Does buying Renewable Energy Certificates help the environment?

Great Debates
1

I almost posted this in General Questions, but I’m not sure there is a 100% factual answer, so I’ll start it here. Mods, feel free to move if you feel it is appropriate.

I received a mailing from my local electric utility about their new “Green Choice” program. Here’s what they say about it:

[QUOTE=my electric utility]
Those who choose to make the Green Choice pas as little as $6 each month to sustain and support the production on 100-kilowatt-hours from renewable energy sources in New England. Each block of 100-kilowatt-hours costs $6, and you may buy as many block as you wish.

<snip>

The Green Choice is an additional charge on your monthly bill.

<snip>

You will be guaranteed that renewable energy is added to New England’s power grid…However, it is physically impossible to differentiate and transport energy energy to specific businesses and homes. The Green Choice rate will be used to purchase Renewable Energy Certificates, aka RECs. One REC represents 1 MWHr of energy produced from renewable resources.
[/QUOTE]

So, my question is: does this kind of thing actually work? More specifically, would I really be adding renewable energy to the grid? Is there any way they can prove it? If a lot of people chose to do this, would it be an incentive to create more renewable energy sources?

Or is it all just a feel-good way to make my wallet lighter?

2

My mom works at a coal fired power plant, and they have contracts that stipulate they will provide x amounts of power to local utilities and co-ops. It is a Big Deal when there’s an outage, because they have to literally buy the electricity from other plants to be able to fulfill their contracts during the outage. They even own a few smaller, oil fired plants that they bring online during periods of increased demand (think months, not hours). In other words, the generated electricity is bought and sold at levels other than between you and the co-op and between the co-op and the power plant.

The way I understand it, a lot of renewable energy costs more than traditional forms of generation. So, when you buy 100-kilowatt hours (which is actually an outstanding rate, did the snipped part describe that you’d be paying that on top of the existing rate?), you’re earmarking the transaction between the co-op and their generating/transmission partner to provide at least that amount from green energy sources.

ETA: To actually answer the questions.

Does this kind of thing actually work? Sure. It guarantees the renewable guys are getting their money every month, instead of when they’re just being used as overflow.

More specifically, would I really be adding renewable energy to the grid? Not really. You’re earmarking electricity that’s already being produced.

Is there any way they can prove it? The co-ops’ records should be open to the public. There should be a transaction between them and the green guys, or between the G&T and the green guys.

If a lot of people chose to do this, would it be an incentive to create more renewable energy sources? Not at the price you quoted. But, in general, yes. It would become a guaranteed income source.

Or is it all just a feel-good way to make my wallet lighter? AIUI, it accomplishes all three goals.

3

[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]

The way I understand it, a lot of renewable energy costs more than traditional forms of generation. So, when you buy 100-kilowatt hours (which is actually an outstanding rate, did the snipped part describe that you’d be paying that on top of the existing rate?), you’re earmarking the transaction between the co-op and their generating/transmission partner to provide at least that amount from green energy sources.
[/QUOTE]

The $6 is on top of the normal rate, not the rate itself, sadly. :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]

More specifically, would I really be adding renewable energy to the grid? Not really. You’re earmarking electricity that’s already being produced.
[/QUOTE]

OK, let me ask this another way, then. If I do this, would it reduce the amount of non-renewable energy being used, assuming otherwise static energy usage?

[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
If a lot of people chose to do this, would it be an incentive to create more renewable energy sources? Not at the price you quoted. But, in general, yes. It would become a guaranteed income source.
[/QUOTE]
Is your answer the same now that you know the $6 is an add-on charge?

4

[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
OK, let me ask this another way, then. If I do this, would it reduce the amount of non-renewable energy being used, assuming otherwise static energy usage?
[/quote]
I think it really depends on how the program is set up. I have a good friend who owns some range land. They are in the planning stage of putting a wind farm on their property. I don’t know the specifics, but at some point they will hook it up to the regular power grid. Since their net power usage will actually be positive, they will get reimbursed at (I believe) the same rate the rest of us are paying.

They have two options if they decide to proceed. The first is for them to hire a company that builds the wind turbines on their land. They will own, and be responsible for the maintenance on, these turbines. They will also get 100% of the proceeds from the electric co-op. The second option is for the company to lease the land for the turbines (which is simultaneously being leased to cattle farmers, in either case) and they will build, maintain, and own the turbines and the infrastructure (hooking them up to the grid isn’t as simple as plugging them into the wall).

So, it depends on two main things. I’m not sure how the contract between the co-op and the G&T (generation and transmission) company works in your area, but the way I understand it here, the G&T keeps a close watch on the demand at any given time, and throttle their plant to meet the expected demand, since none of the electricity can really be stored. The plant manager at the one my mom works at has a huge LED showing, IIRC MW/sec being produced. So, if the amount of electricity produced by the green guys is subtracted from the demand before that number is shown to plant operators, then, yes, it will reduce the amount of nonrenewable energy being produced.

However, if there are already green systems in place that are producing to their maximum, and Green Choice is set up is to simply give that money to current investors who promise to use it to develop more wind ranches and other forms of green energy, then the answer is yes, but not until that money is invested.

Since presumably the green guys are now going to be getting almost twice the going rate for the electricity they are already or will soon be producing, this is a great incentive for them to build and maintain the infrastructure at my buddy’s ranch, for example.
[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
The $6 is on top of the normal rate, not the rate itself, sadly. :slight_smile:
[/quote]
I guess that’s what “The Green Choice is an additional charge on your monthly bill,” means. :smack:

5

[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
I guess that’s what “The Green Choice is an additional charge on your monthly bill,” means. :smack:
[/QUOTE]

I appreciate your answers regardless :slight_smile:

6

From what I’ve heard, it’s a way for utilities to get out of non-traditional generation methods- they see the potential for mandated green generation, so they offer a surcharge program, and then when only 3% (or whatever) of their customers sign up, they can say “Look- no one wants to pay more for clean electricty! You shouldn’t force it on us!”