Back in the 1980's, Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, would say that the easiest way to "expand" energy production by 25%, was to deploy existing h

Back in the 1980's, Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, would say that the easiest way to "expand" energy production by 25%, was to deploy existing high-efficiency technology. I saw him present with the head of a power company in Iowa. As they said, one might think this was bad news for the power company and that they would fight it -- more power equals more revenue. However, some of that power is very expensive power with low margins -- quick but costly production to meet demand peaks. With deployment of high efficiency devices, those peaks declined. Other means of shifting consumption, such as "cooling rooms" that run at night, building ice or other thermal sinks to drive cooling during the daytime, also helped. The utility had lower absolute demand, but flatter demand for which they could better plan and produce, at lower production cost. So, the efficiency push ended up being a plus for the utility. They were busy distributing then-new compact fluorescent bulbs and the like, as part of public outreach. We don't face the exact same scenario, now. But, institutions can either get with the program, or get left behind. (Or, they can try to "capture" and monopolize the system. Such as the Koch brothers with their "clean coal" and all; not wanting to lose their sunk costs and anticipated earnings.) One thing I don't support, is the existing entities that have dragged their feet also using their assets and momentum to take over the... "next generation" energy system. I'd rather limit the perpetuation of their mindset and behavior. Some conservatism, especially in large, essentially public and critical endeavors, is good. Distorting same to meet personal goals, is not.