Powerful Choices Report - Renewable Northwest Project

December 2009
Prepared by Colin Duncan & Andreu Ferrero
917 SW Oak St, Suite 303 • Portland, OR 97205 • 503-223-4544
www.RNP.org
About Renewable Northwest Project (RNP)
RNP was founded in 1994 by a broad coalition of public-interest organizations and energy
companies to actively promote the development of renewable resources in the region. This
report is an element of RNP’s “Go Green” campaign aimed at educating utilities and their
commercial and residential customers about the benefits of green power. A copy of this and past
reports can be found on the RNP website at http://www.RNP.org.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Claire Kreycik and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory who provided
us with much of the data presented in this report. Also many thanks to each utility that went out
of their way to provide us with information about their green power programs.
A big thank you to the staff of the Renewable Northwest Project, who provided guidance,
insight, and support. Much debt is also owed to each of the eight previous Powerful Choices
authors, who collectively shaped and refined the report into its current form.
The printed version of this report was printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper using100%
renewable power in Portland, Oregon. If electronic, the power you are using to read this report
could be purchased from renewable resources. Contact your local utility or Green-e
(http://www.green-e.org/) for details.
Table of Contents
Executive
Summary......................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Relevant
Green
Power
Legislation.............................................................................................. 2
Washington ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2
Oregon .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Montana ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Idaho ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Powerful
Choices
VIII
Data
Collection
and
Interpretation................................................... 4
Updates
on
Green
Power
Programs
in
the
Northwest........................................................... 4
NW
Green
Power
Programs
Achieve
National
Recognition................................................................................................... 5
Inactive
Green
Power
Programs ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
Trends................................................................................................................................................. 6
Recommendations........................................................................................................................... 8
Conclusions......................................................................................................................................11
Appendix
I:
Green
Power
Participation
and
Sales................................................................13
Appendix
II:
Equivalencies..........................................................................................................18
Appendix
III:
Program
Snapshots..............................................................................................19
Appendix
IV:
Contact
Information.............................................................................................25
Appendix
V:
Sources
of
Additional
Information....................................................................27
Figures
Figure
1:
Yearly
Avg
MWs
of
Green
Power
Sold
Through
NW
Utility
Programs
2000‐08.................................. 1
Figure
2:
Avg
Annual
Growth
in
Participation
Rates
2000‐08
(Top
15)....................................................................... 7
Figure
3:
Annual
Green
Power
Sales
by
Utility,
2008 ............................................................................................................13
Figure
4:
Green
Power
kWh
Sales
Trends
–
Investor
Owned
Utilities .........................................................................14
Figure
5:
Green
Power
kWh
Sales
Trends
‐
Public
Utilities ................................................................................................14
Figure
6:
Overall
Green
Power
Participation
by
Utility,
2008...........................................................................................15
Figure
7:
Residential
Customer
Participation
Rates
by
Utility,
2008............................................................................16
Figure
8:
Non‐Residential
Customer
Participation
Rates
by
Utility,
2008.................................................................16
Figure
9:
Participation
Rates
for
Top
10
Performing
Green
Power
Programs
in
the
NW,
2000‐08 ...........17
Tables
TABLE
1:
A NNUAL
GREEN
POWER
SALES
BY
UTILITY,
2008..............................................................................................................13
TABLE
2:
GREEN
POWER
PARTICIPATION
BY
UTILITY,
2008 .............................................................................................................15
TABLE
3:
EQUIVALENCY
CALCULATIONS
FOR
2008
NORTHWEST
GREEN
POWER
PURCHASES................................................18
TABLE
4:
NORTHWEST
GREEN
POWER
PROGRAM
SNAPSHOTS ..........................................................................................................19
TABLE
5:
NORTHWEST
GREEN
POWER
PROGRAM
TOTALS ..................................................................................................................24
TABLE
6:
CONTACT
INFORMATION ..............................................................................................................................................................25
Powerful Choices IX
Executive Summary
In this report, Renewable Northwest Project (RNP) presents a summary of 2008 data for utility
green power programs in the Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana). The data
shows that participation in the region’s 40 voluntary green power programs increased 32.5% in
2008, continuing the trend of strong and growing support for clean, renewable energy among
ratepayers.
Collectively, an additional 39,000 customers signed up for green power in 2008, bringing the
total number of ratepayers in the Northwest who voluntarily participate in a utility green power
program above 150,000. These ratepayers purchased nearly 1.6 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of
green power in 2008, a 20% increase from the last report, and over 67 times as much green
power as documented in the first Powerful Choices report in 2000. In the Northwest, this
amount of green power equates to enough energy to power more than 133,000 homes for an
entire year and is equivalent to taking more than 175,000 cars off the road, or avoiding over 2.1
billion pounds of CO2 emissions from traditional power sources per year.
The large and growing participation in voluntary green power programs means that the region’s
utility customers are purchasing more renewable energy. This in turn supports the continued
expansion of renewable energy development in the Northwest along with the environmental and
economic benefits that it brings to the region. Voluntary green power program participants now
support over 180 average megawatts (aMW) of renewable energy (See Figure 1), approximately
equivalent to the output of a large, 540 megawatt (MW) capacity wind farm. This is more than
the combined output of the region’s largest wind farms, Stateline (300 MW) and Wild Horse
(228.6 MW).
Figure 1: Yearly Average Megawatts of Green Power Sold Through Northwest
Utility Green Power Programs 2000-2008
1
Powerful Choices IX
Introduction
RNP began publishing Powerful Choices in 2000 as a way to highlight and track developments
in voluntary green power programs offered to customers in the Northwest. For the purposes of
this report, “green power” refers to power that is supplied by renewable resources such as solar,
wind, geothermal, low-impact hydro and low emissions biomass. A “green power program” is
any utility-sponsored program that allows customers to choose to purchase energy from an
environmentally preferred power source or to contribute to the development of new renewable
resources.
