I have to be the first to admit that I don't understand anything about this--whether it is good for our city or not...whether this company will live up to its projections and stated savings to our city and who is there to give oversight during the course of the contract. The government is an easy touch when it comes to smooth talking salesmen who will make money off of our city.
Energy Savings: Performance Contracts Offer Benefits, but Vigilance Is Needed to Protect Government Interests
We all want to be energy efficient and Siemens has been around town for quite some time. Where did they come from? Who invited them here? Who decided we wanted/needed this? Why this company over any other? Did we go out on an RFP? It all sounds good/interesting in theory and all people green are probably going bonkers just thinking about solar energy on our landfill and dark skies street lighting that protects wildlife, cuts energy waste and stops light pollution, but...is this really something we need to commit our city to?
With little or no up-front payment by the agency, the energy savings company (ESCO) typically designs and constructs a project that will meet our needs. Siemens has now done this. It arranges financing to pay for it. They guarantee that the improvements will generate savings sufficient to pay for the project over the term of the contract, with contract terms of up to 20 years. Thereafter, the agency conducts an annual energy audit and makes annual payments to the ESCO from the funds generated by the energy-saving measures. After the contract ends, all additional cost savings accrue to the agency. Will all this "savings" (new meters, new LED lights, etc.) be obsolete after the term, as new technology takes over the industry?
Siemens says that the Contract and Financing Agreements are in progress and that on June 2, the commission will vote to accept their contract. They have already told us that the term will be 20 years with a savings on our energy costs of $2M - $2.5M per year. Who gets that--Siemens? Who actually makes the money off of this $20 to $25 million deal? Is the benefit to the city just becoming more energy efficient and the rate payers pay the same? Is that how the city will make money?
I sincerely hope that there are commissioners asking all the right questions (20 years is a long time) because, as I said, this is way beyond my scope of understanding but not beyond my typical cautious concern.
2 comments:
The first question to ask is why is it that the staff of the Electric Utility isn't capable of evaluating and making the decisions that a for profit company like Siemens will propose. If this is such a panacea for the City why don't all utilities employ the services of Siemens? This is one more ruse being played on customers of LW Utilities, one that will play out for 20 years. The City has shown itself inept at every turn, look at the electric bond, can they show where those dollars have been spent, I think not. Don't be played once again.
I think all the questions you pose are good ones. First of all, Siemens will be looking for a profit since they are a for profit company. Second, contracting seems to be a real challenge for the City, so I would be concerned about whether we should sign any long term contracts. Third, who is friends with someone at Siemens? Why would this company be in our town all of a sudden without an invite from someone in a leadership position. Who gave the invite, what other options are out there, why not a more competitive process? Would we be better off spending this money on adding more light to the City rather than changing lights in the City? We need more streetlights to combat crime.
Post a Comment