Area builders and developers feel Rappahannock Electric Cooperative is charging higher fees that are out of line with competitors to bring power to new builds.
I don't have a horse in this race either way. Don't know Mr Sandoval, only met one employee for Rappahannock Coop and that was 15-20 years ago. Seemed like a nice guy.
The expectation of explanation of fees and improvement in the application process seems legit. And the Coop seems pretty clear that they are going to address it forthwith - so what's the problem?
The costs seem questionable but less so when you explain about the conduit.
That's where the article fades for an outsider looking in. The "source" questioning the value of conduit. Anecdotal evidence from anonymous sources shouldn't be presented as being on par with industry standards or code.
Nor for that matter, should code compliance be considered the same as industry standards or best practices. Though that's how it's often presented to an unknowing public, and is implied in this article - it isn't.
Another way of looking at code compliance is that if they built it any worse, they'd get locked up.
Hardly a high bar.
If a home is designed properly, built properly, and placed properly - there's no reason to believe it won't last a 100 years or more.
So why not implement known best practices into the design, rather doing the bare minimum you can do and not get put in jail for it?
Resiliency and durability are good things on many levels. I'm wondering if that's the case here. Should the Coop breakout those costs and make them clearer?
Sure.
Should they be equitable and provide long term return on investment?
I would hope so.
Shold the homeowner/purchaser be provided the information to make an informed decision on the matter? I would want that.
I guess the key thing I would want to know is if that wire is damaged, is it the homeowner's responsibility to fix or the Coop's? If it's the homeowner - then definitely. If the Coop is receiving a benefit that serves them, they should have more say in the matter - since it's their system.
Again, don't know enough about this to have answers, but I do have questions. It's an interesting situation. Seems like there's more to know..
I'll give an example to illustrate the code vs best practices point.
About 6-7 years ago, an organization called the Southeast Energy Alliance conducted a study paid for by the Department of Energy to study the energy efficiency of code built homes in Virginia. The way they did it was to have home energy raters (HERS) go and conduct tests and inspection of the homes, same as they would do for a home that was being certified for Energy Star, LEED for Homes, Passive House, whatever.
So different homes were picked at random throughout the state, and with the builder's agreement - were tested and inspected. I was one of those doing the inspections and tests.
Overall, the homes are good. The energy code for Virginia was in the top 20% of the nation last time I looked. Fascinating thing to me was to learn that there were still 6 states that had NO energy code. Folks like me do real well in those states, because nobody trusts their builders.
But the most surprising thing learned from the test was how poorly, in all regions of the state - homes did on a test called duct leakage to the outside. Most homes I test are going for a program certification - which typically have a target of 3-4%, based upon the square footage of the home. And what it means is just like it says - 3-4% of the air that you're paying for to heat or cool your house is escaping from the system and never reaching the living area. Most homes now days have actual results in the 0-2% range. It's not really that hard to do if you try.
So how'd the standard "code compliant" homes do?
20-30% on average. Some even higher. Folks like me were shocked. We'd spent so much time testing homes which were compliant, we didn't realize how bad it was in homes that were being bult to ""code". By builders saving a few dollars, and homeowners who were unaware of what those choices were costing them, and us as a nation or us a species if we believe in things like energy efficiency, climate change and science. Which we should.
So 2-3 dollars of every 10 being spent on heating and cooling the home were going out the window. You know when you were a kid and Mom told you to shut the door and quit heating the outdoors? Turns out with these homes, you still were.
So the next code iteration, it became a requirement that duct systems either be within the thermal boundary, or be tested for compliance. Problem solved - in VA. The point being, code compliance and the right thing are not necessarily the same thing.
Not when you got groups of people with knowledge but their own interests (keeping up front costs down with less concern for the long term costs since those will be paid by the homeowner and society rather than them) which may be in conflict with what is right for those other vested parties.
Home builder associations are powerful lobbies, at every level. And most of them are astoundingly great, ethical, and highly skilled. Not saying otherwise.
What I am saying is they are not the only ones with a horse in this race. They're going to look out for their own interests, as they should. But the homeowner, the electricity provider, and the overall community also have horses in this race.
An informed article would look at all of those interests when presenting the conduit question for consideration. Not sure that you did that here.
