Conservation as production, or renewables as conservation?

In my opinion we should NOT develop a program that compartmentalizes and separates conservation and efficiency upgrades from renewable generation systems. To me these are part of the same range of options available to homeowners and should be seen as complementary and related investments that should be considered together. i.e.: renewables should only be considered after all the good efficiency upgrades have been completed or at least carefully considered.

In this light I see that there are two ways to frame the discussion, conservation and efficiency as increased production of 'negaWatts' or renewable generation as a form of conservation. Its semantics, really, but framing the issue is half the battle it seems so its worth discussing now.

In the first case we would look at reduced consumption from efficiency upgrades as new sources of 'production', and reward those 'producers' for their actual (metered) or estimated savings based on kWh NOT consumed. This approach might work well for a 'green power producers co-op' structure that would allow aggregating many members' "production" and developing an incentive to reward based on performance. I like this way of framing the issue because people like to be 'producers', thats one of the exciting things for folks installing grid-tied PV systems. This might be more confusing for some folks to understand however, because its not really intuitive to think of kWh's saved as 'production' of something tangible. Still, in my mind efficiency upgrades that reduce consumption are a form of 'local green power'.

The other way to look at it would be to see renewables as investments in 'conservation appliances' - something that you buy and install to reduce the amount of electricity you consume from the grid. This approach might fit in better to the established paradigms of OPALCO and BPA.

Any thoughts or opinions from the group?