Many utilities, or their 3rd party marketers, purchase renewable energy certificates (RECs) for
their green power programs. A REC represents the environmental attributes (e.g. zero
emissions) of a megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity generated from a renewable source. These
tradable credits allow owners to fulfill their Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), and create
financial incentives for the development of new renewable resources.
With the recent passage of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) in Oregon, Washington and
Montana, each state has established targets for the minimum percentage of electricity generated
by renewable resources in a utility’s overall electricity mix over time. These standards are met
by utilities through power supply contracts, utility-owned renewable energy generation, and/or
REC purchases. RPS requirements can vary depending on the ownership and size of the utility,
but typically a utility must increase the percentage of renewably generated power in its mix over
a period of target years until the full RPS requirement is met.
Renewable energy purchased by ratepayers through voluntary green power programs does not
count towards meeting RPS requirements. This ensures that all voluntary purchases of green
power will increase the percentage of renewable energy in the region above and beyond what is
required by law. Green power program participants are helping to drive the development of new
renewable resources faster and further than the market or legislation will do on its own.
This report does not cover activities of the region’s green power marketers beyond utility retail
green power pricing programs. Marketers such as the Bonneville Environmental Foundation,
3Degrees, Green Mountain Energy Company, and others sell substantial amounts of renewable
energy credits to businesses, government agencies, and individuals outside of utility green power
programs.
Relevant Green Power Legislation
Although some energy-relevant legislation was passed during the 2008 special legislative
sessions in the Northwest states, very little directly affected the voluntary green energy market.
Past legislation concerning voluntary green power programs are presented below.
Washington
Passed in January of 2001, Washington’s HB 2247 (RCW 19.29A.090) requires that all electric
utilities with more than 25,000 meters offer their customers (at least quarterly) a voluntary
choice to purchase electricity from qualified renewable energy resources. In 2005, all seventeen
2
Powerful Choices IX
qualifying utilities offered green power products to their customers. In addition, three smaller
utilities not covered by the law (Clearwater Power, Orcas Power and Light, and Pacific County
PUD#2) also offer their customers a renewable energy option.
Voters in Washington passed a Clean Energy Initiative, I-937, in November 2006. I-937 enacts
a renewable energy standard that requires Washington’s 17 largest utilities to acquire 15% of
their electricity from new renewable energy sources by 2020, and to invest in all cost-effective
energy efficiency. The Initiative is expected to support the development of 1,500 average
megawatts of new renewable energy, which is enough to meet the needs of over 1,000,000
average homes.
Oregon
Passed in 1999, Oregon’s Electricity Restructuring Law, SB 1149, requires Oregon’s investorowned utilities, Portland General Electric (PGE) and Pacific Power1, to offer their customers at
least one renewable power option. The Oregon Public Utilities Commission implemented
regulations that identify three green power options for small customers. Currently, Green
Mountain Energy Company serves as the energy retailer for two of the three green power
products offered to these classes of customers by PGE. 3Degrees is the retailer for two of the
three products offered to these classes of customers by Pacific Power. Both of these utilities also
offer large commercial and industrial customers one green power option, though it is not
required by the legislation. Greater marketing has helped increase participation in these utilities’
green power programs by 117,367 participants since 2002, when the green power portion of SB
1149 was implemented and the utilities began working with third party marketers.
In 2007, the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 838, the Oregon Renewable Energy Act,
which requires the states 3 largest utilities (PGE, Pacific Power, and EWEB) to acquire 25% of
their electricity from renewable resources by 2025, depending on the size of the utility. In
addition, smaller Oregon utilities must meet targets of 5% or 10% by 2025. Like Washington’s
I-937, the Oregon Renewable Energy Act is expected to support the development of 1,500
average megawatts of new renewable energy, enough energy to meet the needs of 1,000,000
average homes.
SB 838 adds to SB 1149 by requiring all utilities in the state to “allow retail electricity
customers to elect a green power rate.” SB 838 allows an electric utility to meet these
requirements by contracting with a third-party provider or marketer.
In addition to PGE, Pacific Power and EWEB, 10 other Oregon utilities already offer their
customers green power products, including Canby Utility, Central Electric, the City of Ashland,
Clearwater Power, Columbia River PUD, Consumers Power, Douglas Electric, Emerald PUD,
Midstate Electric, Oregon Trail Electric, and Umatilla Electric.
1
PacifiCorp operates as “Pacific Power” in Oregon, Washington and California, and as “Rocky Mountain
Power” in Idaho, Utah and Wyoming. This report uses references both to the individual utilities where the
reference is to one of them specifically, and to the parent, PacifiCorp, when referring to combined
numbers or program details that apply to both Pacific Power and Rocky Mountain Power.
3
Powerful Choices IX
Montana
In Montana, HB 509 (MCA 69-8-210) was passed in May 2003, requiring that the default
supplier of electricity offer its customers a voluntary product composed of, or supporting power
from, certified environmentally preferred resources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and
biomass. Currently, the only utility affected by this legislation is NorthWestern Energy, which
began offering its E+ Green Program in June 2003. In addition to NorthWestern Energy, the five
members of the Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative
voluntarily offer their customers green power programs.
In 2005, Montana became the first Northwestern state to enact a renewable portfolio standard,
when the Montana Renewable Power Production and Rural Economic Development Act was
passed. The Act set a renewable portfolio standard of 15% by 2015. Initially only consumer
owned utilities were required to meet the standard, but in 2007 Montana passed HB 681which
extended the requirements to all competitive utilities.
Idaho
No legislation in Idaho requires green power options to be offered to utility customers;
however, several utilities voluntarily offer such programs, including Avista, Clearwater Power,
Idaho Power and Rocky Mountain Power.
Powerful Choices IX Data Collection and Interpretation
As with our previous reports, Renewable Northwest Project (RNP) collaborated with the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in the data collection process in order to ease
the burden of reporting for utilities. NREL administered its annual utility green power survey on
a national scale and shared with RNP the relevant data for Pacific Northwest utilities. Those
utilities that did not submit data to NREL were contacted directly by RNP for information
regarding their green power programs.
