Energy Rebates from Utility Companies

[Erik Sine]

I was curious if anyone out there knew what happens when a company goes "Green" and takes advantage of a Energy Rebate from a utility company.

When consumers or large business take advantage of rebates offered from appliances, retrofitting lighting, being on smart controllers, going Demand Response, etc.

Does the Energy company eat the money that they could have collected, or does someone else pay?

[Brian]

I was curious if anyone out there knew what happens when a company goes "Green" and takes advantage of a Energy Rebate from a utility company.

When consumers or large business take advantage of rebates offered from appliances, retrofitting lighting, being on smart controllers, going Demand Response, etc.

Does the Energy company eat the money that they could have collected, or does someone else pay?

You surely don't think the government would pass that cost on to the average guy do you? LOL

[fishing nut]

I'm curious as well. Here in Jersey and most states our companies offer a pro rate that gets divided up over the year so your gas bill will be equal all year instead of monsterous bills in the winter for heat. Same with electric for AC. Question is how will it be deducted from a prorated bill???

I personally think they just take the breaks from the govnt and maybe reduce the bill a little but I dont think they will give everything you deserve.

[Erik Sine]

I'm curious as well. Here in Jersey and most states our companies offer a pro rate that gets divided up over the year so your gas bill will be equal all year instead of monsterous bills in the winter for heat. Same with electric for AC. Question is how will it be deducted from a prorated bill???

I personally think they just take the breaks from the govnt and maybe reduce the bill a little but I dont think they will give everything you deserve.

What I'm curios about is back when I did all that retrofitting along with numerous contractors all over the state changing T12 to T8's upfront costs for materials were paid to the contractors, the end clients paid nothing or some did, SO where oh where did it come from? Waiting on some answers from SDG&E who put the rebate out locally.

[fishing nut]

Good luck waiting. We waited a few "years for a california power companies results on product we made that were requested from them. After badgering them for results the only answer was: we can not send in any form or tell you the results because they did not turn out the way they were expected to.

What is the defecit in California???? Wonder where the money came from???

[Erik Sine]

Gee, I'd love to know more about that, haha

[YYZ]

I think every country or state has their own approach, but it is usually the government that is bankrolling these efforts. If they're faced with having to put billions into new nuclear generation, or windmills or solar or coal plants - what they're trying to do is reduce overall consumption and ease the need to spend money on new generation infrastructure.

The logic is that if they spend say, $100 million a year to help reduce certain types of consumption, and it is able to offset the increased demand that population growth would require, then they don't have to invest in billion dollar power plants - or at least not as many.

So it's ultimately tax dollars that subsidize all these efforts, but those tax dollars are used to prevent from even more tax dollars being spent elsewhere. If they can cover any increased demand with cleaner technology like windmills and not burn coal (the largest source of power in the US), then it does make sense environmentally. It doesn't have to be about global warming, but think about smog or acid rain or spent uranium that are known, measurably negative side effects of power generation.

The question is whether your government is smart enough, or can be trusted to invest only enough to make smart financial case, or if they're going overboard and pushing a different agenda based on carbon credit trading, subsidies, etc... Just like the (supposed) military-industrial-complex pushes for investments into ships and planes and weapons to keep their people employed, the energy-environmental-complex is the next thing that will be at the forefront of government spending contracts. They're both important and needed in some way, but a close eye has to be kept so that you don't have crooks and speculators don't end up running the show and putting taxpayer dollars into their own pockets.

[HansonSigns]

"The question is whether your government is smart enough, or can be trusted to invest only enough to make smart financial case, or if they're going overboard and pushing a different agenda based on carbon credit trading, subsidies, etc..."

Trusted? HA! If our govt was so concerned about energy, they would invest in more wind power and solar power plants and LED factories so the workers at the incandescent bulb factories would have jobs and .... wow, it's a never ending list. Trust my government? less and less.

[YYZ]

Trusted? HA! If our govt was so concerned about energy, they would invest in more wind power and solar power plants and LED factories so the workers at the incandescent bulb factories would have jobs and .... wow, it's a never ending list. Trust my government? less and less.

Wind and solar can only do so much since they can't be relied on for base load generation anyways. LEDs are just one way to reduce actual consumption - especially if they start replacing incandescents or halogen lamps. Fluorescents and neon are still very efficient so the case there is more about maintenance or ease-of-use.

It makes perfect sense to reduce base load consumption, the question is how? Left to individuals nothing would happen, so someone has to take a leadership role. Some have tried to scare people into change (Gore), others have tried to force change with taxes and price hikes (parts of Europe), but neither is the way to go IMO. You just have to present the right technology at the right price and people will willingly go where they need to. If the right price is achieved by rebates then it's possible to push things along more quickly, but those rebates have to make sense.

If $1 billion in rebates can offset the need for a $1 billion coal plant, then it makes good sense. The money is a wash, but it's a cleaner, more efficient solution overall. A lot of people blindly support or oppose these efforts, and both are equally wrong to do so IMO.

