- Email: [email protected]
Showcase the cream
useenergyconversionsystemcustom-tailored for each customer. It should invest its capital to install and uzunthe sysm continue to operate, maintain and upgrade it, and then charge each customer a mutually-ne got&d energy services fee to pay for itoutoftheenergycoststhatthesystem saves. No subsidy is created and nocustomerisgivenafreeride. We have called this approach the “enduse energy utility” or 02. (2X], Apr. ‘93, at 34, and July ‘93, at 45). The (EU)2 has no monopoly and no concomitant obligation to serve all customers. Hkewisethecustomer has no obligation to buy any services from the utility% (ELI)2 or from any other company% 02. Unless we approach the problem from the customer’s perspective “EM programs” will never live up to their potential They will always costmoreandsavelessthenthey should. Joskow and Marron deserve thanksformmindingusofthiscrucial fact.
rmdenvirommmtalstrategyforthe United States and indeed the world. What particularly d&tubs us at Tl%?ResultsCeI&l%hemisrepIesentation of our work. We aren’t Ioddng for average values of average pro grams. Ihisiswhywefocusonwhat Joskow and Marmn call “subpro grams.” Inevitably, utilities with largeportfoliosofprogramswillhave a diversity of programmatic successes. Averaging these programs detractsfromafocusontrulyexem-
Plary Programs. Tll&Sll~centerhasthespedfiC
missiontopresenttheaeamofthe crop of demand-side management
J.M P@m&r, D.O.lenwin, TL Egnor, ~anmc.Piqmier&company
showcase
the cream
ince The RemIts Center%data S were used as “Exhibit A” in Joskow and Marron’s July 1993 contribution to this journal, I feel compell~towriteandclarifyafew points. Why? While my colleagues and I agree with many of Joskow and Man-on’s basic points, I am concemedthatmanyreaderswillinterpmt Joskow and Marmn’s conclusions about The Results Center inaccurately, and that this could lead to a decmased emphasis on energy efficiency. Let’s remember that demand-side management is an important part of a critical macroeconomic
August/September 1993
programs and to celebrate these success stories. By doing so we aim to advance effective energy efficiency programs through the power of example. Why dwell onmuge costs? Why focus on average programs? Focusing on mediocrity will inevitably get you more of it! TheResultsCenterdoesnotscreen or select %ubpmgrams” based on low costs, high levels of energy savings, or any other single measure of success. Wefeelthatthisisalimiting and limited perspective. Instead we strive to present a distribution of pro gram types across market and enduse sectors, and to cover innovative delivery and iinancing mechanisms from education programs to mba&
tobidding,leasing,andenergyservicechargepmgrams. Todate we have published sixty 16 to 24page profiles of successful programs. If we had been looking for low-cost pmgrams, our roster of pro&s would be much different and we would certainly not have included costly resea&projects such as Hood River, nor low-income programs traditicmally pursued not for economic but socialbenefits! Todate,TheResultsCenterhas worked cooperatively with over 40 of the nation’s leading DSM utilities. In each case our staff “digs in” to lmcover the combination of elements that have led to program success that can be transferred to other utilities My colleagues and I have developedalist-‘“manigans23 Dei?n.itions of USM Success” - each item of which points to a particular pro gram attribute that is important in its own right. Naturally we believe the cost of saved energy is an interesting aspect of a program’s impacts, but certainly it is not the most important definition of success. Isn’t it better to spend a bit mom to get more compre hensive savings and to guarantee durability of the measures installed? used alone, the cost of saved energy is not a particularly useful indicator ofthetruevalueofaUSMpmgr~ justastheGNPisnotapar&ularly good indicator of the well-being of oursocietyandthusthequalityof our life! Ted Flanigan, IRT Environment
venfihting
/I
BPA Conservation
R
evisiting Negawatt Costs” by Joskow and Marron (Z’EJ, July ‘93, at 14) points out trends in ekxuicityconsumptiondocumenti
71
rmdenvirommmtalstrategyforthe United States and indeed the world. What particularly d&tubs us at Tl%?ResultsCeI&l%hemisrepIesentation of our work. We aren’t Ioddng for average values of average pro grams. Ihisiswhywefocusonwhat Joskow and Marmn call “subpro grams.” Inevitably, utilities with largeportfoliosofprogramswillhave a diversity of programmatic successes. Averaging these programs detractsfromafocusontrulyexem-
Plary Programs. Tll&Sll~centerhasthespedfiC
missiontopresenttheaeamofthe crop of demand-side management
J.M P@m&r, D.O.lenwin, TL Egnor, ~anmc.Piqmier&company
showcase
the cream
ince The RemIts Center%data S were used as “Exhibit A” in Joskow and Marron’s July 1993 contribution to this journal, I feel compell~towriteandclarifyafew points. Why? While my colleagues and I agree with many of Joskow and Man-on’s basic points, I am concemedthatmanyreaderswillinterpmt Joskow and Marmn’s conclusions about The Results Center inaccurately, and that this could lead to a decmased emphasis on energy efficiency. Let’s remember that demand-side management is an important part of a critical macroeconomic
August/September 1993
programs and to celebrate these success stories. By doing so we aim to advance effective energy efficiency programs through the power of example. Why dwell onmuge costs? Why focus on average programs? Focusing on mediocrity will inevitably get you more of it! TheResultsCenterdoesnotscreen or select %ubpmgrams” based on low costs, high levels of energy savings, or any other single measure of success. Wefeelthatthisisalimiting and limited perspective. Instead we strive to present a distribution of pro gram types across market and enduse sectors, and to cover innovative delivery and iinancing mechanisms from education programs to mba&
tobidding,leasing,andenergyservicechargepmgrams. Todate we have published sixty 16 to 24page profiles of successful programs. If we had been looking for low-cost pmgrams, our roster of pro&s would be much different and we would certainly not have included costly resea&projects such as Hood River, nor low-income programs traditicmally pursued not for economic but socialbenefits! Todate,TheResultsCenterhas worked cooperatively with over 40 of the nation’s leading DSM utilities. In each case our staff “digs in” to lmcover the combination of elements that have led to program success that can be transferred to other utilities My colleagues and I have developedalist-‘“manigans23 Dei?n.itions of USM Success” - each item of which points to a particular pro gram attribute that is important in its own right. Naturally we believe the cost of saved energy is an interesting aspect of a program’s impacts, but certainly it is not the most important definition of success. Isn’t it better to spend a bit mom to get more compre hensive savings and to guarantee durability of the measures installed? used alone, the cost of saved energy is not a particularly useful indicator ofthetruevalueofaUSMpmgr~ justastheGNPisnotapar&ularly good indicator of the well-being of oursocietyandthusthequalityof our life! Ted Flanigan, IRT Environment
venfihting
/I
BPA Conservation
R
evisiting Negawatt Costs” by Joskow and Marron (Z’EJ, July ‘93, at 14) points out trends in ekxuicityconsumptiondocumenti
71