Three companies—KW Solar Solutions, Clean Energy USA of Rehoboth Beach, and CMI Solar & Electric—were selected to participate in the program, but the lack of transparency surrounding their selection has left many skeptical. "It doesn’t feel like there was a genuine competitive process," said one industry insider. "The public doesn’t know why these firms were chosen over others, and that naturally leads to suspicions."
At the center of this growing criticism is CMI Solar & Electric, whose president also serves as the president of the Delaware Solar Coalition. This dual role has alarmed observers, who are concerned about a conflict of interest. "When someone who stands to benefit from state funds also holds a key position in shaping state solar policy, it’s fair to ask if the decision-making was more about helping friends than helping the public," said a local watchdog.
The structure of the program itself has also drawn criticism. Delaware chose to fund individual solar installations for low-income households—a costly and inefficient approach compared to other states. Neighboring New Jersey, for example, is managing a similar solar program with a $156 million incentive, but instead of focusing on individual homes, it funds large-scale solar farms, which can serve thousands of households at a lower cost per family. "New Jersey’s strategy is more cost-effective and reaches more people. Delaware’s decision to go with a more expensive model doesn’t seem to make much sense, especially when better options are on the table," remarked a clean energy expert.
Despite early promises from DNREC that the pilot would lower energy bills for low-income residents, the program has provided little public information on its progress. There are no reports on how many households have benefited, nor any data on whether these installations have resulted in meaningful savings. This lack of transparency has left many Delawareans frustrated. "We have no idea if this program is even working. There’s no accountability, no data, no results," said one concerned resident.
The SEU, which is managing the program, has been criticized for a lack of transparency and effectiveness in past initiatives. The Caesar Rodney Institute (CRI), a Delaware-based think tank, has been particularly vocal in its disapproval of the SEU’s operations. In its 2023 Delaware Governance Report Card, CRI gave Delaware's energy management an "F," citing mismanagement and a lack of clear benefits for state residents(Caesar Rodney Insitute). Additionally, CRI has raised concerns that the SEU's programs, like the Low-Income Solar Pilot, often benefit insiders more than the public(Energy and Policy Institute).
As Delawareans wait for answers, the program is increasingly being viewed with skepticism. What started as an initiative to reduce energy costs for struggling families now appears mired in potential conflicts of interest and poor management. Without clear reporting or measurable outcomes, many are left wondering if the Low-Income Solar Pilot Program is truly serving its intended purpose.
"New Jersey got it right by investing in large-scale solar farms that benefit thousands," said a clean energy advocate. "Meanwhile, Delaware is spending more to help fewer people, and we still don’t know if the program is even effective. Add in the fact that one of the companies has ties to a key advocacy group, and it raises serious questions about how this program is really being run."
Until DNREC and the SEU provide concrete data on the program’s impact and address concerns about favoritism, Delaware’s Low-Income Solar Pilot Program risks being viewed as a wasted opportunity—an initiative meant to help the disadvantaged that may instead be benefiting a few well-connected companies. As one local resident put it, "This was supposed to be about helping those who need it most, but right now, it seems like the only ones benefiting are the ones with friends in the right places."
Disclaimer: The title of this article was generated using AI technology to enhance creativity and engagement.
Get updates delivered to you daily. Free and customizable.
It’s essential to note our commitment to transparency:
Our Terms of Use acknowledge that our services may not always be error-free, and our Community Standards emphasize our discretion in enforcing policies. As a platform hosting over 100,000 pieces of content published daily, we cannot pre-vet content, but we strive to foster a dynamic environment for free expression and robust discourse through safety guardrails of human and AI moderation.
Comments / 0