Out of your comfort zone

If you’re willing to let Nevada Power turn up your thermostat by remote control, the utility will pay you for your discomfort

Steve Marcus

Gary Gibson stands by the thermostat Nevada Power installed in the Jersey Mike’s Subs shop he manages on South Durango Drive. About 35,000 homes and 1,000 small businesses participate in the utility’s Cool Share program, which pays for the privilege of turning down the AC in summer.

By Phoebe Sweet (contact)

Tue, Aug 12, 2008 (2 a.m.)

LAS VEGAS SUN

Nevada Power gets OK for energy project (7-30-2008)
An electric idea (8-13-2006)

Nevada Power Cool Share

On the hottest days in the Las Vegas Valley, Nevada Power turns down the air conditioning in 36,000 homes and businesses for hours at a time — and the utility wants to control many more.

Some valley neighborhoods got electric bills in June and July that included offers for free high-tech thermostats. More than 400,000 of those mailers went out last year.

The utility will install one of the AC and heating controllers and pay customers for the privilege of turning up those thermostats on sizzling summer afternoons.

The customers also get the power to manipulate their thermostats, via the Internet. Working late and want to try to save a little money by keeping your AC off for an extra hour? Just go online.

Nevada Power has offered these Cool Share thermostats since 2007, but it has a push on now to get more people to sign on.

The program shaves 65 megawatts — affectionately dubbed “nega-watts” — off peak demand in moments. That’s more power than is produced by the $250 million-plus Nevada Solar One power plant in Boulder City.

If the company’s approximately 807,000 residential customers all participated in the program, the company could, in theory, save as much as 1,450 megawatts of electricity at peak. That’s almost as much as would be produced by a $5 billion coal plant Nevada Power’s parent company, Sierra Pacific Resources, wants to build in eastern Nevada.

Conserving megawatts with the Cool Share program is much cheaper than building power plants or buying expensive summer-peak power. Plus, it’s lighter on the environment.

The company and customers save most by reducing energy use on the hottest days. So the Southern Nevada utility pays customers for the privilege of turning up their thermostats by as much as 4 degrees on summer afternoons.

Although conservation groups praise Nevada Power for its energy-saving programs, they also say the utility should do more to offset the Ely plant with less expensive conservation measures such as Cool Share.

“Energy efficiency is the cheapest, fastest way of meeting our energy demand,” said Lydia Ball of the Sierra Club. “So for up to a 4-degree difference, we wouldn’t have to pay for a $5 billion coal plant.”

Nevada Power started these efforts in 2001, when it installed remote-controlled switches on air conditioners outside valley homes. The company used the switches to turn down the power-sucking devices during peak power use times. About 20,000 customers enrolled in the program, then called Cool Credit for the credits customers received on their bills for participating.

But in 2007, after winning the approval of the state’s Public Utilities Commission, the company started using remote-capable indoor thermostats to control the AC units instead. The Internet capability means customers should be able to cut their gas bills in the winter too.

Since the Cool Share program began late last summer, the company has installed 16,000 of the thermostats in valley homes. There is a four- to six-week wait time between sign-up and installation because of the program’s popularity.

About 35,000 homes and 1,000 small businesses participate.

Here’s how it works: On 33 of the hottest days of June, July and August, the utility ratchets up the temperature in participating homes by 4 degrees or less for three hours — typically from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. After the first four times it makes an adjustment, the utility pays participating customers $1 per air-conditioning unit for each additional time. In October, customers receive rebate checks for up to $29 per AC unit.

Participation is voluntary.

While at home, customers can use the thermostat to override the utility’s orders if it gets too hot inside, but if they do, they lose their payback for the day. When the utility raises a home’s thermostat by 4 degrees all at once, it take only one push of the button to override its orders. But sometimes the utility dials back 1 degree at a time on an hourly basis, which requires a customer to push the temperature adjustment button once an hour to override those changes.

There has been some attrition from the program — last year 240 customers bailed out. Customers with the older technology — throwbacks from Cool Credit — are more likely to leave because they can’t control the AC dial-back if they happen to be home in the afternoon or if their house gets too hot to bear, said program manager Michael Brown.

He acknowledged that the more recent technology has had its hiccups too. For example, Cool Share small-business customer Lauri Gibson, owner of Jersey Mike’s Subs on South Durango Road, saw temperatures in her store rise to above 100 degrees one day in June when the thermostat shut down her AC and wouldn’t turn it back on. She had to shut down the shop for the day, but the next morning a Nevada Power employee came to the store to replace the system.

Brown said any program in which thousands of pieces of technical equipment are installed in homes is bound to have some problems.

But since that one disastrous day in June, Gibson says, she’s loved the programmable thermostat, which is easy to override on very hot days.

“Sometimes it gets a little warmer, but you just push the button if it gets too hot,” Gibson said.

She said she will have to look back at last year’s bills to tell, but hopes to save some money this year.

Nevada Power’s adjustments can save the average residential customer $12 to $15 per air conditioner over the summer, Brown said.

