The Conservation Weapon

As the power crisis in California grows more dire, as utilities struggle to keep most of the lights on and politicians grit their teeth to shell out taxpayer money, the role of consumers keeps getting pushed to the background. Gov. Gray Davis has talked about conservation, and Californians are certainly aware that turning out some lights and shutting down the computer are helpful. But so much more is possible. And if it is any solace to Californians, every kilowatt saved is a few dollars less in the pockets of the power producers that are reporting such enormous profits from the state’s pain.

Davis should drive home to skeptical Californians that saving energy is critical to the state’s economy and their own pocketbooks. Even places like Los Angeles, with municipal utilities and blessedly ample power, would have more to sell to the rest of the state by conserving now.

Prompted by the oil crises of the 1970s, the U.S. has taken long strides in conserving energy, largely through mandating greater efficiency for cars, electrical appliances and home insulation. California led with the stiffest energy efficiency standards in the country, and its economy reaped billions of dollars in benefits.

Today, if conservation were thought of as a “source” of energy, it would rank No. 2 behind oil. But in the mess of deregulation, a strong focus on conservation has been lost. After all, in a pure market economy, the sellers and middlemen do better by selling, not by encouraging people to use less.

As electricity and natural gas get more expensive, small decisions--nudging the air conditioner thermostat up a few degrees, turning the heat down slightly, turning off the computer when not in use or the light when leaving a room--can add up to major savings.

To stimulate energy conservation by large businesses and other institutions whose consumption can be measured on an hourly basis, utilities should switch to real-time pricing, charging more during peak hours when supply is tightest. Residential meters are not that sophisticated, and replacing them would be prohibitively expensive. That’s too bad, because unlike businesses that need to keep machinery running, consumers can adjust their laundry schedules or switch appliances off without much inconvenience. Rand researchers calculate that California could save at least 10% of its power by cutting back on waste--one place to start might be the well-lit signs and other advertising at closed businesses.

Earlier this month, Davis called on Californians to reduce consumption by 7% and allotted $250 million to help consumers buy ever more efficient appliances and better insulate their homes. That’s a start and it is a call that Davis needs to keep repeating, with plenty of specifics. But the rest of the governor’s message has muddied the issue.

By putting all the blame on power producers and federal energy regulators for power shortages, he only reinforces consumers’ conviction that this is an artificial energy crisis driven by greed. True, greed is certainly driving part of the crisis, but this is far more complex than a simple pirate tale.

At some point, inadequate supply and excessive demand have to come back into balance.

Davis could enlist some glamour help from Hollywood--maybe even Martin Sheen, the authoritative “West Wing” president, since George W. Bush has said California is on its own. In any case, Davis and the Legislature must earmark funds for an all-out education and incentive campaign.