Started off strong, faded in the stretch......
I don't have a horse in this race either way. Don't know Mr Sandoval, only met one employee for Rappahannock Coop and that was 15-20 years ago. Seemed like a nice guy.
The expectation of explanation of fees and improvement in the application process seems legit. And the Coop seems pretty clear that they are going to address it forthwith - so what's the problem?
The costs seem questionable but less so when you explain about the conduit.
That's where the article fades for an outsider looking in. The "source" questioning the value of conduit. Anecdotal evidence from anonymous sources shouldn't be presented as being on par with industry standards or code.
Nor for that matter, should code compliance be considered the same as industry standards or best practices. Though that's how it's often presented to an unknowing public, and is implied in this article - it isn't.
Another way of looking at code compliance is that if they built it any worse, they'd get locked up.
Hardly a high bar.
If a home is designed properly, built properly, and placed properly - there's no reason to believe it won't last a 100 years or more.
So why not implement known best practices into the design, rather doing the bare minimum you can do and not get put in jail for it?
Resiliency and durability are good things on many levels. I'm wondering if that's the case here. Should the Coop breakout those costs and make them clearer?
Sure.
Should they be equitable and provide long term return on investment?
I would hope so.
Shold the homeowner/purchaser be provided the information to make an informed decision on the matter? I would want that.
I guess the key thing I would want to know is if that wire is damaged, is it the homeowner's responsibility to fix or the Coop's? If it's the homeowner - then definitely. If the Coop is receiving a benefit that serves them, they should have more say in the matter - since it's their system.
Again, don't know enough about this to have answers, but I do have questions. It's an interesting situation. Seems like there's more to know..
I'll give an example to illustrate the code vs best practices point.
About 6-7 years ago, an organization called the Southeast Energy Alliance conducted a study paid for by the Department of Energy to study the energy efficiency of code built homes in Virginia. The way they did it was to have home energy raters (HERS) go and conduct tests and inspection of the homes, same as they would do for a home that was being certified for Energy Star, LEED for Homes, Passive House, whatever.
So different homes were picked at random throughout the state, and with the builder's agreement - were tested and inspected. I was one of those doing the inspections and tests.
Overall, the homes are good. The energy code for Virginia was in the top 20% of the nation last time I looked. Fascinating thing to me was to learn that there were still 6 states that had NO energy code. Folks like me do real well in those states, because nobody trusts their builders.
But the most surprising thing learned from the test was how poorly, in all regions of the state - homes did on a test called duct leakage to the outside. Most homes I test are going for a program certification - which typically have a target of 3-4%, based upon the square footage of the home. And what it means is just like it says - 3-4% of the air that you're paying for to heat or cool your house is escaping from the system and never reaching the living area. Most homes now days have actual results in the 0-2% range. It's not really that hard to do if you try.
So how'd the standard "code compliant" homes do?
20-30% on average. Some even higher. Folks like me were shocked. We'd spent so much time testing homes which were compliant, we didn't realize how bad it was in homes that were being bult to ""code". By builders saving a few dollars, and homeowners who were unaware of what those choices were costing them, and us as a nation or us a species if we believe in things like energy efficiency, climate change and science. Which we should.
So 2-3 dollars of every 10 being spent on heating and cooling the home were going out the window. You know when you were a kid and Mom told you to shut the door and quit heating the outdoors? Turns out with these homes, you still were.
So the next code iteration, it became a requirement that duct systems either be within the thermal boundary, or be tested for compliance. Problem solved - in VA. The point being, code compliance and the right thing are not necessarily the same thing.
Not when you got groups of people with knowledge but their own interests (keeping up front costs down with less concern for the long term costs since those will be paid by the homeowner and society rather than them) which may be in conflict with what is right for those other vested parties.
Home builder associations are powerful lobbies, at every level. And most of them are astoundingly great, ethical, and highly skilled. Not saying otherwise.
What I am saying is they are not the only ones with a horse in this race. They're going to look out for their own interests, as they should. But the homeowner, the electricity provider, and the overall community also have horses in this race.
An informed article would look at all of those interests when presenting the conduit question for consideration. Not sure that you did that here.
Moving on.