<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Smart Power tips on how to market clean energy]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by rodneylbrownjr http://www.grist.org/article/salzburg-day-two1/ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 06:16:39 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/salzburg-day-two1/1 An Opt-Out System For Green Power

Has anyone investigated whether an "opt out" system for green power would work as well as it does for 401(k) retirement plans. There is a growing movement for employers to enroll all employees in a 401(k) plan, giving them the option to withdraw if they want. Far more employees end up saving for retirement than in the traditional "opt in" system, and most employees are happy with it. The theory is that people sometimes need a "nudge" to do the things they know are right. Conservatives and liberals are embracing this scheme. Here's a popular article about it:

http://www.slate.com/id/2191156/

I'm not a fan of every example described in the article, but there's strong evidence that the opt-out system for 401(k) plans works very well. Could a utility use it to encourage customers to buy green power, while respecting their autonomy to opt out if they want? Has anyone tried this? I've read about a proposal to do it in Australia, but haven't heard if anyone has actually done it.

]]> An Opt-Out System For Green Power

Has anyone investigated whether an "opt out" system for green power would work as well as it does for 401(k) retirement plans. There is a growing movement for employers to enroll all employees in a 401(k) plan, giving them the option to withdraw if they want. Far more employees end up saving for retirement than in the traditional "opt in" system, and most employees are happy with it. The theory is that people sometimes need a "nudge" to do the things they know are right. Conservatives and liberals are embracing this scheme. Here's a popular article about it:

http://www.slate.com/id/2191156/

I'm not a fan of every example described in the article, but there's strong evidence that the opt-out system for 401(k) plans works very well. Could a utility use it to encourage customers to buy green power, while respecting their autonomy to opt out if they want? Has anyone tried this? I've read about a proposal to do it in Australia, but haven't heard if anyone has actually done it.

]]> Comment #2 by stopgreenpath http://www.grist.org/article/salzburg-day-two1/ Sun, 13 Jul 2008 05:48:22 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/salzburg-day-two1/2 then we need to own our own

I'm not talking about some Mother Earth separatist "make a solar panel from two pieces of bark and a recycled auto battery" here.  I'm talking about the inherent appeal of ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, which is vastly different than being asked to open another vein to build out Big Energy infrastructure which will inevitably lead to price manipulations and ratepayer ripoffs.

Having been burned by Enron, Big Oil, Sempra and basically every other Big Energy mercenary, I don't want another dime of my money, another acre of my public wilderness or another private home DONATED to the same monopolists in an era when there is NO need for massive remote combustion and lengthy transmission.

Big Solar would have us believe that only the Mojave can provide any power from the sun, but Japan and Germany have CONCLUSIVELY proven that is just another lie to justify using our money to re-entrench monopolies instead of shifting policy towards ubiquitous point of use renewables.

ALL the money and perqs are flowing towards Big Energy instead of towards us.  ALL the Big Enviros are partnered with Big Energy (see CEERT) gabbling about massive solar "farms" and wind "farms" as the solution (conveniently ignoring the stupendous toll these wasteful projects take on the exact planet we are supposed to be preserving).  They have agreed to sell out ratepayers completely, and the environment almost completely, for some un-defined, delusional hope that killing huge intact ecosystems will prevent global warming.  

What is needed is concerted action to make local, point of use renewable power systems affordable, flexible and rewarding for everyone.  I work with heavy right-wingers, working classers, limousine liberals, city and rural dwellers and every single one of them agrees that they want to OWN THEIR OWN SYSTEM and reduce the utilities to a normal, modest part of the energy free markets, instead of Fickle, Selfish Dictators who get to socialize all their costs and privatize all their profits.  What's not to love about getting paid for doing the right thing?  why is that privilege limited to massive corporations?  Is this still a nation of individuals, or are we subjects to the Corporate Aristocracy?

