May 10, 2005 — By Steven J. Moss, San Francisco Community Power
When the clock strikes noon on a weekday, you can almost hear utility
meters across the nation clicking faster. During the six-hour consumption
peak – roughly from noon to six in the evening, though times vary
by location and customer mix - electricity sells for a premium,
and inefficient power plants run harder, spewing out more pollution.
And just like freeway congestion during the height of commute hour,
when demand for electricity is highest there’s a risk that the system
will become overloaded, sparking blackouts.
For the past few decades energy policy makers have focused on conservation
as the best way to reduce demand: weather stripping windows and
doors; installing high pressure faucets and ultra-efficient light
fixtures, among other things. Although conservation, now called
“efficiency,” remains popular, the energy policy buzz-phrase of
the day is “demand-response.” Rather than being asked to conserve,
under demand response programs energy users are encouraged to change
the timing of when they use electricity to “off-peak periods.” For
example, families could wait until after 7:00 pm before turning
on their electric dishwasher or using other energy-sucking appliances.
What’s more, when the grid is under serious strain, due to temperature
spikes or equipment failure, homes might be called and asked to
make additional efforts to reduce their electricity use during peak
periods.
Whether demand-response programs will work to effectively reduce
demand on “critical peak days” – and the consequences of doing so
on the electric utility system – is largely unknown. The evidence
is mixed as to whether or not businesses and families are willing
to further adjust their habits and homes to reduce peak demand.
For example, a recently issued study by the California Public Utility
Commission found that information about the environmental consequences
of peak demand doesn’t successfully prompt most people to shift
their energy use to non-peak times when asked to do so on a critical
peak day. Families don’t seem to want to be bothered to constantly
change their daily habits for an additional measure of environmental
benefit, or to reduce the chances of electrical outages.
Environmental education does, however, result in an overall increase
in energy conservation. That is, while people may not want to think
about actively managing their electricity use, they are willing
to invest time and resources into tightening-up their ongoing energy
demand, principally through switching to energy efficient light
bulbs, purchasing Energy Star appliances, and weatherizing their
homes. This implies that there’s more squeeze in the efficiency
juice, even after California’s energy crises and more than three
years of intensive energy conservation campaigns.
Consumers also seem willing to become more actively engaged in
household energy management when they’re charged more for critical
peak energy use. That is, when called upon on an extreme weather
day to reduce their electricity use or face higher utility costs,
they’ll turn down the air conditioning or wait to do laundry. However,
it’s unclear whether higher critical peak day prices will result
in significant behavioral changes over the long-term, or whether
people will grow tired of responding to nagging calls to conserve.
Whether or not demand-response programs offer a cost-effective
way to shave peak demand has multi-billion consequences. Pacific
Gas and Electric Company, which serves Northern California, has
already asked for state approval of a $3 billion roll-out of advanced
meters, justifying the expense in part on the basis that the meters
would enable more effective implementation of demand-response programs.
If demand-response programs enable utilities to decommission large
numbers of “peaker” plants, which are necessary to met demand spikes,
there could be considerable environmental benefits, as these facilities
tend to emit greater amounts of polluting air emissions than “base
load” generating stations. But if demand-response turns out to be
just the latest energy fad, the costs of aggressive implementation
of enabling technologies, such as meters, would be just another
line item on our already expensive energy bill. Policy makers should
proceed with caution.
____________________
Steven Moss is the publisher of the Neighborhood Environmental
Newswire.. He serves as Executive Director of San Francisco Community
Power, http://www.sfpower.org/.
Source: An ENN Commentary
|