[Erik Sine]

Simple. Build more plants and create competition. Kill the Eco-Tyranny that prevents it from happening.

[YYZ]

Simple. Build more plants and create competition.

How does building more plants create competition when they're likely to be controlled by the same companies?

Second, what about the natural resources used, and chemical waste that come from these new plants?

[Erik Sine]

Simple. Build more plants and create competition.

How does building more plants create competition when they're likely to be controlled by the same companies?

Second, what about the natural resources used, and chemical waste that come from these new plants?

That would be a monopoly, it would need to go to others that would create competition.

I'm for what other resources work, also start drilling and refining here on our own country.

[Brian]

Simple. Build more plants and create competition.

How does building more plants create competition when they're likely to be controlled by the same companies?

Second, what about the natural resources used, and chemical waste that come from these new plants?

That would be a monopoly, it would need to go to others that would create competition.

I'm for what other resources work, also start drilling and refining here on our own country.

You hit the nail right on the head captain!

[YYZ]

Drilling and refining is now talking about oil and gasoline - I thought we were talking about electricity?

And I never said that additional plants would be controlled by one company, just that the same companies that are already out there would be the ones with the resources to build more and infrastructure to connect them. For an outsider to build and then charge the same or less (assuming some measure of competition as you hope), it would be a money losing proposition on a huge scale. The only way new players are going to get in is if the government agrees to let them charge higher rates - which is the exact opposite of what you want.

[Erik Sine]

Drilling and refining is now talking about oil and gasoline - I thought we were talking about electricity?

And I never said that additional plants would be controlled by one company, just that the same companies that are already out there would be the ones with the resources to build more and infrastructure to connect them. For an outsider to build and then charge the same or less (assuming some measure of competition as you hope), it would be a money losing proposition on a huge scale. The only way new players are going to get in is if the government agrees to let them charge higher rates - which is the exact opposite of what you want.

Let's take CA for example, there is more demand than supply. We even have rolling blackouts and the ideology is conserve with an every growing population. Losing proposition and charge more? Not sure about that, let's give out ofstate utility companies the opportunity which they have been asking for.

If they fold then that's business. Have you sen the wages and benefits of these companies? I don't think it's a lost cause nor would I hunk rates would go up. But everyone has an opinion, but the opportunity needs to be there.

[YYZ]

Let's take CA for example, there is more demand than supply. We even have rolling blackouts and the ideology is conserve with an every growing population. Losing proposition and charge more? Not sure about that, let's give out ofstate utility companies the opportunity which they have been asking for.

Well - out of state companies still fall into the "same companies" category I was talking about - existing energy companies. They'd still have to build a whole lot of infrastructure that they wouldn't be willing to do if they'd have to charge less for the energy later on. Don't you think they want into CA specifically because they could charge more, based on the gov't wanting to force people to use less? One way or another the costs are going to keep going up, no matter how much competition you allow, because it's costing more and more to make and distribute.

If they fold then that's business. Have you sen the wages and benefits of these companies? I don't think it's a lost cause nor would I hunk rates would go up. But everyone has an opinion, but the opportunity needs to be there.

OK, so what would happen if a company did fold? More brownouts? Bailouts? The government would either have to bail them out, or let one of the other companies take them over - and let them charge you more for the privilege of having to rescue a money losing venture. It's happened elsewhere, like here in Ontario, where on every bill we pay "debt retirement fees" or "delivery charges" above and beyond the actual cost of the energy and/or transmission costs. You pay for extra "dirty" power they have to produce.

Looking at California some more - don't you think if every device connected to the grid had a power factor of over 90% that they would suddenly be able to exceed the actual demand with existing power plants? They would. Doesn't it make sense to get more efficient first, then build new capacity when needed? You want lower bills, you have to lower the costs of providing the energy. To do that, you need to reduce the consumption and increase efficiency. It's not simply about throwing more capacity at it.

Edited September 27, 2010 by YYZ

[Erik Sine]

Marko we pay more because of environmnetlalists, no company wants to come here to do business.

A utility company folding is more tongue and cheek. There are All kinds of taxes, most feed the Eco-tyrant. You and I obviously have different opinions, regulation due to efficiency is raisings costs to do business and Vikings costs of products. The majority of the effi iency crap is just that, crap. The environmenatal movement is killing this country.

Like I said. #1 a fair opportunity for competition has to be present.

I'd like to be lengthy with my replies but iPhone replies are hard

[HansonSigns]

I suppose that's where my comment about trusting the govt less and less comes from - the money generated from a particular tax revenue that should be dedicated to a particular budget gets spent on whatever else the govt decides to spend it on. Washington State is the perfect example of that kind of government.

I do agree that competition is the way to go, but prying the govt fingers off the companies in place will be tough.

Hey, here where I live, the county (Kitsap) voted to make every one here pay for recycling. It's only about $5 and change, and I would be all for it, except there is only ONE company here that does recycling, so you are paying them to pick up your recycle stuff, no matter if you want to or not.

