> One of the ways we partner with local environmental committees is that we
> offer to deliver a short presentation on solar PV systems to respective
> groups in the region. Our presentations typically provide an overview of
> the solar industry, the cost and return on investment of a solar array, the
> environmental impact of installing a system, and an update on the
> Massachusetts solar rebate program/federal tax credits.
> Probably the most relevant topic is the MA solar rebate program. On October
> 6th, the MTC announced that Governor Patrick's initial goal of having 27
> megawatts of solar power installed in MA had been met. The second phase of
> the program is currently being revised and the MTC expects to announce part
> of the new program by the end of the month. I am pretty sure your members
> would be interested in learning about the updated program so they're able to
> share their knowledge with the Maynard community.
> If you think a seminar with a presentation is something your group would
> like to take advantage of, just let me know and we can work together to make
> it happen.
> Warm Regards,
> Greg Coppolino
> Renewable Energy Consultant
> Alteris Renewables(tm)
> 197 W. Central Street
> Natick MA 01760
> Tel: (800) 339-7804
> Cell: (781) 727-3140
> Email: gcoppol...@alterisinc.com
> Web: www.alterisinc.com > Please consider the environment before printing this email.
At 11:41 AM 11/9/2009, Christie, Chris Civ USAF AFMC 350 ELSG/KFI wrote:
>2) GELD initially decided to not join for several good reasons, and >I requested that we continue to discuss MTC membership as it >evolves. I am also looking into alternatives to MTC to encourage >interested customers to use Solar H/W and Solar PV.
I can understand GELD's caution with respect to the Renewable Energy Trust (RET) contribution, but has GELD ever considered setting up it's own self-managed fund for incentives in Groton? I believe the contribution to the RET by municipal electrics is $0.0005/kWh. If GELD set up its own fund to stimulate conservation and alternative forms of power generation, it could be funded by a self imposed surcharge similar in magnitude to the RET surcharge. Adding this to the existing rate would not have a material impact on the goal of keeping rates, but it would create a pool of money to offer local incentives.
From the GELD annual report, if the average customer consumed 16,000 kWh/year and using a $0.0005/kWh surcharge to fund a Groton conservation/renewables fund would yield:
16,000 kWh/yr x $0.0005/kWh x 4,500 customers = $36,000/yr
I know $36,000 doesn't sound like much, but it would be a start that could create incentives to move some conservation and renewable projects forward. The surcharge could even be double to a tenth of a cent without having a real impact on rates. Even at $0.001/kWh the impact would only be $1.33/month for each customer and would increase the fund to $72,000. There are projects at the municipal, commercial, and residential level that could benefit from incentives. Since it's all under local control, the surcharge could be revoked or modified by the Electric Commissioners if it wasn't beneficial.
[mailto:grotonlocal-energy@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary Hoglund
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 1:55 PM
To: grotonlocal-energy@googlegroups.com
Subject: [GrotonLocal-Energy] Re: FW: [Info Contact] Solar Infomational
Session
At 11:41 AM 11/9/2009, Christie, Chris Civ USAF AFMC 350 ELSG/KFI wrote:
>2) GELD initially decided to not join for several good reasons, and I >requested that we continue to discuss MTC membership as it
>evolves. I am also looking into alternatives to MTC to encourage >interested customers to use Solar H/W and Solar PV.
I can understand GELD's caution with respect to the Renewable Energy Trust
(RET) contribution, but has GELD ever considered setting up it's own
self-managed fund for incentives in Groton? I believe the contribution to
the RET by municipal electrics is $0.0005/kWh. If GELD set up its own fund
to stimulate conservation and alternative forms of power generation, it
could be funded by a self imposed surcharge similar in magnitude to the RET surcharge. Adding this to the existing rate would not have a material impact on the goal of keeping
rates, but it would create a pool of money to offer local incentives.
From the GELD annual report, if the average customer consumed 16,000
kWh/year and using a $0.0005/kWh surcharge to fund a Groton
conservation/renewables fund would yield:
16,000 kWh/yr x $0.0005/kWh x 4,500 customers = $36,000/yr
I know $36,000 doesn't sound like much, but it would be a start that could
create incentives to move some conservation and renewable projects forward.
The surcharge could even be double to a tenth of a cent without having a
real impact on rates. Even at $0.001/kWh the impact would only be
$1.33/month for each customer and would increase the fund to $72,000. There
are projects at the municipal, commercial, and residential level that could
benefit from incentives. Since it's all under local control, the surcharge
could be revoked or modified by the Electric Commissioners if it wasn't
beneficial.
Gary
I agree and pushing for some kind of program.