In Powerful Choices I-IV, a single month’s data was taken from each utility and extrapolated to
obtain estimated annual totals. The month for which data was reported varied slightly between
utilities. As with Powerful Choices V - VIII, figures for this year’s report were drawn from data
collected for a whole year, beginning in January and ending in December. This methodology is
consistent across utilities and provides a more accurate basis for comparison. This change in
methodology should be considered when comparing data in this report with data from the earlier
Powerful Choices reports.
Updates on Green Power Programs in the Northwest
In 2008, a number of utilities made small changes in their green power programs, sometimes
with large effects. Noteworthy developments in green power program options, sales,
participation, and marketing are described below.
4
Powerful Choices IX
NW Green Power Programs Achieve National Recognition
Portland General Electric and PacifiCorp once again have two of the top performing green
power programs in the nation across all categories. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory2
ranked PGE 2nd and PacifiCorp 3rd in terms of overall participation and sales (outdone only by
Austin Energy in sales and Xcel Energy in participation). PGE and PacifiCorp remained in the
top ten for participation rate (PGE 3rd, Pacific Power 8th), and green power as a percentage of
total kWh sales (PGE 5th, Pacific Power 9th). Also, PacifiCorp offered the 6th lowest price
premium.
Other Northwest utilities in the Top Ten green power programs nationally include Puget Sound
Energy (PSE) (6th in sales, 8th in participants), Emerald PUD (10th in green power as percentage
of total kWh sales, and 7th in price premium), Avista (3rd in price premium), Park Electric Coop
(4th in price premium), and Clallum County PUD (9th in price premium). The Northwest is home
to more of the top performing green power programs than any other region in the country.
Overall the average residential price premium per kWh for Northwest green power programs
was 1.27¢ in 2008. This is nearly 30% less than the national average of 1.8¢. The majority of
renewable energy purchased through green power programs is generated at the region’s growing
numbers of wind farms. In 2008, Washington had the 5th highest installed wind capacity with
1,375 MW, and Oregon had the 7th highest with 1,067 MW3. The Northwest region as a whole
had a total of 2,789 MW of installed wind capacity, including 271 MW in Montana and 76 MW
in Idaho. In addition to wind, some programs include small hydro, landfill gas, biomass, biogas,
solar (PV), and geothermal energy (See Appendix III, Table 5: Program Snapshots provide more
information on the types of green power offered through specific programs).
Inactive Green Power Programs
As of 2008, Beartooth Electric Cooperative was the only utility on our list that had an inactive
program, which is to say, a program without members. Three other utilities went from having
inactive programs to active ones. These were Mid-Yellowstone Electric Coop, Tongue River
Coop, and Grant County PUD. The cooperatives listed above are not required to have a
voluntary green power program, though Grant County is. It is very encouraging to see these
programs switch from inactive to active, and hopefully this is the first of many years of
successful green energy sales.
2
See http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/resources/tables/topten.shtml for a complete list of the top
ten green power programs in the nation.
3
See http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/images/windmaps/installed_capacity_2008.jpg for a map of
installed wind capacity by state.
5
Powerful Choices IX
Trends
For the first eight years that RNP has been producing this report, we have noted a trend for the
rate of growth in sales of green power to outstrip the rate of growth in participation. For
example, between 2006 and 2007 sales grew by 33% while participation grew by 24%. This
trend was attributed to the signing on of large, nonresidential customers who purchase more
green energy in a single year, as well as to residential customers increasing the size of their
purchases. This seemed to indicate that the level of commitment from both current and new
green power participants was strengthening.
During the economic downturn of 2008, however, the rate of increase in sales fell to 20%,
compared to 33% the year before. Given that overall energy sales fell by nearly 6% in 2008, this
is still impressive growth, but even green energy has not entirely been able to escape the
pressures of our economic climate. In contrast, during the same period the rate of increase in
participation in voluntary green energy programs rose from 24% to 32%.
This shows that while Northwest utility customers want green energy, their purchasing
decisions change in response to overall economic conditions. This is both heartening and
discouraging. It suggests that during hard times, green energy sales may suffer. Thor Hinckley,
Manager of the PGE renewable energy program confirms this – “Halfway through 2009, we
have seen some relatively slight decrease (3-5%) in new enrollments, primarily among business
customers, however our residential enrollment numbers continue to demonstrate strong support
for renewable power.”
“The most likely reason for this is because businesses operate under different pressures than
households,” Mr. Hinckley said, “While nonresidential customers may represent the greatest
sales gains in a favorable economic climate, the residential sector seems to be a more solid base
capable of withstanding more difficult financial times.”
As the slowdown in sales coincided with the economic downturn it is reasonable to assume that,
all other factors being equal, an improvement in the economic climate should be accompanied by
an improvement in sales. It is also encouraging to note that despite the economic situation,
participation continued to grow at a healthy rate.
The second multi-year trend that has emerged is that utilities that have actively and aggressively
marketed their green energy programs tend to achieve results superior to those that do not. This
marketing may take different forms. Both PGE and Pacific Power, which consistently have the
highest sales and participation, rely on third-party marketers like the Bonneville Environmental
Foundation, 3 Degrees, or Green Mountain Energy (see Figure 2).
The effort may also take the form of in-house marketing programs. Pacific County PUD, for
example, saw great success from a single mailing of informative brochures with their billing
statements. The marketing effort also included a gift basket for new participants, which the
utility felt enhanced the signup rate.
Puget Sound Energy, another star performer, has utilized a variety of effective marketing
strategies, including “affinity marketing” partnerships with a number of local commercial green
6
Powerful Choices IX
power customers as well as partnering with the Bonneville Environmental Foundation to market
their products to residential customers. In order to maintain strong and consistent growth in
green power program participants and sales, utilities must actively and aggressively market their
products, year after year.
Figure 2: Average Annual Growth in Participation Rates 2000-08
(Top 15 NW Utilities for Participation Rates)
(Utilities listed in Italics &
underlined utilize third party
marketers; corresponding
columns in table are outlined)
Note: Some utilities’ green power programs began after Powerful Choices I. Yearly changes in participation rates are averaged
over each year the utility’s program was active and data was reported in Powerful Choices.
