Avoiding Unnecessary Energy Demand Can Cut Transition Costs, Engineer Says

Scott Janzen Proposes a Commuting Rebate and Greater Use of Flexible Grid Technologies in British Columbia

British Columbia should examine opportunities to eliminate unnecessary energy demand before committing to expensive new infrastructure, electrical engineer Scott Janzen says.

In an interview with Energi Media, Janzen connected workplace commuting policies with electricity planning, arguing that both can create avoidable costs when decision makers overlook alternatives to building more capacity.

His central question is whether the same useful economic activity can be delivered with less energy and better use of existing infrastructure.

Commuting Policies Create Costs for Others

Janzen pointed to employees required to attend offices for work that can reasonably be performed remotely. Employers decide whether attendance is mandatory, while workers absorb travel time and many associated expenses.

“The decision maker needs to have a cost to the decision that reflects the cost to society,” he said.

He suggested an employer funded rebate, potentially administered through taxes, to make some commuting costs visible. He floated a charge of about $12 per commute as an illustrative price signal.

The proposal would encourage employers to weigh the benefits of attendance against the travel it requires. Teams might meet less frequently, choose more convenient locations or continue meeting when the benefits justify the cost.

Janzen presented the idea as a way to change incentives. The interview did not establish detailed eligibility rules, an administrative framework or a verified estimate of net energy savings.

The Grid Has Its Own Rush Hour

Janzen used road congestion to explain electricity constraints. Infrastructure can have spare capacity during much of the day while becoming constrained when demand peaks.

He argued that electricity planning must consider the location and timing of demand alongside generation. A large new industrial load can be easier to accommodate where existing infrastructure has capacity.

For businesses already located in constrained areas, he identified solar, batteries and microgrids as options worth evaluating. These resources can reduce demand on a grid connection at critical times, potentially allowing more activity within existing limits.

Whether they can defer a particular upgrade depends on local engineering requirements, costs and the performance of the proposed system.

Flexible Technologies Deserve a Closer Look

The discussion also examined smart grids and virtual power plants, which coordinate resources such as customer batteries and flexible electricity demand.

Janzen described a “prosumer” as someone who both produces and consumes electricity. Rooftop solar is a familiar example, with a household drawing electricity from the grid at some times and supplying it at others.

Coordinating many such customers can help utilities manage demand and use distributed resources. The value depends on when those resources are available and what the local system needs.

Janzen also called for greater technical expertise in public decisions, arguing that governments need advice capable of identifying options beyond conventional infrastructure projects.

The practical challenge is determining which investments provide reliable service at the lowest overall cost while supporting electrification and accommodating new businesses in the right places.

His argument is to compare alternatives before committing capital. New generation and transmission remain necessary where demand and reliability requirements justify them. Avoiding unnecessary consumption and managing demand offer additional ways to deliver energy services while controlling the cost of the transition.