The main problem is that the question is being framed, a la Karl Rove, as "Big Fossil" vs. "Big Renewables" when Big Renewables and Big Fossil are one and the same - see T. Boone Pickens - and the real question here is "Big Energy Monopolists" or "Ratepayer Owners Saving the Planet While Making Money."  Start framing the issue accurately and you will get accurate answers.  Start creating policy which educates people about the options they are not being offered, and you get public outcry that their legislature is merely a puppet of Big Energy, whether it's Big Solar, Big Nukes or any other face of the same monster.

the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

]]> then we need to own our own

I'm not talking about some Mother Earth separatist "make a solar panel from two pieces of bark and a recycled auto battery" here.  I'm talking about the inherent appeal of ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, which is vastly different than being asked to open another vein to build out Big Energy infrastructure which will inevitably lead to price manipulations and ratepayer ripoffs.

Having been burned by Enron, Big Oil, Sempra and basically every other Big Energy mercenary, I don't want another dime of my money, another acre of my public wilderness or another private home DONATED to the same monopolists in an era when there is NO need for massive remote combustion and lengthy transmission.

Big Solar would have us believe that only the Mojave can provide any power from the sun, but Japan and Germany have CONCLUSIVELY proven that is just another lie to justify using our money to re-entrench monopolies instead of shifting policy towards ubiquitous point of use renewables.

ALL the money and perqs are flowing towards Big Energy instead of towards us.  ALL the Big Enviros are partnered with Big Energy (see CEERT) gabbling about massive solar "farms" and wind "farms" as the solution (conveniently ignoring the stupendous toll these wasteful projects take on the exact planet we are supposed to be preserving).  They have agreed to sell out ratepayers completely, and the environment almost completely, for some un-defined, delusional hope that killing huge intact ecosystems will prevent global warming.  

What is needed is concerted action to make local, point of use renewable power systems affordable, flexible and rewarding for everyone.  I work with heavy right-wingers, working classers, limousine liberals, city and rural dwellers and every single one of them agrees that they want to OWN THEIR OWN SYSTEM and reduce the utilities to a normal, modest part of the energy free markets, instead of Fickle, Selfish Dictators who get to socialize all their costs and privatize all their profits.  What's not to love about getting paid for doing the right thing?  why is that privilege limited to massive corporations?  Is this still a nation of individuals, or are we subjects to the Corporate Aristocracy?

The main problem is that the question is being framed, a la Karl Rove, as "Big Fossil" vs. "Big Renewables" when Big Renewables and Big Fossil are one and the same - see T. Boone Pickens - and the real question here is "Big Energy Monopolists" or "Ratepayer Owners Saving the Planet While Making Money."  Start framing the issue accurately and you will get accurate answers.  Start creating policy which educates people about the options they are not being offered, and you get public outcry that their legislature is merely a puppet of Big Energy, whether it's Big Solar, Big Nukes or any other face of the same monster.

the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

]]> Comment #3 by JMG http://www.grist.org/article/salzburg-day-two1/ Sun, 13 Jul 2008 06:01:23 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/salzburg-day-two1/3 No change then

Back in the late 90s, the Union of Concerned Scientists tried to address this same complex of issues with its "Renewables are Ready" campaign (and book, and ...).

No soap, apparently.  They persuaded the persuadable and everyone else went about their business of consuming ever-increasing amounts of fossil fuels, unchecked by responsible building codes, land-use planning, or any other of the demonized "command and control" methods.  

So the regulated utilities merrily went about pushing heated towel bars and ginormous spa tubs for the $30,000 master bathrooms that were the size of small villages, gigantic upright refrigerators that turned all the efficiency gains into doo-dads (TVs in the door!  Through the door ice-makers!  Self-defrosting!)  and the plasma screen TVs, halogen bulbs and all the other accessories of the "good life."

The reason that only 3% buy what 84% claim they will buy is that the state utility commissions have not wanted to grapple with the free rider issue inherent in green power.  People who sign up to pay more for "green" power know that, in nearly all cases, their power still mostly comes from the dirty coal plant down the road, and that their money is actually going to produce green power elsewhere for entry onto the grid.  And, for their trouble and the extra expense, the utilities promise to keep raising their rates in step with everyone else's -- in other words, there's no benefit to the early adopters.  They don't get guaranteed rate stability or any other reward for investing to add green capacity --- they get precisely the same electricity as their next-door neighbor who didn't join the green power program, and their rates go up the same.