* Emerald PUD used a 3rd party marketer between the years of 2003 and 2006.
Another trend has seen utilities and their 3rd party marketers using community green power
challenges to successfully boost participation. PacifiCorp, PGE, PSE, and Emerald PUD have all
run successful community challenges by partnering with local governments to establish
renewable energy usage goals for a community. Often the challenge begins when a municipality
commits to purchasing a percentage of their electricity from renewable resources. A timeframe is
established for a target number of new residential and commercial participants to enroll in the
green power program, thereby bringing the communities’ renewable energy use to a target
percentage of total energy consumption.
7
Powerful Choices IX
In 2007 and 2008 Pacific Power partnered with the City of Bend and other community
organizations with the goal to of reaching 10% participation by the community, matching the
city’s commitment to purchase Blue Sky renewable energy equivalent to 10% of their energy
usage. The city agreed to increase its purchase of Blue Sky to match whatever participation rate
the community achieved during the challenge up to 15% (connected to city electricity usage).
The challenge was a success; currently, 12% of Bend residents and businesses are enrolled,
supporting 46,182,513 kilowatt-hours of renewable energy per year. This represents about 5.9%
of the community’s annual electric use and qualifies the city as an EPA Green Power
Community.
In addition, Blue Sky Block program funding awards have helped fund a 43 kW solar array at
Bend’s WE Miller School and a 200 kW PV array on the roof of Bend’s new Centennial parking
garage is currently under development. These Bend, OR projects are part of a larger strategy to
use any additional green power program funds to develop local renewable energy projects.
A number of community green power challenges have been carried out in the Northwest with
the goal of achieving EPA Green Power Community designation. In 2006, Corvallis, OR
became the first city in the Northwest to become a Green Power Community following a
successful community challenge with Pacific Power and RNP (Corvallis also buys power from
Consumer Power). Corvallis now purchases more green power annually than any other Green
Power Community (100 million kWh) and supports renewable energy equivalent to an
impressive 13% of their total electricity from green power. Currently 13 of the 24 EPA Green
Power Communities are in Oregon or Washington, again demonstrating the Northwest’s
leadership in renewable energy.
Recommendations
At the beginning of the recession in 2008, there was speculation that the voluntary green power
market would suffer if customers pulled away from premium products like green tags and
focused more on saving money. The value of investing in marketing programs for green power
was questioned, as utilities looked for ways to cut costs and reduce consumer prices.
The experience of 2008, however, has demonstrated the high value that Northwest customers
attach to green energy. Even in difficult economic times, north westerners seem to view
sustainability as a priority, and are willing to pay a premium for its sake. Utilities that have met
this customer demand with an aggressive and sophisticated marketing campaign have been able
to make impressive strides in both participation and overall green sales. While some utilities
have not done as well, the figures in this report indicate that sustainable energy is still a growing
market with plenty of opportunities even in difficult economic times.
To capitalize on these opportunities and retain the Northwest’s leadership in green energy,
however, will demand focused effort. Here are our recommendations based on the best practices
that have emerged over the last 9 years.
8
Powerful Choices IX
1. Gain credibility.
The highest priority is for a utility to set an example by buying renewable energy on behalf
of all ratepayers to demonstrate that the utility is committed to the reality of renewable
energy and to acting in an environmentally responsible manner.
2. Show Results.
Customers need to know that their personal contribution is invested in additional renewable
resources beyond those the utility is already purchasing for all of its customers.
3. Keep In Touch.
Customer retention is aided through continued communication with green power customers
through newsletters, direct mail, and events.
4. Constant Outreach.
Repeated direct mail, newsletters, and informative bill stuffers have been effective tools for
many utilities in their efforts to increase participation. Research has shown that the average
customer needs from 7-13 exposures to information before deciding to purchase a green
power product. This is not an easy task, and persistence and patience are two essential
ingredients for increasing participation in green power programs.
5. Develop Local Projects.
Several utilities have been very successful at using customer contributions to fund local
renewable energy projects. Research in green power marketing consistently shows that
customers place a high value on investment in local renewable projects. Electricity is
intangible, environmental virtue even more so, and it seems that many customers like their
money to go towards something they can see, like a local wind farm with their community
name on it. For example, Orcas Power and Light Company (OPALCO), the public utility for
the San Juan Islands in Washington, uses customer contributions to help fund small-scale
solar projects that ultimately connects to the utility grid. Perhaps partly as a result, OPALCO
still enjoys one of the highest green power participation rates among all Northwest utilities.
These types of programs keep dollars in the local economy and are a great way to get
communities excited about renewable energy.
6. Offer Multiple Products.
A growing number of Northwest utilities now offer their customers multiple green power
products. Customers enjoy having a range of options (although not so many as to be
confusing) and like being able to select the product that best suits them. Additionally,
offering multiple products enables utilities to target products to specific sectors. For
example, a bulk-rate product could be targeted towards large non-residential customers,
which can help increase participation and sales in that sector (see #8 below).
7. Partner with Other Groups.
9
Powerful Choices IX
Partnering with environmental groups is an excellent way to spread the word about utility
green power programs. Most environmental organizations are proactive and community
oriented, communicate with an extensive network of members, and have experience with
outreach and public education. Often many of them are also more than happy to help the
local utility become more involved in environmental issues and be successful at promoting
environmentally preferred electricity products.
8. Seek and Develop Marketing Experience.
Many utilities that have partnered with third-party marketers or made efforts to develop inhouse marketing expertise have seen direct results. For example, PGE and PacifiCorp both
ranked in the top five for total participants in the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s
latest top ten list for green power programs across the nation. Both of these Northwest
utilities have worked with green power marketers to achieve strong and consistent growth in
their green power programs over the past several years.
Conversely, Pacific County PUD enjoyed great success with an in-house program of
mailings and gift baskets, and over the years Emerald PUD has benefited from both in-house
and third party marketing.
The benefits of a focused, sophisticated marketing campaign are increasingly clear.
