A Real, Big Scale Solution to Climate Change Individuals Can Pull Off

Utility rate structures can be fun 2

Let’s say you were a very powerful being, something called Utility God. And let’s pretend you realized climate change was a big problem, and that it was something that needed to be solved using big strokes, not small measures. One of the big things you’d want to do, at least for the average Joe, would be to create a situation where homeowners would want to, would actually love to, save energy in their homes. You’d also use your magic wand to create a situation where renewable energy systems like solar panels had a much better payback than they currently do. Finally, you’d want to send a signal to really, really big users that there’s an environmental and infrastructural burden to the community if they use a dump-load of electricity—in the same way that if you used hundreds of thousands of gallons of water on your lawn, it impacts the rest of the community.

One way to get at this Über-solution, at least for residential customers, is called a “tiered” or “inclining block” rate structure. (I told you this would be fun!)  That means, simply, that if you use more energy, you tend to pay more per unit of energy. But the average household isn’t affectedMost residential rates outside of California are not tiered, and some are even “declining blocks” meaning you pay less as you use more.  That’s an incentive to waste. (Note that inclining block rate structures are typically associated with residential customers but could, arguably, be applied to businesses too. That’s another conversation though, since regulators are reluctant to penalize businesses for using more energy, and since businesses already pay “demand charges” for drawing a lot of energy.)

Under a tiered rate structure, you, the average person reading this, would pay the same old utility rate. But above, say, your average bill, the cost of your power might double, going from maybe 8 cents for a dishwasher load (one kilowatt hour) worth of energy to 16 cents. And at triple your bill, the rates might really skyrocket, to 25 cents a kilowatt hour. This rate structure would meet all the goals described above, and it would incentivize you to stay under that usage threshold where the price goes up; it would also encourage others to try to drop down to a lower tier. Meanwhile, this fee structure is what tax economists call “progressive,” in that the people who can probably afford to pay more (those with the bigger houses) do so, and the people who can least afford it are unaffected.

What do you do with the added revenue? There are some regulatory complexities here, but maybe you use that revenue to help everyone—big house and small house dwellers—save money and get more efficient through rebates on appliances, thermostats, solar arrays, and insulation.

The city of Aspen, Colo., which has its own utility, has already implemented tiered rates, and now the big regional electric coop, Holy Cross Energy, is working on the same thing, encouraged by a citizen’s group that included nonprofit foundations, a corporation, and government entities. As a result of this collaborative effort, Holy Cross helped draft, then pass, legislation that provides legal cover for utilities wanting to implement inclining block rates; next up, they will design and implement a new rate structure.  This is one answer to the recurring question I get from people: “If individual measures like changing light bulbs are too small to solve climate change, what can I do that actually means something?” Working in your region to implement tiered rates is a way to go after climate change at the scale necessary, and it’s something we’ve been able to do here in Western Colorado. For us, this work has been an incredibly encouraging  sign of that rare beast sometimes sighted on the margins of our lives: progress.

Auden Schendler is Executive Director of Sustainability at Aspen Skiing Company. He is the author of Getting Green Done: Hard Truths From the Front Lines of the Sustainability Revolution (PublicAffairs, 2009).

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. GlennO511's avatar

    GlennO511 Posted 11:23 am
    06 May 2009

    What a great model for other utility providers in the country.  But, it seems like these measures have not increased conservation very much.  Do you know how the extra revenue from the tiers are being used?  Also I would love some more infomation on the non-profits, companies working in the area to educate citizens about this program. 
  2. Sean Casten's avatar

    Sean Casten Posted 1:00 pm
    11 May 2009

    I think this is a good intent, wrapped in a dangerous package.  The trouble with all block pricing schedules (whether inclining or declining) is that they impose discrete economic impacts on continuous functions.  Schedules like the type you mention can actually be extremely disadvantageous for their impact on investments in conservation, to the extent that they provide a much greater incentive to conserve the first n kilowatt-hours than the next n+1 kilowatt-hour.  (Indeed, as a cogen developer, I've often had the suspicion that pricing schedules like these were developed specifically by utiliites to discourage investments in efficiency, since they so often seemed to force me into sizing systems in sizes that were too small to capture economies of scale.) As is always the case, the devil is in the details when it comes to rate design, and this one can be rather devilish if you're not careful.  The better approach, in my experience is one that stives to charge the customer for their actual costs on the system, to create time- and location-differentiated pricing, the better to recognize that some loads are a lot more expensive to serve than others, and conservation should be differentially encouraged accordingly.  (And while we're at it, let's add in all the environmental externalities.)  With cost and price more directly connected, you would get much more rational behavior.  Unfortunately, that tends to be opposed politically by those who are on the winning end of the previously existing subsidies in the rates.  (Note that since all rates are set across a whole general "rate class", you always have some customers who are paying less than their fair share.  Going to cost-causer-pays rates necessarily raises rates to those customers, and therefore triggers political concern.)While those politics can be hard, I'd argue that it is a much more sustainable long-term approach than simply shifting to a block schedule that changes the nature of the subsidiization.

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement