The IT column had several flawed arguments. It states, "More energy-efficient machines reduce the effective cost of energy, so people tend to use them more carelessly." A few studies suggest that happens with some customers with certain products if there's no educational effort to encourage using less energy. It's a legitimate concern to keep in mind, but there's no solid evidence that it negates the benefits of having more efficient machines.
In this case, we're not talking about a car that someone revs up and drives more often. No one is plugging in their new fridge more often because it's using less energy. People leave their refrigerator plugged in 24 hours a day anyway. A few people might make their new fridge a little colder if they're willing to sacrifice cost savings, but it seems unlikely that it would be widespread. Realistically, his argument has no relevance to this program.
More importantly, the program is eliminating wasteful garage and basement units that won't be replaced. The writer is incorrect when he claims that a fridge must be replaced with a new unit in order to get the rebate; a fact that undermines most of his arguments.
I agree when he argues for smart metering and more programs that target renters and low-income households. The Sierra Club clean energy agreement with CWLP mandates efficiency efforts targeted toward low-income customers and seniors. New programs will be partially funded by wholesale power sales from the new coal plant. Expanded efficiency efforts can be funded without a rate increase.
I don't believe that denigrating the positive impacts of existing programs is the best way to build support for the next steps forward. Perpetual cynicism sometimes makes those of us who call for progress our own worst enemies. Participating in the next CWLP smart energy public forum would be a better use of personal energy.