Although $15 might seem like a pittance in the land of the $400 August electric bill, Brown said customers who turn up the temperatures in their homes while they’re not there — even when Nevada Power isn’t doing it for them — can save an additional 15 percent to 20 percent on their bills. Studies have shown that cooling a house again after turning up the temp 4 degrees for three hours still saves energy overall.

And there are advantages to the utility, of course.

Reducing the amount of power it must provide on the hottest days saves Nevada Power money in several ways. The company buys lots of power on the open market during the hottest days, when it is most expensive. And natural gas costs most when demand is high during summer. Cutting peak demand saves on fuel and purchased power costs, which are passed on to consumers.

Shaving megawatts from peak demand also lets the utility avoid expensive infrastructure improvements in areas where older power lines can no longer deliver enough power for growing populations.

“We’ve been trying to target single-family homes ... in areas where we have distribution systems that are approaching design limits,” Brown said. “Reducing power consumption in certain areas at peak will avoid spending millions ripping up the street to put in more lines.”

So savings to the utility and customers dwarf the cost of the thermostats and installation, Brown said.

The utility also is running a small pilot program testing Home Energy Displays — high-tech thermostats that give customers real-time feedback on how much energy they’re using, how much that energy costs and ways to reduce their bill. Although the company can’t control these thermostats remotely, they’re testing whether the feedback provided to customers on the thermostats, online and in new more detailed bills will prompt consumers to reduce their power use on their own.

As technology advances, so will the ways Nevada Power coaxes and cajoles customers into saving energy.

But for now, Christine Lu is doing her part with the technology offered today. She signed up for Cool Share not only for her Summerlin home, but for 11 rental properties she owns.

She said installation was quick, a Nevada Power employee gave her a tutorial on how to use the device, and she’s saved money on her summer bills already.

Discussion: 14 comments so far…

By PatriciaLV

8/12/08 at 7:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

"Cutting peak demand saves on fuel and purchased power costs, which are passed on to consumers."

OK, THAT'S the funniest thing I've read, maybe EVER. I have lived here for 8-1/2 years and I have NEVER seen NV Power "[pass] on [savings] to consumers". NEVER. At least once a year since I've been here NV Power has RAISED the rates. They're ALWAYS whining they need more money.

I guess the CEO's millions-plus salary plus bonus per year just isn't enough to sustain his vacation homes. (Hmmm .... I wonder at what temperature HIS thermostat is set?)

Is this article simply a puff piece for the utility? Did we really need this?
By toddsmra

8/12/08 at 8:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Someone help me out with the math here.

If 60 megawatts of solar cost $250 million why is a coal plant that will cost $5 billion be a good investment to generate 1500 megwatts.

If you had no cost savings for scaling up the solar plant that would cost $5 billion would generate 1200 megawatts. There is technology that helps store the heat and other power that could be easily folded into the costs. Night time we are not in peek demand so most new plants built are to support peek needs.

Solar is free only paying for the water to generate the steam in comparision to the daily use of coal that has to be trained in. Then the pollution aspects.

I do my part, I have the cool share thermostat. I just like to see investment be done the right way.
By That_Anonymous_Guy

8/12/08 at 8:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sounds like a great program... until you actually try participating in it.

I called three months ago, left a message. Never heard back.

So I sent an e-mail. Never heard back.

Little hint for Nevada Power: If you want people to participate in your super-awesome energy saving program, it would help if you actually got back to people who were interested in signing up.

Yet another example of outstanding customer service from a Las Vegas monopoly utility.
By jfnance32

8/12/08 at 9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

1) Numbers Game

The Solar Plant in Boulder City is near existing high power transmission lines. If one builds solar plants west of Las Vegas then the cost of those solar plants will be extremely higher because the cost of the transmission lines is very costly.

The $5 billion dollar number of the coal plant includes building a new very expensive transmission power lines from Northern Nevada to Southern Nevada. The new proposed geothermal plants will also use those same power lines, too.

The coal plants that are included in the $5 billion dollar number will generate 2,500 megawatts not, 1,450 megawatts.

So if one wants to be fair, then they should compare the cost of building solar plants west of Las Vegas including the cost of building high power transmission lines. I am sure that the cost of building those hundreds of miles of transmission lines is over a billion dollars.

2) Duplicate Backup-Power systems to Solar

The power companies will still have to have backup power generating capacity in case the sun is not shining and the solar plant is not producing power. They cannot cross their fingers and pray that the sun will shine everyday that they need power. For each megawatt that the solar plant can produce then they will have to have a coal or natural gas plant on standby waiting to generate the same megawatt. The solar plant will not reduce the need for the new coal, natural gas or nuclear plants.

There is not a cost effective way to store energy. One can do it. It will double the cost per megawatt of enegry that comes from solar plants. Even if one stored the energy there will be a limiting factor on that.

The key words are “cost effective”.

We need solar for it will help reduce fuel cost of coal, natural gas and nuclear. Also, it is good to have some diversification.

Solar and wind will not reduce the cost or need of building new coal, natural gas and nuclear plants.

