In yesterday’s column, “Power Politics,” I endeavored to present Dominion’s side of the electric re-regulation controversy fairly and even-handedly. Now it’s time to editorialize.

To refresh those who haven’t been keeping track: Responding to fears of rate spikes when rate caps expire at the end of 2010, Dominion proactively approached the General Assembly with a proposal to submit to “hybrid” regulation, what I call Regulation Lite. To help finance a massive new power-plant construction program, Dominion wants the State Corporation Commission to agree to an arrangement that would guarantee Return on Equity of of roughly 12 percent a year (pegged to the performance of peer utilities in the Southeast).

My main concern about the current debate over re-regulation is that most lawmakers and stakeholders are focusing on short-term challenges — warding off rate hikes — rather than thinking about long-term energy strategy. Not that I blame them — no one wants to see a repeat in Virginia of what happened in Maryland, where rates shot up 30 to 70 percent, depending upon the utility.

Regardless, there’s the larger point to consider: What happens to rates after 2010? Are the interests of Virginia citizens best served by Dominion’s plans to embark upon a massive infrastructure upgrade of new power plants and transmission lines? Or could an alternate set of policies — conservation, distributed generation and renewable energy sources — accomplish the same task?

Dominion gives lip service to conservation as a tool for taming Virginia’s growing thirst for electricity, but the company’s heart really isn’t in it. As Dominion executive David Shuford candidly explained, Dominion makes money by selling electricity, not by selling conservation. Not that it really matters, he added, because conservation isn’t likely to curtail electricity demand very much in any case.

In response, I would point to a study just published by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, which explores the impact of energy efficiency and renewable fuels on the demand for electricity in fast-growth Florida. States a press release summarizing the report: “The efficiency policies would moderate 2023 electricity demand by 19%, while the renewable policies would reduce conventionally generated electricity by an additional 26%, for a total reduction of 45%.”

The study’s executive summary lists 11 recommended policies, including a Renewable Portfolio Standard, utility savings targets, more stringent building codes, rate incentives and other initiatives. State the authors:

The economic savings from the policies recommended in this report can cut Florida consumers’ electricity bills by over $7 billion in 2013 and $84 billion in 2023. While these savings will require substantial investments, they cost less than the projected cost of electricity from conventional sources.

Reducing demand for electricity with efficiency and renewables will also reduce emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels at utility power plants, offering the state a more sustainable environmental future at an affordable cost.

I’ve learned to take such studies with a grain of salt. Invariably, they tend to use optimistic assumptions that bolster their case. Furthermore, there are important differences between Florida and Virginia. For instance, Florida’s utilities are far more dependent upon natural gas, which is far more expensive than coal and nuclear, than are Virginia’s. But even if the impact of these ideas upon Virginia were only half as great as in Florida, they need to be part of the public debate here.