[Aloha]

I call BS on this:

"But in most cities around the country, the local electric distribution company provides overhead street lighting as a basic service at a flat monthly rate per light, which includes the light itself, maintenance, and electricity. Therein lies the rub—regulated utilities often have little incentive to invest in more efficient streetlights, which offer a reliable, consistent, and often lucrative revenue stream that comes at a time of day (or night) when demand is low."

If their getting a fixed rate, LED's would be quite profitable for them due to lower servicing costs, and lower power consumption - meaning for that fixed rate, they take in more income.

Beyond that, in many cities - running and maintaining the streetlights is included in the franchise rights to sell power in a given city - meaning to sell power, the power company had to install and pays for the lights.

[girvo]

They cover that in a later paragraph: changing that means they go back to the community and renegotiate that flat rate, eating up any cost savings that the utility would turn into profit.

[dingaling]

It's also a statement only applicable to the USA.

In the UK the Roads Service ( NI ) or Highways Agency are responsible for the emplacement and maintenance of lighting. So they'd be quite grateful for any power saving, as the electricity distributors charge them for actual usage.

Another solution would be to eliminate most street lighting, but that's a rather touchy subject.

[Angostura]

I think that's only on trunk roads isn;t it? The local authority has the responsibility in towns.