The optimal strategy is, of course, a carbon tax that captures the externalities in power production and adjusts consumer prices accordingly.  There's no reason that people who want to do the right thing should be paying more than the people who are happy to burn coal.  Absent that, then the utility commissions at least have to ensure that customers who voluntarily tax themselves to purchase green power get some kind of reward down the road -- such as kWh per kWh price guarantee (for every green kWh you buy now at a premium, you get to buy power at that rate when the green power trades at a discount, i.e., after the carbon taxes or cap-and-trade costs kick in).

THAT would change the calculus faster than any amount of exhortation.

The 5% Project

]]> No change then

Back in the late 90s, the Union of Concerned Scientists tried to address this same complex of issues with its "Renewables are Ready" campaign (and book, and ...).

No soap, apparently.  They persuaded the persuadable and everyone else went about their business of consuming ever-increasing amounts of fossil fuels, unchecked by responsible building codes, land-use planning, or any other of the demonized "command and control" methods.  

So the regulated utilities merrily went about pushing heated towel bars and ginormous spa tubs for the $30,000 master bathrooms that were the size of small villages, gigantic upright refrigerators that turned all the efficiency gains into doo-dads (TVs in the door!  Through the door ice-makers!  Self-defrosting!)  and the plasma screen TVs, halogen bulbs and all the other accessories of the "good life."

The reason that only 3% buy what 84% claim they will buy is that the state utility commissions have not wanted to grapple with the free rider issue inherent in green power.  People who sign up to pay more for "green" power know that, in nearly all cases, their power still mostly comes from the dirty coal plant down the road, and that their money is actually going to produce green power elsewhere for entry onto the grid.  And, for their trouble and the extra expense, the utilities promise to keep raising their rates in step with everyone else's -- in other words, there's no benefit to the early adopters.  They don't get guaranteed rate stability or any other reward for investing to add green capacity --- they get precisely the same electricity as their next-door neighbor who didn't join the green power program, and their rates go up the same.

The optimal strategy is, of course, a carbon tax that captures the externalities in power production and adjusts consumer prices accordingly.  There's no reason that people who want to do the right thing should be paying more than the people who are happy to burn coal.  Absent that, then the utility commissions at least have to ensure that customers who voluntarily tax themselves to purchase green power get some kind of reward down the road -- such as kWh per kWh price guarantee (for every green kWh you buy now at a premium, you get to buy power at that rate when the green power trades at a discount, i.e., after the carbon taxes or cap-and-trade costs kick in).

THAT would change the calculus faster than any amount of exhortation.

The 5% Project

]]> Comment #4 by mgemme http://www.grist.org/article/salzburg-day-two1/ Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:59:58 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/salzburg-day-two1/4 Important Marketing for an Important Cause

It is rewarding to finally see the environmental movement embrace the same consumer understanding that can make or break everyday consumer products.  The environmental movement is finally figuring out that understanding how to appeal to a mainstream market is more effective than simply hammering away at the same old tired slogans year after year after year.

]]> Important Marketing for an Important Cause

It is rewarding to finally see the environmental movement embrace the same consumer understanding that can make or break everyday consumer products.  The environmental movement is finally figuring out that understanding how to appeal to a mainstream market is more effective than simply hammering away at the same old tired slogans year after year after year.

]]> Comment #5 by TaylorHornung http://www.grist.org/article/salzburg-day-two1/ Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:03:17 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/salzburg-day-two1/5 SmartPower is innovative!

Thomas Edison, the greatest inventor in this country's history thought that his invention of motion pictures was a novel idea but wouldn't catch on!  The rest is history!

]]> SmartPower is innovative!

Thomas Edison, the greatest inventor in this country's history thought that his invention of motion pictures was a novel idea but wouldn't catch on!  The rest is history!

]]>