revised suggestion for MORE structure

Here's a revised version of the possible structure of MORE. I've expanded implementers to include businesses, and added some rectangles that show allocation of basic responsibilities of 'design' 'approval', and 'implementation'.

Conservation as production, or renewables as conservation?

In my opinion we should NOT develop a program that compartmentalizes and separates conservation and efficiency upgrades from renewable generation systems. To me these are part of the same range of options available to homeowners and should be seen as complementary and related investments that should be considered together. i.e.: renewables should only be considered after all the good efficiency upgrades have been completed or at least carefully considered.

In this light I see that there are two ways to frame the discussion, conservation and efficiency as increased production of 'negaWatts' or renewable generation as a form of conservation. Its semantics, really, but framing the issue is half the battle it seems so its worth discussing now.

In the first case we would look at reduced consumption from efficiency upgrades as new sources of 'production', and reward those 'producers' for their actual (metered) or estimated savings based on kWh NOT consumed. This approach might work well for a 'green power producers co-op' structure that would allow aggregating many members' "production" and developing an incentive to reward based on performance. I like this way of framing the issue because people like to be 'producers', thats one of the exciting things for folks installing grid-tied PV systems. This might be more confusing for some folks to understand however, because its not really intuitive to think of kWh's saved as 'production' of something tangible. Still, in my mind efficiency upgrades that reduce consumption are a form of 'local green power'.

The other way to look at it would be to see renewables as investments in 'conservation appliances' - something that you buy and install to reduce the amount of electricity you consume from the grid. This approach might fit in better to the established paradigms of OPALCO and BPA.

Any thoughts or opinions from the group?

Organizational structure of MORE programs

The question raised by John Bogart is: Should MORE be an independent 501c3 entity with funding support from OPALCO?

Here are my initial thoughts, to jump start this virtual discussion.

I share John Model's concerns about accountability and monopoly if MORE was to be created with "monopoly" funding from OPALCO but not directly answerable to OPALCO Board or members. But I also see the need for one or more non-profits to help implement MORE (meaning energy conservation and renewable energy) programs, esp. marketing, education, and mobilization/facilitation roles.

In my humble opinion, to ensure proper accountability and flexibility in program design and implementation, a possible structure could be a combination of OPALCO, an OPALCO steering committee (basically MORE Committee) and independent non-profit(s).

I have created an chart to represent this vision (which is by no means original).



(Click on graphic to open larger version in a separate window).

OPALCO still has a major role in EC and RE implementation with MORE Committee acting as the advisory or steering committee, and implementation supports from non-profits. The idea is the non-profits have no monopoly status. They play vital support/implementation roles with funding support from OPALCO (under contracts which will be subject to performance monitoring) and other sources where available.

Any thoughts?

Welcome to MORE Forum

We had great discussions at the MORE Committee meeting today. We agreed to discuss the organizational setup of the planning and implementation of the MORE (which stands for Member-Owned Renewable Energy but has been expanded to include energy conservation) program. At the meeting, it was expressed that an online forum (like a blog) could be a nice way to have this discussion or other future discussions. So here it is...