9. Pursue and Retain Commercial, Industrial and Government Participants.
Though commercial and industrial sales may prove challenging in the near future, many
government agencies are under mandate to purchase at least some green power. These
customers are very valuable in terms of total kilowatt-hour sales of renewable energy. Due
to their large electricity consumption, one large non-residential customer can have the same
impact on green power sales, and the associated benefits, as dozens of residential customers.
Furthermore, non-residential participation rates typically lag behind residential participation
rates. Despite accounting for 60% of the Northwest total energy sales, the non-residential
sector averages less than half of the green energy participation rate of the residential sector.
A few utilities now offer bulk discount rates and/or products specifically targeted to large
customers, which is an effective way to expand participation and sales among non-residential
sectors. Programs like the EPA’s Green Power Partnership can help businesses understand
the benefits of purchasing green power and also give them public recognition for their
commitment to renewable energy.
Finally, commercial, industrial and governmental participation in green power programs
helps validate residential customers who decide to participate in voluntary programs.
Securing participation from non-residential ratepayers is thus crucial to support residential
marketing efforts, and to develop full support for green power efforts amongst all sectors of
the community.
10. Launch a Green Power Challenge.
10
Powerful Choices IX
There is nothing like a bit of good old-fashioned competition to boost participation in green
power programs. A green power challenge begins when a local government partners with a
utility to establish a renewable energy goal for the community, such as 10% participation or
5% of total electricity use. Other partners, such as environmental non-profits or business
organizations, can be brought in to help promote the challenge and activate their
membership. Often the local government will first make a commitment to purchasing a
percentage of their electricity from renewable sources, which can be used as a goal for
matching community participation, or simply to insure confidence in the benefits of the
program. Given the popularity of EPA “Green Power Community” certification in the
Northwest, crafting a challenge that would lead to such certification may well give the
challenge added appeal – especially if participants are encouraged to compare themselves to
neighboring communities.
The reward for communities that successfully reach their renewable energy goals can range
from the satisfaction of becoming a Green Power Community to the utility investing in a
local renewable energy project. Usually a green power challenge is used as a focal point for
a concentrated outreach effort. The city can help with advertising space and marketing, as
well as crafting a locally appropriate message, while the utility typically provides on-theground outreach. Green Power Challenges are a great way to raise awareness of renewable
energy in a community and establish good relations with local government.
Conclusions
In the decade since the first Northwest utilities began offering voluntary green power programs,
participation has grown to nearly 160,000 customers. These customers now support over 180
aMW of green power, which is equivalent to the annual output of a 540 MW wind farm. By
investing in renewable energy, green power customers are committing an act of public service
that benefits us all, for the simple satisfaction of knowing that generation of their electricity did
not contribute to climate change or emit pollutants harmful to human health.
While green power customers own the environmental attributes of the energy they purchase,
they do not own other benefits, such as long-term price stability and energy security. When a
utility invests in a wind farm they are not only investing in a cleaner source of energy, they are
also hedging against the rising costs of fossil fuels and future restrictions on carbon emissions.
As more renewable energy technologies become cost competitive, it will become more important
for green power programs to share in the rewards of investing in green power and not just the
costs.
Looking to the future of green power programs, there are ways to share the costs and benefits of
renewable energy more equitably while attracting new participants. One strategy is to offer a
stable rate to green power customers that acknowledges the (relatively) fixed cost of generating
renewable energy. PGE tried this with their Renewable Future program in 2007, and enrolled
over 3,000 participants in 5 months. Admittedly, there are challenges to calculating a fair stable
rate when much of the cost to ratepayers is embedded in transmission, delivery and
unforeseeable regulatory changes. However, these challenges are not insurmountable, and in
light of the economic crisis the appeal of a stable rate, especially to business customers, is clear.
11
Powerful Choices IX
A second model is for a utility to enter into a long-term power supply contract from a
renewable energy project, or invest in an ownership share of a project, on behalf of its green
power customers. In this model, the utility acts as an aggregator for program participants and
takes on some of the risk of entering into the power supply contract. The power generated by the
renewable energy project is sold on the short-term wholesale market and program participants
receive a payment (or credit) based on the market value of the power sold. RECs generated by
the project could be retired on behalf of the program participants, in order for them to retain the
‘green’ portion of the power. The benefit to program participants is if the price of power rises on
the wholesale market, the value of their share of the facility increases, helping to offset the
potentially corresponding increase in their utility bill. A program structured this way avoids the
complications of calculating a fair stable rate, while allowing program participants to hedge
rising energy costs and economic disruption.
By showing strong customer support for renewable energy, green power programs have helped
to drive the market for new renewable energy generation and usher in renewable portfolio
standards that ensure utilities purchase renewable energy on behalf of all their customers. As
more and more people sign up for their utility’s green power option, it is important to think about
the future of green power programs and the potential role they play as a driving force in the
development of new renewable resources in the region.
12
Powerful Choices IX
Appendix I: Green Power Participation and Sales
Table 1: Annual Green Power Sales by Utility, 2008
Utility
Avista Utilities
Benton PUD
Canby Utiliy
Central Electric Cooperative
Chelan County PUD
City of Ashland
Clallam County PUD
Clark Public Utilities
Clearwater Power
Columbia River PUD
Consumers Power Inc.
