<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for On how electric utilities should become carbon neutral]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by GreenEngineer http://www.grist.org/article/update-on-pges-climatesmart-offset-program/ Fri, 07 Sep 2007 06:40:05 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/update-on-pges-climatesmart-offset-program/1 RECs vs. offsets

if renewable power is unavailable in your area -- renewable energy credits or green tags, and (c) buying offsets for your remaining emissions.

I often hear RECs and offsets lumped together in the same category, both by supporters and (more often) by detractors.

There is a difference between them, in how they are generated.  I personally think that this difference translates into a difference in their economic and climate impacts.  Apparently you do as well.

Care to expand on that theme?  In particular, I can see that RECs and much better than tree-based offsets, because RECs go straight to renewable energy (which is relatively easy to quantify and clearly reduces carbon), while tree offsets suck.  However, the difference between RECs and offsets based on renewable energy projects is less clear, and would be the basis for an interesting article, or at least a post.

]]> RECs vs. offsets

if renewable power is unavailable in your area -- renewable energy credits or green tags, and (c) buying offsets for your remaining emissions.

I often hear RECs and offsets lumped together in the same category, both by supporters and (more often) by detractors.

There is a difference between them, in how they are generated.  I personally think that this difference translates into a difference in their economic and climate impacts.  Apparently you do as well.

Care to expand on that theme?  In particular, I can see that RECs and much better than tree-based offsets, because RECs go straight to renewable energy (which is relatively easy to quantify and clearly reduces carbon), while tree offsets suck.  However, the difference between RECs and offsets based on renewable energy projects is less clear, and would be the basis for an interesting article, or at least a post.

]]> Comment #2 by Aklemm http://www.grist.org/article/update-on-pges-climatesmart-offset-program/ Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:24:31 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/update-on-pges-climatesmart-offset-program/2 RECs vs Offsets

I agree with Green Engineer.

RECs are a more mature market.  Green-E certified RECs are even better.  California now has WREGIS that tracks REC production and retirement as part of a regulatory scheme.

California's Climate Registry recognizes RECs to offset grid power emissions under the general reporting protocol.

Offsets on the other hand, are the wild west with no standards either 3rd party voluntary or regulatory standards.  CRS/Green-e is working on a voluntary offset standard.  So offsets will likely make sense one day as the market matures but for now it is caveat emptor.

]]> RECs vs Offsets

I agree with Green Engineer.

RECs are a more mature market.  Green-E certified RECs are even better.  California now has WREGIS that tracks REC production and retirement as part of a regulatory scheme.

California's Climate Registry recognizes RECs to offset grid power emissions under the general reporting protocol.

Offsets on the other hand, are the wild west with no standards either 3rd party voluntary or regulatory standards.  CRS/Green-e is working on a voluntary offset standard.  So offsets will likely make sense one day as the market matures but for now it is caveat emptor.

]]> Comment #3 by Adam Stein http://www.grist.org/article/update-on-pges-climatesmart-offset-program/ Sat, 08 Sep 2007 16:09:14 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/update-on-pges-climatesmart-offset-program/3 More complicated then you might think

It's 2AM on Saturday, so I'm not going to say much about this right now, but there's actually a fair bit of contention over the appropriate way to make carbon claims from RECs. Commenters are right that this is an interesting topic worthy of a blog post. However, It's not as simple as saying that RECs are a more mature market and therefore a safer bet.

And for the record, one third of TerraPass' carbon portfolio consists of Green-e certified RECs.

www.terrapass.com/blog

]]> More complicated then you might think

It's 2AM on Saturday, so I'm not going to say much about this right now, but there's actually a fair bit of contention over the appropriate way to make carbon claims from RECs. Commenters are right that this is an interesting topic worthy of a blog post. However, It's not as simple as saying that RECs are a more mature market and therefore a safer bet.

And for the record, one third of TerraPass' carbon portfolio consists of Green-e certified RECs.

www.terrapass.com/blog

]]> Comment #4 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/update-on-pges-climatesmart-offset-program/ Sun, 09 Sep 2007 05:37:16 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/update-on-pges-climatesmart-offset-program/4 Consider saying this in another way

"... trees are still lousy offsets..."

The statement is too simplified and is therefore  very misleading and counterproductive because there are some schemes that involve trees to offset carbon that hold tremendous potential.

"Some" offsets involving trees are lousy, just as some offsets involving any number of ideas are.

It would be better to say something a little more informative like "Some offset schemes that involve trees are not valid..."

I do agree that power companies should stick with offsets involving power, not trees.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Consider saying this in another way

"... trees are still lousy offsets..."

The statement is too simplified and is therefore  very misleading and counterproductive because there are some schemes that involve trees to offset carbon that hold tremendous potential.

"Some" offsets involving trees are lousy, just as some offsets involving any number of ideas are.

It would be better to say something a little more informative like "Some offset schemes that involve trees are not valid..."

I do agree that power companies should stick with offsets involving power, not trees.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Comment #5 by Aklemm http://www.grist.org/article/update-on-pges-climatesmart-offset-program/ Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:56:06 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/update-on-pges-climatesmart-offset-program/5 RECs

Adam:

RECs are perfectly appropriate and accepted in regulatory frameworks for offsetting only electricity use.

RECs being used to offset other impacts is inappropriate and not acceptable under California's GHG law.

Selling disembodied RECs to offset mobile combustion is laughable, unless they are driving a plug in hybrid.

]]> RECs

Adam:

RECs are perfectly appropriate and accepted in regulatory frameworks for offsetting only electricity use.

RECs being used to offset other impacts is inappropriate and not acceptable under California's GHG law.

Selling disembodied RECs to offset mobile combustion is laughable, unless they are driving a plug in hybrid.

]]>