Waste management is dancing in the streets...

Sorry, Monday rants http://www.thesignsyndicate.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wallbash.gif

[saneon]

Marko we pay more because of environmnetlalists, no company wants to come here to do business.

A utility company folding is more tongue and cheek. There are All kinds of taxes, most feed the Eco-tyrant. You and I obviously have different opinions, regulation due to efficiency is raisings costs to do business and Vikings costs of products. The majority of the effi iency crap is just that, crap. The environmenatal movement is killing this country.

Like I said. #1 a fair opportunity for competition has to be present.

I'd like to be lengthy with my replies but iPhone replies are hard

Our country desperately needs business savvy leadership. Our current course of pandering to the environmentalists has handicapped us to the point of financial ruin.

Trump for President kdg

[YYZ]

Our country desperately needs business savvy leadership.

This, I agree with.

Not to gloat since we were hit overall as well, but no Canadian banks fell during the global downturn. We have an economist as our leader and our Conservative government has taken a more pragmatic stance on environmental issues. Many assume Canadians are all left leaners and tree huggers - and no doubt many are - but no more than in the US. The oilsands may be dirty, but they account for 0.01% of global emissions and they represent an ethical choice for oil when compared to the Middle East, Venezuela, etc... We allow the seal hunt despite global protests, because it's actually the right thing to do.

Our current course of pandering to the environmentalists has handicapped us to the point of financial ruin.

This, too, but you can't swing too far the other way either. Some issues are important and need addressing - it just has to be done without the mongering and hysteria. The problem in a lot of countries right now is that people have drawn lines in the sand and taken an "us vs them" stance on many issues. It happens here, of course, but not as much since we don't have the religious influence that has somehow taken hold in the US, be that Christianity or Environmentalism - they are the two great American religions right now and while it's perfectly fine to believe in what you like - it has to be kept separate from the State - something the founding fathers wanted from day 1.

[imanut]

Trump for President kdg

Hell no. I say Kgirl for president! Me for Presidential Adviser, Eric for Director of Environmental Affairs and dual role as Vice President (keep it in the family and they can't travel together!!), Telford for Director of Energy Explanations, Garrett for Director of Lighting Issues, Manuel for Director of Science and Sales, Brian for Senate Sergeant of Arguments or Dir of National and Homeland Security and Marko for Director of International Relations

Anyone else want to run on our ticket ?

[YYZ]

Hell no. I say Kgirl for president! Me for Presidential Adviser, Eric for Director of Environmental Affairs and dual role as Vice President (keep it in the family and they can't travel together!!), Telford for Director of Energy Explanations, Garrett for Director of Lighting Issues, Manuel for Director of Science and Sales, Brian for Senate Sergeant of Arguments or Dir of National and Homeland Security and Marko for Director of International Relations

Anyone else want to run on our ticket ?

Ha. It's too bad I would never get elected due to my (lack of) religious beliefs.

You've got people pegged pretty well, though ;)

[imanut]

Hell no. I say Kgirl for president! Me for Presidential Adviser, Eric for Director of Environmental Affairs and dual role as Vice President (keep it in the family and they can't travel together!!), Telford for Director of Energy Explanations, Garrett for Director of Lighting Issues, Manuel for Director of Science and Sales, Brian for Senate Sergeant of Arguments or Dir of National and Homeland Security and Marko for Director of International Relations

Anyone else want to run on our ticket ?

Ha. It's too bad I would never get elected due to my (lack of) religious beliefs.

You've got people pegged pretty well, though ;)

No, that's part of the new foreign policy. Easier to be more objective if there is no influence of ones own particular religion. We can work thru those issues. I'll get with the new Pres - have a few closed door meetings - and get back to you.

[saneon]

Hell no. I say Kgirl for president! Me for Presidential Adviser, Eric for Director of Environmental Affairs and dual role as Vice President (keep it in the family and they can't travel together!!), Telford for Director of Energy Explanations, Garrett for Director of Lighting Issues, Manuel for Director of Science and Sales, Brian for Senate Sergeant of Arguments or Dir of National and Homeland Security and Marko for Director of International Relations

Anyone else want to run on our ticket ?

Ha. It's too bad I would never get elected due to my (lack of) religious beliefs.

You've got people pegged pretty well, though ;)

No, that's part of the new foreign policy. Easier to be more objective if there is no influence of ones own particular religion. We can work thru those issues. I'll get with the new Pres - have a few closed door meetings - and get back to you.

Does the President need a intern ?

[Erik Sine]

Ha, founding fathers didn't want to separate God from the government but to separate the government from imposing religion on it's citizens.

Now, why do I have the feeling that as Vice President ( and I have no doubt in my mind) that I would find myself being sent overseas quite often, and to places like Zimbabwe (probably done so at the advice of the Presidents closest advisor?) Hmmmmmm