Conservation subsidies are a waste of money

Richard Rychtarik, Las Vegas

Monday, May 24, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.

Friday’s Las Vegas Sun story, “Energy office unfazed by foes,” is alarming. I find it incomprehensible that the state would even consider energy conservation tax breaks for anyone or any entity, especially a commercial business. In the late 1970s, Congress enacted President Jimmy Carter’s national energy plan, which included a broad-based energy conservation initiative focusing on serious reductions in commercial and residential energy usage.

During that time I ran a team that provided building energy conservation analysis services. There was a very fundamental difference between what we did then and what is now occurring. Our work focused solely on identifying cost-benefits without significant government subsidies. Commercial and residential customers paid for the analysis and received detailed reports clearly identifying costs and payback time. If it wasn’t cost effective, usually a five-year retrofit payback or longer for new construction, then it wasn’t done.

Today it seems the focus is purely on subsidizing the installation and construction of new energy-saving technology without any regard by government for the financial ramifications. If someone wants to build a hotel here, government seems too willing to shower “energy conservation” money on them even though the long-term conservation and money-saving aspects would have been addressed by the owner anyway. Throwing taxpayer money at someone for doing what they would have done anyway is just a bribe.