Cowlitz PUD
Douglas Electric Cooperative
Emerald PUD
Eugene Water & Electric Board
Fergus Electric Cooperative
Grant County PUD
Grays Harbor PUD
Idaho Power
Lewis County PUD
Mason County PUD No. 3
Midstate Electric Cooperative
Mid-Yellowstone Electric Cooperative
Northwestern Energy
Orcas Power & Light
Oregon Trail Electric Cooperative
Pacific County PUD
PacifiCorp
Park Electric Cooperative
Peninsula Light
Portland General Electric1
Puget Sound Energy
Seattle City Light
Snohomish County PUD
Southern Montana Generating and
Transmission Cooperative
Tacoma Power
Tongue River Electric Cooperative
Umatilla Electric Cooperative
Vigilante Electric Cooperative
Yellowstone Valley Electric
Cooperative
Total:
Figure 3: Northwest Utility Green Power Program Sales, 2008.
kWh
71,309,400
NR
1,428,900
5,003,074
125,247
2,071,000
3,688,149
17,176,400
64,842
NR
1,573,075
1,364,328
403,200
9,366,757
29,400,000
94,770
112,000
61,600
28,124,376
55,400
727,271
1,716,440
1,400
2,835,299
1,266,600
1,075,200
2,872,788
337,390,122
1,073,203
1,065,600
681,843,329
291,166,600
77,446,600
14,018,755
Dollars
$235,321
NR
$15,718
$90,055
NA
$41,420
$25,817
$257,646
$648
NR
$31,462
$27,287
$4,896
$74,934
$294,000
$1,042
$2,240
$1,848
$248,057
$1,108
7,273
$42,911
$21
$56,706
$50,664
$16,128
$30,164
$2,494,368
$2,361
$29,837
$7,181,035
$3,639,583
$1,367,862
$280,375
NR
NR
12,454,506
15,600
4,400
375,915
$149,454
$164
$88
$4,135
45,000
$900
1,597,388,846
$16,691,722
13
Powerful Choices IX
Figure 4: Green Power kWh Sales Trends – Investor Owned Utilities
Figure 5: Green Power kWh Sales Trends - Public Utilities
14
Powerful Choices IX
Figure 6: Overall Green Power Participation by Utility, 2008
Table 2: Green Power Participation by Utility, 2008
Utility
Avista Utilities
Beartooth Electric Cooperative
Benton PUD
Canby Utility
Central Electric Cooperative
Chelan County PUD
City of Ashland
Clallam County PUD
Clark Public Utilities
Clearwater Power
Columbia River PUD
Consumers Power Inc.
Cowlitz PUD
Douglas Electric Cooperative
Emerald PUD
Eugene Water & Electric Board
Fergus Electric Cooperative
Grant County PUD
Grays Harbor PUD
Idaho Power
Lewis County PUD
Mason County PUD No. 3
Midstate Electric Cooperative
Mid-Yellowstone Electric Cooperative
Northwestern Energy
Orcas Power & Light
Oregon Trail Electric Cooperative
Pacific County PUD
PacifiCorp
Park Electric Cooperative
Peninsula Light
Portland General Electric
Puget Sound Energy
Seattle City Light
Snohomish County PUD
Tacoma Power
Tongue River Electric Cooperative
Umatilla Electric Cooperative
Vigilante Electric Cooperative
Yellowstone Valley Electric Cooperative
Res.
1.13%
0.00%
NR
3.82%
5.00%
1.28%
0.22%
0.62%
0.63%
0.93%
NR
2.05%
0.22%
1.70%
3.97%
3.91%
0.12%
0.00%
0.07%
0.63%
0.04%
0.33%
1.56%
0.09%
0.20%
4.29%
1.82%
4.91%
5.79%
1.23%
1.63%
10.72%
2.18%
2.48%
1.18%
1.17%
0.00%
0.01%
0.71%
0.08%
Non-Res.
0.24%
0.00%
NR
1.18%
0.00%
0.22%
2.81%
0.30%
0.40%
0.81%
NR
0.00%
0.11%
0.06%
2.54%
1.80%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.19%
0.00%
0.14%
0.60%
0.00%
0.09%
0.96%
0.00%
0.60%
1.01%
1.22%
0.43%
1.99%
0.71%
0.38%
0.12%
0.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Total
1.02%
0.00%
NR
3.55%
4.70%
1.13%
0.58%
0.65%
0.61%
0.92%
NR
1.84%
0.21%
1.41%
3.87%
3.68%
0.12%
0.00%
0.06%
0.57%
0.03%
0.31%
1.46%
0.05%
0.18%
3.89%
1.48%
4.40%
5.00%
1.23%
1.51%
9.75%
2.01%
2.26%
1.08%
1.06%
0.00%
0.01%
0.61%
0.07%
15
Powerful Choices IX
Figure 7: Residential Customer Participation Rates by Utility, 2008
Figure 8: Non-Residential Customer Participation Rates by Utility, 2008
16
Powerful Choices IX
Figure 9: Participation Rates for Top 10 Performing Green Power Programs in the Northwest, 2000-08
17
Powerful Choices IX
Appendix II: Equivalencies
TABLE
3:
EQUIVALENCY
CALCULATIONS
FOR
2008
NORTHWEST
GREEN
POWER
PURCHASES
Equivalency Calculations
Total kWh supported by voluntary green power purchases in 2008
1,597,388,246 kWh
Description
Value
Comparison
Calculation Uses…
Pounds of CO2
2,114,430,873
1.32368
Metric Tons of CO2
959,100
2,204.60
Acre of pine/
fir forest
(CO2 sequestration )
217,977
Crater Lake National Park is
183,224 acres
Passenger vehicles
(annual CO2 emissions)
175,659
135,000 vehicles cross the
Columbia River I-5 bridge
every weekday.
Urban trees planted
(CO2 sequestration )
24,592,296
Coal plant
(annual CO2 emissions)
0.21
PGE Boardman releases ~5
million MT of CO2 per year
4,643,734
Wind farm
(MW nameplate capacity)
547
Stateline wind farm (OR/WA)
has a nameplate capacity of
300 MW
0.33
Wind capacity factor
Average Homes
(Annual Electricity Use)
133,505
Bellevue, WA 119,200
Gresham, OR 99,225
(Note 3)
11,965
kWh/household/year
lbs CO2/kWh
Note 1
lbs/metric tons
Note 1
4.40
MT CO2/acre of forest/year
Note 1
5.46
MT CO2/vehicle/year
Notes 1&4
0.04
MT CO2/tree/year
Note 1
MT CO2/coal power plant/year
Note 1
Note 2&3
Note 1: Uses EPA Equivalency Calculator for the WECC Northwest region. http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/pubs/calculator.htm
(This calculator used eGRID Year 2007 eGRID Subregion non-baseload emission rate for NWPP WECC Northwest sub-region.)
