² Jim Rodier of Freedom Energy, to a meeting of the Association of Energy Service Professionals, Framingham, MA, 11 June 1996.
Back to Article

³ The electricity prices cited are for supply only. Consumers still pay their franchised utility for transmission, distribution, strandable costs and other charges. A consumer served by a high-cost utility (one with significant strandable costs) and paying just $.02 per kWh for supply may nevertheless be paying a total price of $.13 per kWh for delivered electricity.
Back to Article

⁴ "No Longer Just a Dream, Green Pricing Heads to the Market," Energy Daily, 18 Sept. 1996.
Back to Article

⁵ See D. Moskovitz, "Green Pricing: Why Not Customer Choice?" The Electricity Journal 6 (1993):42-50. For a description of most of the regulated programs, see Edward A. Holt, "Green Pricing Experience and Lessons Learned," in Proceedings of the 1996 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 9 (Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 1996), 133-140.
Back to Article

⁶ I am speaking largely of supply planning. Regulated transmission or distribution companies may still be required to assess alternative investments for regulatory scrutiny, although even these entities may be regulated by lighter-handed, performance-based regulation.
Back to Article

⁷ The intense marketing activity also will have the beneficial effect of raising customer awareness about energy and environmental choices, unless consumers ignore the information. Most consumers are now aware of several long distance telephone alternatives, but they still have a hard time figuring out if they are better off with AT&T, MCI or Sprint.
Back to Article

⁸ "EEI OnLine," Wall Street Journal, 28 Aug. 1996, B6.
Back to Article

⁹ The Climate Change program is a joint initiative of the U.S. Department of Energy and the electric utility industry. Nearly 600 utilities have voluntarily committed to reduce, avoid or sequester greenhouse gas emissions. Climate Wise is a similar DOE program in partnership with U.S. corporations. Corporate participants include AT&T, Coors Brewing, DuPont, and General Motors.
Back to Article

¹⁰ Maine Public Utilities Commission, Electric Utility Industry Restructuring: Report and Recommended Plan, Docket No. 95-462, 31 Dec. 1996; Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Electric Industry Restructuring Plan: Model Rules and Legislative Proposal, Docket No. 96-100, 30 Dec. 1996; and Vermont Public Service Board, (title unavailable), Docket No. 5854, 30 Dec. 1996.
Back to Article

¹¹ Barbara C. Farhar, Energy and the Environment: The Public View (College Park, MD: Renewable Energy Policy Project, Oct. 1996).
Back to Article

¹² For the full text and results of the surveys, see Maine Public Utilities Commission, "Electric Utility Industry Restructuring," Bulletin 4 (Nov. 1996). For further information, contact Phil Lindley, Maine PUC, at (207) 287-1598 or e-mail phil.lindley@state.me.us.
Back to Article

¹³ For further discussion, see the following publications of the Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP): "Information Disclosure for Effective Customer Choice," Issuesletter (Oct. 1996); Green Pricing Newsletter 4 (Oct. 1996); and "Full Consumer Disclosure of Power Supply Characteristics, draft paper (11 Nov. 1996). See also Barbara R. Alexander and the National Consumer Law Center, Consumer Protection Proposals for Retail Electric Competition: Model Legislation and Regulations (Oct. 1996). These publications are available from RAP: (207) 582-1135 or e-mail rapmaine@aol.com.
Back to Article

¹⁴ Contact Jan Hamrin at HMW International, 50 California Street, Suite 3005, San Francisco, CA 94111; (415) 397-2210.
Back to Article

¹⁵ Ralph Cavanagh, Dan Lashof and Susan Schwab, Risky Business: Hidden Environmental Liabilities of Power Plant Ownership (Washington, DC: Natural Resources Defense Council, Sept. 1996). This report may be accessed on the Internet at http://www.nrdc.org/nrdcpro/.
Back to Article

¹⁶ It would be a challenge to establish an acceptable baseline for comparison purposes. Included for completeness, this option seems problematic, although someone experienced with reporting greenhouse gases under Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, for example, may see some feasibility in it.
Back to Article

¹⁷ The Regulatory Assistance Project is working to identify potential mechanisms for verifying fuel mix. See their draft paper, "Full Consumer Disclosure of Power Supply Characteristics," op. cit., note 13.
Back to Article

¹⁸ See reports prepared for the Renewables Work Group of the California Public Utilities Commission: Independent Energy Producers Association, "Customer Choice," Renewable Portfolio Standard (1 May 1996); California Energy Commission, Development Division Staff, A Renewables Portfolio Program Based on Market-Oriented Development (1 May 1996); American Wind Energy Association, California Biomass Energy Alliance and the Geothermal Energy Association, Comprehensive Implementation Strategies (3 May 1996); and Sacramento Municipal Utility District, untitled (2 May 1996).
Back to Article

¹⁹ Alan Nogee (Union of Concerned Scientists), personal communication to the author, 1 Nov. 1996.
Back to Article

²⁰ Two to three years was chosen because a company's policies, practices and generating resources could change dramatically over a longer period of time.
Back to Article

²¹ Would an individual consumer pay to become greener if it is understood that the choice makes another consumer browner? If the environmental benefit were private, some consumers might choose this option; however, given that environmental improvement from green power is a public good, the zero-sum game would seem unattractive.
Back to Article

²² An excellent survey of eco-labeling is contained in "Using Eco-Labeling to Find ‘Green' Energy Products,"Energy Ideas 4 (Washington, DC: The Center for Study of Responsive Law's Government Purchasing Project, Winter 1996). Contact the Government Purchasing Project at P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 387-8030; energyideas@essential.org.
Back to Article

²³ Contact Green Seal, 1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20036-3101; (202) 331-7337 or on the Internet at http://www.solstice.crest.org.
Back to Article

²⁴ Contact Scientific Certification Systems, 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 400, Oakland, CA 94612; (619) 739-9525. A Web site is under construction.
Back to Article

²⁵ Contact Eco-Rating International, 115 W. California Blvd., Suite 294, Pasadena, CA 91105; (818) 792-3380.
Back to Article

²⁶ Contact Wildlife Habitat Council, Silver Spring, MD, (301) 588-8994; or on the Internet at http://www.wildlifehc.org.
Back to Article

²⁷ Virgilio M.Viana, Jamison Ervin, Richard Z. Donovan, Chris Elliott, and Henry Gholz, Certification of Forest Products: Issues and Perspectives (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1996).
Back to Article