Companies operate to maximize profit, not to sell the greatest quantity.
Power companies push conservation because the first X% of the kWh they sell are the most profitable, because they source them from the cheapest power sources…hydro, coal, or nuke. The top end comes from more expensive sources, (gas fired turbines usually) so the profit is lower. Conservation allows them to keep selling the highest profit kWh, while delaying the need to invest in more peak capacity. Amortizing the investment in generating plants is a huge part of a utilities operating expense, so kicking the can down the road can make this quarter’s numbers look better, even if more capacity would result in more profit in the long run.
Your statements ring partially true and the implied economic benefit is a big carrot for the utilities to reach for. The stumbling block is that those conservation programs take kwh away from ALL sources, not just the expensive ones. If they could magically shift the load from peak periods to valleys or even cut out peaks altogether the powcos would find religion. But most conservation programs, especially those that target residential customers, cost more than they save in capital and fuel.
Believe me, I spent over 20 years searching for Demand Side Management (conservation) programs that my utility could implement with economic sense. Too many of the programs cost 10, 20, 40 percent more than the savings the customer would get.
We saw better results for us and the customer by taking that investment money towards renewable resources. It scratched that regulatory itch to “lean towards green” while giving the powco and the customer something they could economically manage.
Old refrigerators and lightbulbs are publicity programs that the regulators find sexy and the utilities use to gain a little bit of ratepayers good will.
All of the above and any major DIY electrical work may void you home insurance (check the fine print). DIY structural work could also get you a fine from the city’s bylaw people.