Solar and wind cannot provide cost effective 24/7 on demand energy.

This is why you will not see any country in the world say that more than 30% of energy mix can come from solar and wind.

Most target 20%. After 20%, solar and wind do not make any financial sense.
By neiman1

8/12/08 at 9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Why not let someone control your thermostat, they control everything else and you wont be able to afford to cool your home anyhow. Senator Reid blocks drilling, coal use, shale oil, and nuclear power. I hope Russia and Saudia Arabia are at least paying him for his fine lobbying work in their behalf. We need American energy resources for American jobs NOW. Contact harry, tell him to let American companies produce American power.

email link
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm...

Las Vegas
Lloyd D. George Building
333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8016
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Phone: 702-388-5020 / Fax: 702-388-5030
By Gordon

8/12/08 at 10:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Please do contact Senator Reid and THANK him for stopping big oil's land grab. Big oil has millions of acres offshore that they have not explored. Why not? Because they have no incentive to bring down the price of oil.

When you allow an industry to control supply they control prices. Read the 'oil report' by Senator Wyden at http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/wyden_oil...

We need REAL leadership to investigate antitrust, price fixing, and price gouging by big oil. All illegal activities that the Republican's encourage.

Our domestic oil supply is controlled by greedy oil companies NOT drilling on the millions of acres already leased to them. The ban on 'protected' areas offshore has to be renewed every year. Why didn't the republicans remove the ban during their 6 year control of government. Because now they are trying to use it as a political tool. Republicans hate to mention that they blocked 8 energy legislation votes in the last session, then cry after the session ends "we want to vote on big oils dictated legislation"

Thank you Democrats for standing up to the party of corruption.
By jfnance32

8/12/08 at 1:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Gordon, I am confuse.

I think you are saying that
1) Oil companies will not drill on the new areas
2) Republicans are using it as a tool to damage Democrats.

I believe you personally do not want new drilling.

So it sounds like a win-win for you.

Democrats should allow for new drilling and take the issue away from Republicans.

You still win because, as I understand your logic, the oil companies will not drill.

It is a no brainer for you....allow drilling.
By Gordon

8/12/08 at 2:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Nance: Do you really believe big oil has an interest in bringing down the cost of oil, and therefore bringing down their profits? Are you that brainwashed by the republicans.

Read Senator Wyden's report ( http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/wyden_oil... ) it predicts the energy problems we have today perfectly.

To those thinking that big oil will bring new oil online to take advantage of the high prices have no understanding of supply/demand and prices.

Why did republicans block a vote on drilling that included 'use it or lose it' attached to all leases? Because the oil companies will only drill when other wells dry out, so as to keep supply even with demand.

OPEC actually kept prices low for years to prevent a mass conversion to renewable energy and conservation. Then along came texas oilman King George who allowed the oil executives to hold closed door meetings with Dick Cheney and came up with our current energy policy. Prices have shot up since then. Their greed is now backfiring as demand has fallen the fastest in 26 years and renewable energy has taken off.

Big oil now realizes if they don't grab all they can now, the door will be shut come 2009 when Democrats control government.

Read the report. Repulicans caused the problems (as usual) and now want to 'fix' the problems they created. I don't think so.
By jfnance32

8/12/08 at 4:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Now I am confused.

Before you were saying that they will not drill on new open lands.

Now you are saying that they will.

Sounds like Obama stand on offshore drilling...he against it but kind a of for it but really against it.

The Obama logic is making my head spin.
By Gordon

8/12/08 at 5:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Your confusion at laid out facts shows exactly why the Republican party is crumbling.

Simple minds are easily brainwashed and confused.

The difference between drilling with conditions and drilling with no conditions. 'No conditions' allows the oil companies to sit on their leases (the Republican choice) 'conditions (use it or lose it)' forces immediate drilling (Democrats choice).

So with your logic, the Republicans blocking a vote of 'use it or lose it' means they are against drilling. Welcome to Faux News Spin Zone.
By jfnance32

8/12/08 at 6:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Just, say:

"We Democrats are against new offshore drilling."

Be proud of your stand against offshore drilling.

Say it loud and clear.
By That_Anonymous_Guy

8/12/08 at 8:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Are you collecting royalties from ExxonMobil? Just wondering, as it seems every message thread on the Sun's website devolves into a discussion of the merits of offshore drilling these days.

Ah, well. Guess when you net $171 billion in net income in a single year (on $430 billion in revenue), you can afford to spend money on such things.

You've certainly convinced me that Exxon and their ilk, despite their long history of letting existing leases sit idle, will rush to drill like mad once we open up new sites, flooding the market with new supply and eviscerating their own profit margins.

Such patriots. Let's give those true Americans another multibillion-dollar tax break, as John McCain suggests. They truly deserve it.
By azsk8fan

8/14/08 at 7:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

One minute we're discussing Nevada Power's thermostat program and suddenly we're back on the oil drilling topic.........I'd like to hear more feedback as to the pro's/con's of the original subject - the Nevada Power thermostat program - please :)