Also uses EPA calculations used from http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html#pineforests.
Note 2: Uses EIA consumption data from 2001 survey for single family households.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/ce_pdf/enduse/ce1-4c_housingunits2001.pdf
Note 3: Gresham population estimate from PSU Population Research Center 2007 Population Report (http://www.pdx.edu/prc/)
Bellevue population estimate from Washington Office of Financial Management, Official April 1, 2008 Estimates.
(http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/default.asp)
Note 4: Columbia River Crossing Fact Sheet - October 2008. (http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/FactSheets/CRCprojectFactSheet.pdf)
18
Powerful Choices IX
APPENDIX III: PROGRAM SNAPSHOTS
% Change in Total
Participants
Since 2007
2008 Sales of Green
Power (kWh)
% Change in Sales
of Green Power
Since 2007
WA,
ID
2002
Buck-A-Block
300 kWh blocks of wind
0.33¢/kWh
355,606
3,620
5.5%
71,309,400
7.0%
2009
Green Power Rate
100 kWh blocks of wind and lowimpact hydro from BPA's
Environmentally Preferred Power
1.5¢/kWh
5,494
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
MT
Benton PUD
WA
1999
Green Power Program
Contribution to Benton PUD's systemwide renewables energy purchase
(mix of low-impact hydro, landfill gas
and wind)
Canby
Utility
OR
2007
Green Power program 100kWh
blocks purchased through a BPA PPA
1.1¢/kWh
6,704
1,207
NR
1,428,900
NR
Central
Electric
Cooperative
OR
1998
Green Power
100 kWh blocks from Coffin Butte
Landfill Gas Project
1.8¢/kWh
25,676
1,207
8.8%
5,003,074
12.1%
Contribution
41,314
467
-14.9%
125,247
10.4%
2¢/kWh
11,500
67
-35.6%
2,071,000
-19.0%
Chelan
County
PUD
WA
2001
Sustainable Natural Alternative Power
(SNAP)
Contribution for green power from
mix of locally-produced wind, solar
and low-impact hydro
City of
Ashland
OR
2003
Renewable Pioneers
1,000 kWh blocks of wind from
Bonneville Environmental Foundation
19
Notes
Total Participants
Beartooth
Electric
Cooperative
Green Power
Product
Eligible
Customers
Avista
Utilities
Progr
am
Kickoff
Premium
Utility
State
Table 4: Northwest Green Power Program Snapshots
1
Powerful Choices IX
Clallam
County
PUD
WA
2003
Watts Green
Fixed rate per kWh for 100% of usage
or 100 kWh blocks from Klickitat
Landfill Gas Project
1.7¢/kWh
26,647
174
-19.1%
3,688,149
-31.3%
1.5¢/kWh
181,275
1,111
10.0%
17,176,400
4.9%
Clark
Public
Utilities
WA
2002
Green Lights
100 kWh blocks of wind from
Bonneville Environmental Foundation
and solar from local installations
Clearwater
Power
OR,
WA,
ID
1998
Green Power Choice
100 kWh blocks from Coffin Butte
Landfill Gas Project
1.0¢/kWh
10,240
94
27.0%
64,842
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Columbia
River PUD
OR
2005
Choice Energy (Block + Usage)
100 kWh blocks or 100% usage from
BPA's Environmentally Preferred
Power
Consumers
Power Inc.
OR
1997
Green Power
100 kWh blocks from Coffin Butte
Landfill Gas Project
2.0¢/kWh
20,459
376
-8.5%
1,573,075
-5.9%
Cowlitz
PUD
WA
2002
Renewable Resource Energy Program
100 kWh blocks of wind from
Bonneville Environmental Foundation
2.0¢/kWh
47,547
100
1.0%
1,364,328
51.0%
Douglas
Electric
Cooperative
OR
1998
Green Power
100 kWh blocks from Coffin Butte
Landfill Gas Project
2.0¢/kWh
9,848
139
58.0%
403,200
64.7%
0.8¢/kWh
19,121
740
7.6%
9,366,757
14.4%
2
3
Emerald
PUD
OR
2003
Renewable Energy Program (100%
wind)
Premium per kWh for 100% of usage
from Green-e certified wind from
Northwest Wind facilities.
Eugene
Water &
Electric
Board
OR
2007/
2001
EWEB Greenpower + Windpower
Premium per kWh for 98% wind and
2% solar.
