Lessons from Ltility Conservation Programs

This paper considers the design, incentives and effectiveness of U.S. demand side management (DSM) programs and tries to explain why this ambitious, almost unanimously embraced initiative failed. Problems on the demand side result from consumers' private information that implies that substantial principal-agent slippage must accompany any conservation incentive the utility offers to the consumer. Moreover, the regulatory incentives induce the American utility to select inefficient programs. Therefore, the utility has little to gain from deterring such strategic reactions and cheating by consumers. As a consequence, the reported conservation exists largely on paper but not in reality. This ex-post assessment is important for two reasons. First, European countries (Scandinavia, Germany, Austria and others) have been eager to repeat this American regulatory 'success'. Second, the problems addressed in this paper would apply to another round of conservation programs induced by the concern about global warming.

[1]  G. Castro,et al.  Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit , 1992 .

[2]  D. Sappington,et al.  Incentives for Conservation and Quality-Improvement by Public Utilities , 1992 .

[3]  Benjamin F. Hobbs The "Most Value" Test: Economic Evaluation of Electricity Demand-Side Management Considering Customer Value , 1991 .

[4]  D. A. Houston Can energy markets drive DSM , 1994 .

[5]  Paul L. Joskow,et al.  What Does a Negawatt Really Cost? Evidence from Utility Conservation Programs , 1992 .

[6]  Canice Prendergast The Provision of Incentives in Firms , 1999 .

[7]  Franz Wirl,et al.  Impact of regulation on demand side conservation programs , 1995 .

[8]  Edward M. Meyers,et al.  Using market transformation to achieve energy efficiency: The next steps , 1997 .

[9]  F. Wirl,et al.  Joint Implementation: Strategic Reactions and Possible Remedies , 1998 .

[10]  Franz Wirl,et al.  The Economics of Conservation Programs , 1997 .

[11]  Jerry A. Hausman,et al.  Individual Discount Rates and the Purchase and Utilization of Energy-Using Durables , 1979 .

[12]  Akira Takayama,et al.  Behavior of the Firm under Regulatory Constraint , 1969 .

[13]  R. Gilbert,et al.  A Review and Analysis of Electric Utility Conservation Incentives , 1994 .

[14]  Franz Wirl,et al.  Analysis of United States' Utility Conservation Programs , 1998 .

[15]  M. J. King,et al.  Public purpose energy efficiency programs and utilities in restructured markets , 1996 .

[16]  D. Moskovitz Profits and Progress through Least-Cost Planning , 1990 .

[17]  Torleif Haugland Social Benefits of Financial Investment Support in Energy Conservation Policy , 1996 .

[18]  Steven Stoft,et al.  The Economics of Conserved-Energy "Supply" Curves* , 1995 .

[19]  Eduardo S. Schwartz,et al.  Investment Under Uncertainty. , 1994 .

[20]  G. Stigler The Theory of Economic Regulation , 2021, The Political Economy.

[21]  Nicholas Lenssen Local integrated resource planning: a new tool for a competitive era , 1996 .

[22]  Michael E. Porter,et al.  Green and Competitive : Ending the Stalemate , 1996 .

[23]  Kenneth Train Incentives for Energy Conservation in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors , 1988 .

[24]  Analytics of demand-side conservation programs , 1989 .

[25]  Douglas W. Caves,et al.  Three Biases in Cost-Efficiency Tests of Utility Energy Efficiency Programs* , 1994 .

[26]  Joseph H. Eto,et al.  What kind of future for energy efficiency , 1996 .

[27]  Eric Hirst,et al.  Price and Cost Impacts of Utility DSM Programs , 1992 .

[28]  Manuel Frondel,et al.  Evaluating Environmental Programs: The Perspective of Modern Evaluation Research , 2001, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[29]  Clark W. Gellings,et al.  Efficient use of electricity , 1990 .

[30]  F. Wirl Conservation Incentives for Consumers , 1999 .

[31]  R. Gordon Regulation and economic analysis : a critique over two centuries , 1994 .