<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Arizona&#8217;s Energy-Efficiency Ruling to Save Utility Customers $9B over Next Decade</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/07/29/arizonas-energy-efficiency-ruling-to-save-utility-customers-9b-over-next-decade/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/07/29/arizonas-energy-efficiency-ruling-to-save-utility-customers-9b-over-next-decade/</link>
	<description>Environmental Leader</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 22:05:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug</title>
		<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/07/29/arizonas-energy-efficiency-ruling-to-save-utility-customers-9b-over-next-decade/comment-page-1/#comment-280153</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:27:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=39908#comment-280153</guid>
		<description>Studies by the DOE indicate that CFLs save &lt;i&gt;far&lt;/i&gt; more energy during their lives than is spent to produce them.  And since they do last so much longer, they more than pay for themselves in terms of $ savings on energy.

In addition, the ACC target is achievable.  In addressing climate change, we need to set agressive goals early on.  If we avoid doing so, we only create worse problems for ourselves down the road - with even worse economic and environmental consequences.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Studies by the DOE indicate that CFLs save <i>far</i> more energy during their lives than is spent to produce them.  And since they do last so much longer, they more than pay for themselves in terms of $ savings on energy.</p>
<p>In addition, the ACC target is achievable.  In addressing climate change, we need to set agressive goals early on.  If we avoid doing so, we only create worse problems for ourselves down the road &#8211; with even worse economic and environmental consequences.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MyAIC</title>
		<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/07/29/arizonas-energy-efficiency-ruling-to-save-utility-customers-9b-over-next-decade/comment-page-1/#comment-280065</link>
		<dc:creator>MyAIC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:59:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=39908#comment-280065</guid>
		<description>Making more efficient use of electricity is a good thing.  But, have the savings from energy efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs been oversold? 
Electric utilities in states like California and Arizona have been directed to implement programs to reduce consumer demand for electricity.  In Arizona, the Arizona Corporation Commission implemented rules that require investor owned electric companies to reduce electricity sales by 22 percent over the next 10 years.  To achieve this aggressive energy efficiency target, the utility companies are implementing programs, like subsidizing the cost of CFLs, which are more energy efficient than incandescent bulbs.  
But, evaluations done by regulators in California indicate that energy-saving CFLs, burn out faster than expected thereby reducing the expected cost effectiveness of the program.
The ACC should keep the California results in mind as it moves forward with implementation of its energy efficiency rules.  Is the aggressive EE target set by the ACC realistic or achievable and when should it be tweaked?  http://arizonaic.org/blog/331-lights-out</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Making more efficient use of electricity is a good thing.  But, have the savings from energy efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs been oversold?<br />
Electric utilities in states like California and Arizona have been directed to implement programs to reduce consumer demand for electricity.  In Arizona, the Arizona Corporation Commission implemented rules that require investor owned electric companies to reduce electricity sales by 22 percent over the next 10 years.  To achieve this aggressive energy efficiency target, the utility companies are implementing programs, like subsidizing the cost of CFLs, which are more energy efficient than incandescent bulbs.<br />
But, evaluations done by regulators in California indicate that energy-saving CFLs, burn out faster than expected thereby reducing the expected cost effectiveness of the program.<br />
The ACC should keep the California results in mind as it moves forward with implementation of its energy efficiency rules.  Is the aggressive EE target set by the ACC realistic or achievable and when should it be tweaked?  <a href="http://arizonaic.org/blog/331-lights-out" rel="nofollow">http://arizonaic.org/blog/331-lights-out</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

