Local governments might build support among their constituents for renewable energy investments by enlisting the aid of clean energy advocates, either to legitimize or actually manage the project. Yet such partnerships between advocates and local governments bring similar risks to the credibility of both players. Cooperation concerning municipal aggregation compounds these risks for the environmentalists, as it magnifies and draws attention to the public's financial stake in the environmentalists' good judgment. As one advocate points out:
The clean energy advocate or group that aggregates is entering into a very real relationship with the customer's household budget. This is much more important to the customer than just the disposal of discretionary income. And because early joiners to aggregation - the early adopters - derive a great deal of psychic income from being credible leaders in their own circles, the single largest danger is that they will wake up one day and feel misled.22
Perhaps sobered by such considerations, only a handful of environmental groups have considered relationships with private green aggregators. Even fewer have explored the possibilities offered by municipal green aggregation. One effort showing early promise involved the Sierra Club, a national conservation group, which approached the Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative, a small electricity provider located in northeastern California, with a proposal to establish a green energy co-op. Unhappily, this effort has stalled due to disagreement over how to screen potential suppliers and difficulty obtaining up-front development financing.