The Grassroots are Greener:
A Community-Based Approach to Marketing Green Power
Part III: Addressing Initial Concerns
Despite the potential benefits of the community-based campaign and the initial working relationship between PSCo and the LAW Fund, problems arose at the outset in both camps. On the environmental side, when the program was launched in spring 1997 the Sierra Club was reluctant to endorse it until a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of the wind site was done and indicated no anticipated adverse impacts on the land and local wildlife.10 This delayed Sierra Club support until the fall. Likewise, the Audubon Society had concerns about impacts on birds at the wind site.
PSCo took steps to address these concerns. The company conducted the NEPA review even though this was not required for a windfarm sited on private land. It worked with a state raptor biologist and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct a site study. It hired a vertebrate ecologist to look at the site. And it had a cultural analysis performed by the State Historical Preservation Society and the Colorado Historical Society. All these activities were part of an extensive monitoring program that would continue after the windfarm began operation to allow for mitigation of any potential problems.11 PSCo kept the environmental groups informed about these activities, in particular the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, and the LAW Fund. When the NEPA review determined that there were no major flyways in the area, that there were no raptor nests within a half-mile radius, and that the area had little vegetation and no groundwater to attract birds, the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club agreed to support the project.
Other clean energy advocates were opposed to PSCo's green pricing program on principle. They initially took the position that voluntary payment programs are inappropriate and that because renewable energy investments are a societal good, all customers should pay. Over time, as the PSCo Windsource program gained community-wide support, these advocates began to appreciate not only its educational value but also the fact that the program brought more wind energy capacity on-line than would have been achieved by any of the proposed regulatory requirements.
On the utility side, other issues were raised. The LAW Fund had developed a detailed plan for working with PSCo to educate customers and to market Windsource. PSCo had agreed to a specific marketing budget over a number of years and committed to sponsoring regular meetings of a Marketing Advisory Group to help coordinate the efforts of interested parties. But the utility was reluctant to have the LAW Fund and other community groups independently approach its customers. PSCo was also concerned about the advocates' initial desire to use a strong message about the impacts of PSCo's coal-fired generation in Colorado. These issues were ultimately resolved through an agreement by the advocates to limit references to the environmental impacts of coal and instead to emphasize the positive benefits of renewables. Likewise, PSCo agreed to let the LAW Fund approach its customers if appropriate PSCo managers and/or sales representatives were notified in advance. Both these agreements provided the basis for a positive working relationship that allowed a fair test of the Grassroots Campaign.
A grant from the Department of Energy (DOE) Commercialization Ventures program (designed to buy down the cost of and help commercialize U.S. renewable energy technologies) also helped guide the utility/clean energy advocate partnership through rough waters. PSCo was awarded $3.1 million for the project. It was agreed that these funds were mainly to be used to enable PSCo to lower the costs of the first 20 MW of the wind project from $20 million to $17 million (a 15% reduction). But a small portion — $70,000 — provided initial funding to the environmental commu nity to begin implementing the Grassroots Campaign. This was critical to the project because it allowed the LAW Fund to assign a staff person full-time to the project and to fund the development of some initial marketing materials. It also allowed the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) to work with the Holy Cross Electric Association (a PSCo wholesale customer) to promote wind power in the Aspen area.
Table of Contents | Previous Section | Next Section
Abstract | Message from REPP Staff | Executive Summary | Download PDF Version