Comments ktbrainwater has made

  • casting stones helps none

    Auden:

    You write that some REC companies may be under no obligation to do anything "green." But they are bound by the Green-e program to purchase specific renewable energy credits. Is this not a "green" obligation? As far as I am aware, they are a private company, so why should they be obligated to do something additional with their profits (any more than Aspen Skiing Company should be obligated to do something with their profits...)?

    Isn't it enough that the business they are in - along with the other renewable energy companies - is seeking to find ways to bring more renewable energy to market? Not all that glitters is gold and not all that is environmental needs to be structured as a 501(c)(3).

    If you are saying that Green-e is fraudulent, I think we all deserve to hear the charges in more detail. As it stands, they claim that, "Green-e certifies renewable electricity products that meet the environmental and consumer protection standards." Where is the fraud?

    Can we assume from your comments that you think that Aspen - whom I take to be your employer - has discovered the winning formula for renewable energy development? Can we demand "transparency" from your own environmental claims? If so, what is the annual power demand for snowmaking operations? Is it "environmental" to use (lots of) energy to make artificial snow, even if it's "green"?

    (Wouldn't it be better to just wit for Mother Nature to do her thing, even if it does affect the bottom line - isn't that the "environmental" and "sustainable" approach?)

    Can we demand to know how the corporate profits of Aspen are put to use? No - we all seem to agree that is not a reasonable question in corporate America.

    People ride the lifts (to access public lands) because they value the experience, not because they are interested in making a "donation" to the lift operator and demanding to know how much she is paid. RECs may be less tangible than a pass to ride lifts, but they are a limited commodity and we should be supporting all of those trying to make them a less limited commodity.

    If you have more to offer as to why Green-e is a fraud, voice your concern. But you might consider first the Gospel of John - "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone."

    Ken
    On The producer of the controversial wind-credit cards speaks out posted 3 years ago 21 Responses

  • fungibility

    Money is fungible. If Xcel takes my money into their coffers and simultaneously works to thwart citizen initiatives for clean energy, how can anyone say that the green pricing program has not contributed to Xcel's activity.

    For that matter, electrons are fungible. Why say then that buying credits do not contribute clean power to the grid. They do.

    Market signals? Isn't it possible that the market signal that customers are so encouraged to see renewables succeed that they are seeking ways OUTSIDE the utility system perhaps a stronger signal than the "utilities' long range planning."

    Isn't that why we've been forced to put ballot iniatives together demanding renewables, because the "long range planning" process has failed us? Market signal? I would call it a "market failure."

    The questions remains, where is the market signal the most effective? RECs are certainly not the final solution, but they are a step in teh right direction. I'm not sure the same can be said for most utility programs and so take some issue with rudall's claims above.
    On The producer of the controversial wind-credit cards speaks out posted 3 years ago 21 Responses

  • what to do?

    Fradulent?

    Are we better off as consumers to buy green power only from utility partners? If I'm not mistaken, Xcel used their money (that is, money from customers) to lobby AGAINST a portfolio standard in Colorado. Some market signal that sends! "Pay us a premium, we'll use to fight against wind!"

    Most utilities in the United States have spent the better part of the last few decades figuring out how to block renewable energy from entering the system. Why? Perhaps because they have a monopoly that earns a return based on what they build, not the service they provide.

    RECs may be far from a perfect solution, but if I'm interested in having my dollars make a difference, I sure would like to work with the Whole Foods of the world who at least are trying to figure out ways to offer some alternative.

    Do I gripe about what the middleman makes who buys the apples from the farm, ships them to Whole Foods and makes a profit along the way? Not usually.

    Do I demand "transparency" at the checkout stand about how much money is going to the organic farmer who grew the apple? Not usually.

    If I do, where would I look for that information? From some independent third party. Isn't that what Green-s is? I don't know enough to say whether they are a credible group, but it sure seems like a better alternative than the public utilty commission.

    Can we stop quibbling about whether one REC is better than another - whether what Vail is doing is better than Aspen - whether Whole Foods is doing enough and collectively recognize that they are doing something! And it's better than what Exxon is doing.

    Incomplete? Perhaps. Imperfect? Undoubtedly.

    Fradulent? No one is forcing you to buy a card. Fradulent is taking ratepayer money to lobby again wind energy. Fradulent is denying solar installations access to the grid. You want more coal and nuclear? Stick with your utility.

    All those with better ideas - PLEASE STEP FORWARD!

    KenOn The producer of the controversial wind-credit cards speaks out posted 3 years ago 21 Responses