GELD's annual contribution to become a member of MRET(MTC) would be less
than $36K but would be committed to contribute as long as a program
exists possibly forever. Applications compete against other towns for
funds and reimbursement isn't guaranteed for all projects even if there
was sufficient interest. The fund is now empty till next year TBD.
Projects go thru MRET approval and I question whether all of them made
sense because of some problems MTC had in the past. I fully support
some type of program either with the state, self funded with individual
customers, spread out over customer base, or some other option. GELD
has the lowest rates and already spends money on conservation programs
and wants to make sure every dollar is spent wisely. With Solar PV
prices becoming more competitive I am trying to justify supporting a
self funded program possibly with MMWEC and Evergreen Solar. Solar Hot
Water already works. Chris
[mailto:grotonlocal-energy@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary Hoglund
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 1:55 PM
To: grotonlocal-energy@googlegroups.com
Subject: [GrotonLocal-Energy] Re: FW: [Info Contact] Solar Infomational
Session
At 11:41 AM 11/9/2009, Christie, Chris Civ USAF AFMC 350 ELSG/KFI wrote:
>2) GELD initially decided to not join for several good reasons, and >I requested that we continue to discuss MTC membership as it >evolves. I am also looking into alternatives to MTC to encourage >interested customers to use Solar H/W and Solar PV.
I can understand GELD's caution with respect to the Renewable Energy Trust (RET) contribution, but has GELD ever considered setting up it's own self-managed fund for incentives in Groton? I believe the contribution to the RET by municipal electrics is $0.0005/kWh. If GELD set up its own fund to stimulate conservation and alternative forms of power generation, it could be funded by a self imposed surcharge similar in magnitude to the RET surcharge. Adding this to the existing rate would not have a material impact on the goal of keeping rates, but it would create a pool of money to offer local
incentives.
From the GELD annual report, if the average customer consumed 16,000 kWh/year and using a $0.0005/kWh surcharge to fund a Groton conservation/renewables fund would yield:
16,000 kWh/yr x $0.0005/kWh x 4,500 customers = $36,000/yr
I know $36,000 doesn't sound like much, but it would be a start that could create incentives to move some conservation and renewable projects forward. The surcharge could even be double to a tenth of a cent without having a real impact on rates. Even at $0.001/kWh the impact would only be $1.33/month for each customer and would increase the fund to $72,000. There are projects at the municipal, commercial, and residential level that could benefit from incentives. Since it's all under local control, the surcharge could be revoked or modified by the Electric Commissioners if it wasn't
beneficial.
At 03:17 PM 11/9/2009, Christie, Chris Civ USAF AFMC 350 ELSG/KFI wrote:
>Gary
>I agree and pushing for some kind of program.
Thank you Chris, I know you are very engaged in this.
>GELD
>has the lowest rates and already spends money on conservation programs
>and wants to make sure every dollar is spent wisely.
This is part of the problem though. While I love the low rates we pay, it can be a dis-incentive to conserve. Paybacks and economics for conservation measures or alternative forms of power in a low rate environment are even more dependent on incentives/rebates to become reality.
>With Solar PV
>prices becoming more competitive I am trying to justify supporting a
>self funded program possibly with MMWEC and Evergreen Solar.
This sounds interesting.
Perhaps another way of thinking about it is a forced savings account of sorts. I'm thinking way outside the box here, so bear with me.
As an example, the Groton-Dunstable School District is in the process of upgrading all the lighting at the Swallow-Union school in Dunstable. The lighting technology wasn't that bad at this facility since most equipment had been installed around 1995, but with the newer T8 fixtures, electronic ballast, motion detectors, and LED exit signs it was possible to save over 90,000 kWh/yr. The cost for the upgrade was around $50,000 with a simple payback a little over 3 years. Pretty good economics, but unfortunately, the $50K was difficult for the district to find, especially in these challenged economic times. Luckily for the district, Dunstable is served by National Grid who offered a program to pick up 70% of the upgrade cost. The school district's contribution ended up a more manageable $15K. The resulting payback to the district was less than a year. As a matter of fact, the monthly savings paid for the district's contribution spread out monthly for the first year. Therefore, no capital outlay was necessary, and starting year 2 the savings of ~$1,300 per month belong to the district.
I present this example because I think it illustrates how incentives can move projects forward. Now granted, a 70% incentive is an outright gift, and part of that is due to the fact that National Grid's rates in Dunstable are about $.05/kWh higher than GELD. But the higher rates may have funded the incentive program and definitely made the economics of investing in conservation technology all the more compelling.
