Most of these groups opposing Save-A-Watt (including the Public
Staff) were nowhere to be found when it came to opposing the energy
efficiency measures in Senate Bill 3. Generally, they strongly
supported the provisions.
The only reason why Save-A-Watt is even a possibility is because SB 3
provided the statutory authorization for such a program.
These groups only have themselves to thank for Save-A-Watt. Good job!
Because of their efforts and regardless of whether Save-A-Watt gets approved:
– The public will pay more for electricity.
– The poor will have to pay more so that people that can take advantage
of energy efficient incentives can do so–it is a wealth transfer from
the poor to the wealthy.
– Utilities will get paid not to produce electricity.
– Consumers will pay more for energy efficient goods and services
through utility-run programs than if the consumers bought the products
themselves.
– Utilities will project future “demand” to determine whether programs have reduced demand–this is sure to be trustworthy!
– Attributing reduced demand due to energy efficiency programs as opposed to consumer actions is impossible.
From a 2007 Spotlight report
before passage of SB 3: “It is dubious to assume that a 5 percent
reduction in energy use would be a result of paying higher taxes for
incentive programs. In fact, La Capra [the Utility Commission’s
consultant) recognizes that there is ‘a problem in attributing the
correct amount of energy savings from EE [energy efficiency] measures
that are part of an RPS versus what would have otherwise resulted
without any incentives.'”
– The public has been led to believe that these programs, such as
energy efficiency incentives for consumers, are something new. NC
has had these demand-side management programs since the 1980’s and they
have been a complete disaster.
– The environmental extremists didn’t even care enough about consumers
to push for an independent third party administrator to run the energy
efficiency programs–something they have pushed in the past (let me
stress, an administrator is a bad option too, but it would be no worse
than utility-run programs and it would cost far less).
A
third party administrator only gets paid for the costs of the programs
and a reasonable bonus–nothing even remotely close to Save-A-Watt or
what likely will eventually be permitted by the Utilities Commission.
Instead of just getting paid for program costs and a reasonable
bonus, Duke would get paid for lost demand (as projected by
Duke). Under Save-A-Watt, consumers would pay as much for the
luxury of not receiving electricity as they pay to receive electricity.
Excuse me for not thanking these groups for their efforts to stop Save-A-Watt.
