Sustainability
DC slow to distribute cash-for-appliances
A popular feature of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act is the rebate program for purchases of energy-efficient appliances. I was particularly excited about the program when my kitchen suffered serious water damage from Snowmageddon this past January.
"What a great time to replace our appliances," I said to my wife and son, "since we can get rebates while responsibly buying more efficient appliances!"
I checked the website for the DC Department of the Environment, and learned that the funds would be available this summer. Great! We scheduled the renovation for August.
The summer came. No appliance rebates available yet. August came. No rebates yet. August went.
While all 50 states proceeded to distribute these Stimulus funds in the timely manner intended by Congress, DC residents were still waiting.
DC finally made the funds available on Oct 25, after every state and territory except for Guam. Our kitchen was renovated, looks great, and is more energy efficient, no thanks to the DC Department of the Environment.
But how many people waited for the funds, which were ultimately released 16 months after the recession officially ended? Wasn't that the purpose of the stimulus, and why is was to be "timely, targeted, temporary and transformative," to help us out of a recession? And how many people just stopped waiting for DC and bought less energy efficient appliances?
When asked why it took longer for DC than every state and territory except for Guam to release stimulus money, the Department of the Environment offered this impenetrable explanation:
In determining and implementing a rebate mechanism that we believed, based on prior experience, would effectively serve District residents, it was necessary to have several other District agencies carefully review and approve this unique contract. Consequently, this prolonged our efforts for an earlier start date as each agency required answers to their specific questions.Apparently DC has more complex interagency relationships than other states, including California (April), New York (February) and Texas (April).
To date, DC has received 138 applications, of which 19 rebates [equivalent to $1,875 combined] have already been approved and 119 applications [an estimated $7,151] are pending verification. For more information, visit http://www.dc.state-rebate.com.
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future






by Fritz on Nov 17, 2010 2:14 pm • link • report
Just askin'
by Peter on Nov 17, 2010 2:23 pm • link • report
It's not "paying for" the appliances, it's a rebate to cover a part of the higher cost of energy-efficient appliances in order to fulfill a public policy objective. Regardless of whether you believe the funding should have been available, the program was still made available and should have been run better. Ken, perhaps you can produce a graph showing the inverse relationship of energy efficiency to DC bureaucratic efficiency?
by Adam L on Nov 17, 2010 2:37 pm • link • report
by Lorin on Nov 17, 2010 2:40 pm • link • report
by JTS on Nov 17, 2010 3:27 pm • link • report
It could be as simple as there being more illiteracy within the ranks of those who had to do the reviewing ... ;)
by Lance on Nov 17, 2010 3:56 pm • link • report
by Jazzy on Nov 17, 2010 7:18 pm • link • report
The overall program does seem like a good one though. The biggest and best impact will be if renters convince their landlords to break the vicious cycle of inefficient appliances (where landlords don't pay the bills so don't upgrade appliances and renters don't own to appliances so don't upgrade either) by finally replacing the old refrigerator, clothes washer, and windows and doors that have been haunting apartments since the late 70s.
by ZAP on Nov 17, 2010 11:36 pm • link • report
by sp on Nov 18, 2010 8:51 am • link • report
I think the local governments are so strapped for cash that they held onto the money from the Feds so they could earn interest on the money.
by G-man on Nov 23, 2010 1:17 pm • link • report
Add a Comment