It appears to be too little too late, but the Public Staff, the
alleged consumer advocate for electricity consumers, has woken up to
what we have been saying for a year or more.  Government-imposed
energy efficiency programs (i.e. energy efficiency taxes) are a bad
idea.  As you may recall, the legislature last year passed a
renewable energy and energy efficiency bill (SB 3).  This bill
would require utilities to develop programs that would reduce
electricity demand by 5% (by the year 2021).

Now that SB 3 is being
implemented, a bunch of groups have woken up to the bill’s problems,
and so has the Public Staff (presumably).  Duke is proposing an
energy efficiency program called Save-a-Watt.  I’m sure the Public
Staff will try and make it sound like the problem isn’t with mandated
energy efficiency programs in general, but with Save-a-Watt. 
First, when SB3 was being considered, the concept behind Save-a-Watt
was known–the Public Staff just sat there and said nothing.

While Save-a-Watt has its unique problems, many of the issues
identified by the Public Staff and others are common to mandated energy
efficiency programs in general.  Just one example:

From this recent N & O article:

“The Public Staff, the state’s consumer advocacy agency, warns that if
Save-a-Watt were approved, a customer would end up paying $18.23 for a
compact fluorescent light bulb that’s available at Wal-Mart for $1.65.”

What we said before SB 3 was passed:

“Utilities might offer energy-efficient products at higher than market
prices. For example, in Georgia, there was a proposal to offer compact
fluorescent light bulbs to customers. The utility wanted to collect
$3.50 for each bulb they gave away or subsidized. The same bulbs were
selling for only $1.75 at Wal-Mart, Home Depot and other retailers.”