So what if GELD had a forced savings program in their rate structure. The associated surcharge, say 1 to 2 cents/kWh, would be assessed on each customer that were above an energy efficient threshold for their residence and number of occupants. Similarly commercial and industrial customers who were below the Energy Star rating of 75 as computed by Energy Star's Portfolio Manager pay the surcharge too. Or to keep it simple initially, all customers would pay the surcharge, but those demonstrating energy efficiency for the year would get the surcharged rebated. Inefficient users would have access to the money to improve their energy efficiency profile or to add alternative energy generation to offset their consumption from the grid.
I know it may sound wacky, but it forces users to put aside money into a fund that they would be compelled to use to improve their energy profile. I know big users like the school could benefit from this. It is hard for them to set money aside like this, but if it is part of their utility bill it becomes a part of the operating expense. This characteristic is also true for many homeowners. At the end of the year, this savings account would be available to implement conservation or alternative energy projects to drive them to an acceptable consumption level. In a way, this is what happened with the Swallow Union school. With Groton having its own municipal electric company, we potentially have the power to do something like this. I know the government creates financial incentives for National Grid to lower their customer's consumption. Perhaps there's opportunity for GELD here too.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: grotonlocal-energy@googlegroups.com
>[mailto:grotonlocal-energy@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary Hoglund
>Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 1:55 PM
>To: grotonlocal-energy@googlegroups.com
>Subject: [GrotonLocal-Energy] Re: FW: [Info Contact] Solar Infomational
>Session
>At 11:41 AM 11/9/2009, Christie, Chris Civ USAF AFMC 350 ELSG/KFI wrote:
> >2) GELD initially decided to not join for several good reasons, and
> >I requested that we continue to discuss MTC membership as it
> >evolves. I am also looking into alternatives to MTC to encourage
> >interested customers to use Solar H/W and Solar PV.
>I can understand GELD's caution with respect to the Renewable Energy
>Trust (RET) contribution, but has GELD ever considered setting up
>it's own self-managed fund for incentives in Groton? I believe the
>contribution to the RET by municipal electrics is $0.0005/kWh. If
>GELD set up its own fund to stimulate conservation and alternative
>forms of power generation, it could be funded by a self imposed
>surcharge similar in magnitude to the RET surcharge. Adding this to
>the existing rate would not have a material impact on the goal of
>keeping rates, but it would create a pool of money to offer local
>incentives.
> From the GELD annual report, if the average customer consumed 16,000
>kWh/year and using a $0.0005/kWh surcharge to fund a Groton
>conservation/renewables fund would yield:
>16,000 kWh/yr x $0.0005/kWh x 4,500 customers = $36,000/yr
>I know $36,000 doesn't sound like much, but it would be a start that
>could create incentives to move some conservation and renewable
>projects forward. The surcharge could even be double to a tenth of a
>cent without having a real impact on rates. Even at $0.001/kWh the
>impact would only be $1.33/month for each customer and would increase
>the fund to $72,000. There are projects at the municipal,
>commercial, and residential level that could benefit from
>incentives. Since it's all under local control, the surcharge could
>be revoked or modified by the Electric Commissioners if it wasn't
>beneficial.
Years ago I did something similar when I was trying to get my son to move
out of the house. He kept saying he wanted to, but he didn't have the money
for the security deposit. So I charged him rent for a few months, saving the
money in an account; when there was enough I gave it to him as his down
payment. No more excuses. WIN-WIN.
Seems like this would be a good topic for a Sustainability Commission
discussion. Should we try to schedule this?
Leo
_________________________________
Leo Laverdure
558 Longley Rd.
Groton, MA, 01450
leo.laverd...@charter.net, 978-448-5700 home,
978-430-9388 cell, 978-448-2621 home office
Re-educate, reduce, reuse, recycle, re-localize!
_________________________________
[mailto:grotonlocal-energy@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary Hoglund
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 4:50 PM
To: grotonlocal-energy@googlegroups.com
Subject: [GrotonLocal-Energy] Re: FW: [Info Contact] Solar Infomational
Session
At 03:17 PM 11/9/2009, Christie, Chris Civ USAF AFMC 350 ELSG/KFI wrote:
>Gary
>I agree and pushing for some kind of program.
Thank you Chris, I know you are very engaged in this.
>GELD
>has the lowest rates and already spends money on conservation programs >and wants to make sure every dollar is spent wisely.
This is part of the problem though. While I love the low rates we pay, it
can be a dis-incentive to conserve. Paybacks and economics for conservation
measures or alternative forms of power in a low rate environment are even
more dependent on incentives/rebates to become reality.
>With Solar PV
>prices becoming more competitive I am trying to justify supporting a >self funded program possibly with MMWEC and Evergreen Solar.
