Follow this blog:
RSS

Arizona mandates 20 percent cut in amount of electricity that utilities can sell

By | July 29, 2010, 8:18 AM PDT

Intriguing report in the Environmental Leader today that should have utility company executives sitting up and taking notice. Apparently, the Arizona Corporate Commission, which rules utility policy in the state, passed a measure this week that will mandate that regulated electric utilities serving the state reduce the amount of power that they sell by at least 22 percent over the next 10 years.

The idea is for utilities to play a key role in inspiring businesses and residential households to strive for better energy efficiency. The holy grail is potential savings of $9 billion.

Pause and think about that. These utilities were just told to cut sales, not grow them. I get that. But even I will admit that this is a pretty darn aggressive goal. It also makes me wonder: As utilities are asked to encourage reduced consumption, because of the potential environmental benefits, what (exactly) is inspiring them to invest in the technology we need to make the grid smarter?

Utilities are already known to be extreme laggards when it comes to technology investments. I don’t see moves like this inspiring a change to that behavior. One potential way that utilities could make this up, I guess, is by offering the consulting and integration services that businesses and households will need to invest in to achieve this reduction. So, for example, stuff like home weatherization projects or energy audits or replacing appliances and climate control systems.

Hmm, seems like we’re in for a complete rewrite of what it means to be a utility company and something tells me the smart grid is just one teeny piece of the answer.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Heather Clancy

About Heather Clancy

Heather Clancy is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Heather Clancy

Heather Clancy

Contributing Editor, Business

Heather Clancy has written for United Press International, ZDNet, Entrepreneur, Fortune Small Business, the International Herald Tribune and the New York Times. She holds a degree from McGill University. She is based in New Jersey.

Follow her on Twitter.

Heather Clancy

Heather Clancy
Writing publicly about what the high-tech industry is actually doing to help itself and the world get greener or more sustainable is one way I figure I can contribute more meaningfully to said effort. I'm also a big OMG-kind-of-fan of smart leadership, which is why the goodly folks who publish this blog let me go on about this topic and why I am always on the hunt for forward-looking business management ideas.

My daily writing is focused on looking for topics for my blogs, GreenTech Pastures and Business Brains. I also write often about emerging technology trends such as mobile computing, unified communications and cloud computing. Occasionally, I will pop up at an industry conference in some sort of speaking capacity. In cases where a speaking engagement involves a sponsor that may be covered in this blog, that fact will be disclosed in coverage as appropriate.

My corporate writing work usually consists of crafting research white papers about some aspect of technology. In the event that my commentary (in written, audio or video form) mentions a company for which I have provided consulting advice, I will disclose that fact. However, there is no connection between these projects and the topics that I'm covering in my blog.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
5
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Arizona mandates 20 percent cut in amount of electricity that utilities can sell
What Arizona is doing makes economic sense. I worked with the utility industry at one point, and a workable, proven model employed is promoting energy efficiency to avoid building additional power plants -- deferred capacity. For example, it may cost $50 million for a new 100 MW plant, but only $10 million in marketing and incentive programs to reduce load by the same amount -- in essence, adding "virtual power plant."
Posted by Joe McKendrick
29th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Arizona mandates 20 percent cut in amount of electricity that utilities can sell
Well....one easy way to see a 20% cut in what you sell is to raise the price.

Citizens of Arizona can most likely look forward to higher utility costs because of this legislation.

Don't think it will happen? When they de-regulated power companies in Montana they told us it would lower electricity costs due to more competition. What happened is that energy companies just started selling it to other states such as California and our energy costs have since risen to more than 10 times what they were.

The point is, because law makers tell the public that legislation will have one effect, doesn't mean that it will actually in practice have a drastically different effect.
Posted by keitha73
30th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
I think that . . .
This has more to do with the Cities on the west coast who are boycotting Arizona, but they seem to have to no problem buying power and water from them. This may be in retaliation for the boycotts . . .
Posted by JLHenry
30th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Arizona mandates 20 percent cut in amount of electricity that utilities can sell
Good intentions often activate the law of unintended consequences.
Since overhead costs largely do not go away, when usage declines. In municipalities where electrical usage has gone down, the utilities affected have then requested surcharges and rate increases to compensate for lost revenues.
And as public utilities, they need only prove their legitimate expenses are greater than their income, to justify the need for higher rates.
Posted by Rick_hayward99037
1st Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Short-sighed politicians and the laws of unintended consequences
The simplest way to reduce demand for a commodity is to raise
the price. But that is very unpopular. So instead, politicians
come up with the complex schemes to achieve the same thing.
But the outcome is always the same, or worse: Rates will go up,
and worse, the unintended consequences are usually worse that
the malady the politicians were seeking to contain in the first
place.

Like was said above, the problem here is that few people
understand that the bulk of their power bill is not for the energy
itself, but for the construction and maintenance of the vast
infrastructure required to deliver the energy to your home. These
costs are mostly fixed, regardless of the cost of the energy itself
or the amount delivered.

In the end, the results are always the same; rates will have to go
up anyway to cover the fixed costs, in addition to the extra that will
be required to pay for whatever additional boondoggles the
regulators mandate.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
2nd Aug 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!