What Does a Negawatt Really Cost? Evidence from Utility Conservation Programs
We use information reported by ten utilities about their electricity conservation programs to calculate the life-cycle cost per kWh saved - the cost of a "negawatt " -- associated with these programs. These computations indicate that the cost associated with utilities "purchasing" negawatthours is substantially higher than implied by standard sources such as Amory Lovins (Rocky Mountain Institute) and EPRI. The costs calculated for residential programs, in particular, are much higher than conservation advocates have suggested. However, 80% of the expected savings from these programs are attributed to commercial and industrial customers rather than residential customers. We find substantial variation in costs between utilities for similar programs as well as significant intra-utility variation in the cost associated with various sub-programs. We proceed to examine whether or not there are any systematic biases in the reporting of costs and energy savings by the utilities in our sample. In many cases, utilities fail to report all relevant costs, rely on engineering projections of savings rather than applying methods to measure savings based on actual experience, and fail to make appropriate adjustments for free riders. Further biases may result firorn adopting measure lives that are too long. As a result, on average the cost of a negawatthour computed from utility reports significantly underestimates the true societal cost of conservation achieved this way. Mile it is difficult to compute the underestimate with any precision, the evidence that we have suggests that computations based on utility expectations could be underestimating the actual societal cost by a factor of two or more on average. Better utility cost accounting procedures and the application of more sophisticated methods to estimate actual energy savings achieved are clearly necessary before large sums of money can be expended wisely on these programs.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): Volume 13 (1992)
Issue (Month): Number 4 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.iaee.org
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.iaee.org/en/publications/ejsearch.aspx|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aen:journl:1992v13-04-a03. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (David Williams)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.