This sounds interesting.
Perhaps another way of thinking about it is a forced savings account of
sorts. I'm thinking way outside the box here, so bear with me.
As an example, the Groton-Dunstable School District is in the process of
upgrading all the lighting at the Swallow-Union school in Dunstable. The
lighting technology wasn't that bad at this facility since most equipment
had been installed around 1995, but with the newer T8 fixtures, electronic
ballast, motion detectors, and LED exit signs it was possible to save over
90,000 kWh/yr. The cost for the upgrade was around $50,000 with a simple
payback a little over 3 years. Pretty good economics, but unfortunately,
the $50K was difficult for the district to find, especially in these
challenged economic times. Luckily for the district, Dunstable is served by
National Grid who offered a program to pick up 70% of the upgrade cost. The
school district's contribution ended up a more manageable $15K. The
resulting payback to the district was less than a year. As a matter of
fact, the monthly savings paid for the district's contribution spread out
monthly for the first year. Therefore, no capital outlay was necessary, and
starting year
2 the savings of ~$1,300 per month belong to the district.
I present this example because I think it illustrates how incentives can
move projects forward. Now granted, a 70% incentive is an outright gift,
and part of that is due to the fact that National Grid's rates in Dunstable
are about $.05/kWh higher than GELD. But the higher rates may have funded
the incentive program and definitely made the economics of investing in
conservation technology all the more compelling.
So what if GELD had a forced savings program in their rate structure. The
associated surcharge, say 1 to 2 cents/kWh, would be assessed on each
customer that were above an energy efficient threshold for their residence
and number of occupants. Similarly commercial and industrial customers who
were below the Energy Star rating of 75 as computed by Energy Star's
Portfolio Manager pay the surcharge too. Or to keep it simple initially,
all customers would pay the surcharge, but those demonstrating energy
efficiency for the year would get the surcharged rebated. Inefficient users
would have access to the money to improve their energy efficiency profile or
to add alternative energy generation to offset their consumption from the
grid.
I know it may sound wacky, but it forces users to put aside money into a
fund that they would be compelled to use to improve their energy profile. I
know big users like the school could benefit from this. It is hard for them
to set money aside like this, but if it is part of their utility bill it
becomes a part of the operating expense. This characteristic is also true
for many homeowners. At the end of the year, this savings account would be
available to implement conservation or alternative energy projects to drive
them to an acceptable consumption level. In a way, this is what happened
with the Swallow Union school. With Groton having its own municipal
electric company, we potentially have the power to do something like this.
I know the government creates financial incentives for National Grid to
lower their customer's consumption. Perhaps there's opportunity for GELD
here too.
Again, food for thought and possible discussion.
Gary
>-----Original Message-----
>From: grotonlocal-energy@googlegroups.com
>[mailto:grotonlocal-energy@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary Hoglund
>Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 1:55 PM
>To: grotonlocal-energy@googlegroups.com
>Subject: [GrotonLocal-Energy] Re: FW: [Info Contact] Solar Infomational >Session
>At 11:41 AM 11/9/2009, Christie, Chris Civ USAF AFMC 350 ELSG/KFI wrote:
> >2) GELD initially decided to not join for several good reasons, and I > >requested that we continue to discuss MTC membership as it
> >evolves. I am also looking into alternatives to MTC to encourage
> >interested customers to use Solar H/W and Solar PV.
>I can understand GELD's caution with respect to the Renewable Energy >Trust (RET) contribution, but has GELD ever considered setting up it's >own self-managed fund for incentives in Groton? I believe the >contribution to the RET by municipal electrics is $0.0005/kWh. If GELD >set up its own fund to stimulate conservation and alternative forms of >power generation, it could be funded by a self imposed
>surcharge similar in magnitude to the RET surcharge. Adding this to
>the existing rate would not have a material impact on the goal of >keeping rates, but it would create a pool of money to offer local >incentives.
> From the GELD annual report, if the average customer consumed 16,000 >kWh/year and using a $0.0005/kWh surcharge to fund a Groton >conservation/renewables fund would yield:
>16,000 kWh/yr x $0.0005/kWh x 4,500 customers = $36,000/yr
>I know $36,000 doesn't sound like much, but it would be a start that >could create incentives to move some conservation and renewable >projects forward. The surcharge could even be double to a tenth of a >cent without having a real impact on rates. Even at $0.001/kWh the >impact would only be $1.33/month for each customer and would increase >the fund to $72,000. There are projects at the municipal, commercial, >and residential level that could benefit from incentives. Since it's >all under local control, the surcharge could be revoked or modified by >the Electric Commissioners if it wasn't beneficial.
|
