If we want to reduce electricity consumption, we must gain something from it

Often times, we are asked to economize and save on our electricity consumption. If you want to attract people to reduce consumption, you must also profit from it.

I recently received an invoice from Eskilstuna Energy and Environment for August for the summer house, it was 4 kWh at a cost of 80 eur, but the total is 345 kr! It seems inefficient to save consumption using this policy.

Take a walk around the river at six in the morning and find that the MDU, at least on weekdays, is mostly lit and was probably lit all night, and parts of the Kfast property, the city museum, the Retuna and a number of other buildings, both municipal and private, are also illuminated all night Unnecessarily. Day after day.

Shouldn't the municipality and private property owners help provide electricity?

I read previously that in some municipal tests of street lighting reduction, it was found that the consumption was so small that it made no difference. Taxes, network transmission and subscription represent the bulk of the bill and the municipality that owns the EEM should know this.

Thus, a large amount of lighting is only found to be turned on unnecessarily while walking around the river (walking every morning, so not a one-off), so you wonder how much lighting is turned on unnecessarily in Sweden. Use the motion detector and it will turn on when needed instead. Clarification required.