Just a light conflict of interest

Better light, lower cost & less profitable?

Marc Howe remarks on this sizeable and expensive power dilemma from sourceable.net;

"The ownership of public street lamps by electrical distribution utilities means that it is not in their economic interests to introduce equipment, such as LED lamps, which consume less energy and thus incur lower costs. According to IPWEA, utilities at present are failing to install the new lights as quickly as councils would like.

The IPWEA’s statement follows accusations levied against NSW public utility Ausgrid last year that split incentives had compelled the company to delay the deployment of LED technology.

The IPWEA believes the rollout of LED street lamps would bring tremendous benefits to both local governments and the environment, halving power consumption and reducing Australia’s CO2 emissions by as much as 720,000 tonnes per year while also saving councils throughout the country as much as $87 million collectively. 

The City of Sydney managed to save $300,ooo and reduce energy usage by over 27 per cent in the 16 months following the installation of 2,600 LED lights starting in March 2012, reducing carbon emissions by 1,547 tonnes."

http://sourceable.net/are-utilities-dodging-led-street-lamps/


How can we uncouple this issue?
This conflict between keeping consumption profits high and delivering efficient value to the paying public is a reoccurring theme.

If managed for the lowest running costs can the net savings be passed on with lower rates and power bills?  Don't hold your breath.
There must be a better way for what should be a public service necessary utility, not a shareholder profit milking service.
What do you think is the answer?

Clearly this is chance to enforce direct action for energy conservation with dollar savings and effective carbon emission reductions.