News-Record.com

Update: Late with this, but here's Tuesday's newspaper story on Save-A-Watt.

-=-=-=-=-

I spent a little time this afternoon at the NC Utilities Commission’s hearings on Duke's Save-A-Watt program.

For those who haven't tuned into this thus far, basically Duke Energy has proposed a program aimed at curbing power use. Because it's something that rate-payers would have to pay extra for - residential customers would pay whether they directly participate or not - they have a case before the utilities commission.

Those inclined to tip-toe through the paperwork, should click here and brew yourself a big ol' pot of coffee. This case was first filed in May of 2007 and Duke as well as advocates on all sides (including Wal-Mart) have been filing briefs and testimony ever since.

Now, saving energy sounds like a good thing, but this program proposal has put environmental and consumer advocates at odds with Duke. The crux of the conflict is this:

The power company says its program will help it make energy efficiency a fifth fuel and let them recoup the costs of helping people cut back on their power usage.

Consumer advocates say that the company will charge customers too much for the privilege of not buying power. In fact, the way Duke conceptualized the way it will be paid back is by way of recouping 90 percent of the cost for a power plant it will never build.

Environmental types say that other energy efficiency programs in other states have produced more savings than what Duke projects.

A story on all this is coming for Tuesday's paper.

Interesting side-note: Duke Power CEO Jim Rogers was the subject of a rather slurpy New York Times Magazine profile last month. It focused mainly on his carbon cap and trade efforts but included this graph on Save-a-Watt:

Interestingly, the one green initiative Rogers says he hopes will emerge most quickly is focused not on generating power but on conserving it. Last year, he concocted the Save-a-Watt plan, which would let Duke profit from helping its customers drastically cut their energy use. Like roughly half the utilities in the United States, Duke is regulated; it can charge more for power only if it builds a new power plant and persuades the regulator to approve a rate increase to pay for it. But the fastest way to reduce a carbon footprint is by improving efficiency. Under Save-a-Watt, Duke would, for example, distribute “smart” meters that automatically turn off customers’ appliances during periods of peak power use. For its first experiment, Duke plans to cut the consumption of its customers in the Carolinas by 1,800 megawatts, which is equal to the output of two new coal-fired plants. The regulator would then let Duke charge higher rates for the electricity its customers do use to pay for all the efficiency technology. Save-a-Watt thus turns the power business on its head: rather than charge customers more to build plants, Duke will effectively charge them not to do so.

Beyond that, the story doesn't really explore the Save-A-Watt idea, or the objections to it, very much. But toward the end, with things re-focused on carbon cap and trade, there's a graph I found really interesting. It speaks to Rogers wanting to craft this image as the power company CEO that environmentalists should love, but who is spurned:

Yet many local environmentalists no longer believe Rogers, and they have precisely the opposite view of how the future should unfold. They view the Lieberman-Warner bill not as too strong but as too weak. They point out, correctly, that Duke stands to reap tens of billions in free allowances, even under the existing bill, money that will subsidize the burning of coal. “This bill gives huge windfall profits to a company that buys a lot of coal, like Duke,” says Frank O’Donnell, the head of Clean Air Watch, an environmental group. “I happen to think that it’s immoral. In a sense, you’re paying the polluter. You’re rewarding the very companies that are the source of the problem.” He says he doesn’t believe that coal-dependent companies will move fast enough unless they feel the tighter pressure of even more aggressive carbon caps. Rogers is simply “greenwashing” his company, saying all the right things so he can wear the mantle of the revolutionary without having to make the hard sacrifices.

That same sort of dynamic seems to be at play with Save-A-Watt, with Duke claiming that they're going to be the more environmentally friendly power company that environmentalists should like, and the environmental side being skeptical.