1.0¢/kWh
86,709
3,194
7.4%
29,400,000
10.6%
2002
Environmentally Preferred Power
100 kWh blocks of wind and lowimpact hydro from BPA's
Environmentally Preferred Power
1.1¢/kWh
6,039
7
0.0%
94,770
0.0%
Fergus
Electric
Cooperative
MT
20
Progr
am
Kickoff
Premium
Eligible
Customers
Total
Participants
% Change in
Total
Participants
Since 2007
2008 Sales of
Green Power
(kWh)
% Change in
Sales of
Green Power
Since 2007
Grant
County
PUD
WA
2002
Alternative Energy Resources
Program
100 kWh blocks of wind from Nine
Canyon Wind Project
2.0¢/kWh
44,837
2
0.0%
112,000
0.0%
Grays
Harbor
PUD
WA
2002
Green Power Program
100 kWh blocks of wind from Nine
Canyon Wind Project
3.0¢/kWh
41,700
25
-3.8%
61,600
-1.4%
0.882¢/kWh
468,623
2,670
-0.7%
28,124,376
20.3%
Green Power
Product
Idaho
Power
ID
2001
Green Power Program
Premium per kWh to support wind
purchase from Bonneville
Environmental Foundation and
Solar4Schools program
Lewis
County
PUD
WA
2003
Green Power Energy Rate
100 kWh blocks of wind from Nine
Canyon Wind Project
2.0¢/kWh
30,608
10
11.1%
55,400
114.7%
Mason
County
PUD No. 3
WA
2003
Mason EverGreen Power
100 kWh blocks of wind from Nine
Canyon Wind Project
1.0¢/kWh
32,450
102
-6.4%
727,271
24.7%
Midstate
Electric
Cooperative
OR
1999
Environmentally Preferred Power
100 kWh blocks of 100% wind from
BPA's Environmentally Preferred
Power
2.5¢/kWh
18,000
262
5.6%
1,716,440
4.3%
MidYellowstone
Electric
Cooperative
MT
2007
Alternative Renewable Energy
100 kWh blocks of wind and from
BPA's Environmentally Preferred
Power
1.50¢/kWh
1,933
1
0.0%
1,400
0.0%
Northwester
n Energy
MT
2003
E+ Green Power
100 kWh blocks wind from
Bonneville Environmental Foundation
2¢/kWh
324,922
585
38.6%
2,835,299
30.1%
1999
Go Green
100 kWh blocks of wind and lowimpact hydro from BPA's
Environmentally Preferred Power and
solar from local installations
$4/100 kWh
13,976
544
-0.9%
1,266,600
-17.1%
Orcas
Power &
Light
WA
21
Notes
Utility
State
Powerful Choices IX
Powerful Choices IX
Oregon
Trail
Electric
Cooperative
OR
Pacific
County
PUD
PacifiCorp:
Pacific
Power (OR
and WA)
/Rocky
Mountain
Power (ID)
PacifiCorp:
Pacific
Power (OR
and WA) /
Rocky
Mountain
Power (ID)
Pacific
Power
2002
Green Power
200 kWh blocks of wind and lowimpact hydro from BPA's
Environmentally Preferred Power
1.5¢/kWh
30,170
448
-5.7%
1,075,200
-5.7%
WA
2002
Green Power
100 kWh blocks from BPA's
Environmentally Preferred Power
1.05¢/kWh
16,926
745
35.2%
2,872,788
38.5%
OR,
WA,
ID
OR &
WA
2000;
ID
2003
Blue Sky Block100 kWh blocks of
wind in all three states.
1.95¢/kWh
748,302
11,594
17.3%
31,195,700
15.7%
OR,
WA,
ID
OR
2004;
WA
& ID
2003
Commercial only. Sliding scale
premium for large commercial and
industrial customers buying at least
101 blocks a month over a period of
10 months or 1212 blocks (121,200
kWh) of wind
1.32¢/kWh
48,472
104
35.1%
65,535,300
39.8%
OR
2002
Blue Sky Usage
Premium per kWh for 100% of usage
from mix of wind, biomass and solar
in partnership with 3 Degrees.
0.78¢/kWh
541,702
21,099
9.3%
193,370,594
18.3%
0.78¢/kWh
+$2.50/mo.
541,702
4,741
5.7%
47,288,528
15.2%
Pacific
Power.
OR
2002
Blue Sky Habitat
Premium per kWh for 100% of usage
from mix of wind, biomass and solar
plus $2.50/month for salmon habitat
restoration in partnership with 3
Degrees and The Nature Conservancy
Park
Electric
Cooperative
MT
2002
Green Power Program
Premium per kWh for 100% of usage
from wind from Basin Electric Power
Cooperative's Prairie Wind Project
.44 ¢/kWh
4,799
59
11.3%
1,073,203
84.2%
2002
Green by Choice
100 kWh blocks of wind and lowimpact hydro from BPA's
Environmentally Preferred Power
2.8¢/kWh
29,000
437
1.2%
1,065,600
-0.8%
2002
Green Source
Premium per kWh for 100% of usage
from mix of wind, geothermal, and
low-impact hydro in parternship with
Green Mountain Energy
1.2¢/kWh
710,608
54,462
13.6%
481,634,002
17.9%
Peninsula
Light
Portland
General
Electric1
WA
OR
22
Progr
am
Kickoff
Premium
Eligible
Customers
Total
Participants
% Change in
Total
Participants
Since 2007
2008 Sales of
Green Power
(kWh)
% Change in
Sales of
Green Power
Since 2007
Portland
General
Electric2
OR
2002
Clean Wind for Large Commercial
and Industrial
Premium per kWh for customers
purchase at least 1,001 kWh/month
N/A
7,248
148
28.7%
132,201,163
44.6%
Portland
General
Electric3
OR
2000
Clean Wind for Residential and Small
Business
100 kWh blocks of wind
1.75¢/kWh
800,564
11,885
13.4%
36,694,000
14.5%
Portland
General
Electric4
OR
2007
Renewable Future
5 year stable-rate for 100% wind
power
.908¢/kWh
710,608
2,763
-8.6%
31,314,164
100.0%
1.25¢/kWh$2.
00/160kWh
1,069,400
21,509
5.1%
291,166,600
18.2%
Green Power
Product
Puget Sound
Energy
WA
2002
Green Power Program160 kWh blocks
or 100% option. Includes wind,
biomass and solar primarily from
Bonneville Environmental Foundation
Seattle City
Light
WA
2005
Seattle Green Up
Premium per kWh for 25%, 50% or
100% of usage from wind
1.5¢/kWh
383,127
8,665
25.6%
77,446,600
45.6%
Snohomish
County
PUD
WA
2002
Planet Power Program
150 kWh blocks of wind from
Bonneville Environmental Foundation
2.0¢/kWh
317,612
3,443
-6.2%
14,018,755
7.0%
Southern
Montana
Generating
Cooperative
MT
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.2¢/kWh
161,974
1,720
4.2%
12,454,506
14.3%
1.05¢/kWh
4,950
2
0.0%
15,600
0.0%
Tacoma
Power
WA
2000
EverGreen Options
250 kWh blocks of renewable energy
credits from new wind projects in
Washington and Oregon.
Tongue
River
Electric
Cooperative
MT
2005
Green Tag Program
100 kWh blocks of wind and lowimpact hydro from BPA's
Environmentally Preferred Power
23
Notes
Utility
State
Powerful Choices IX
4
10
Powerful Choices IX
Umatilla
Electric
Cooperative
OR
1998
Green Power Program
100 kWh blocks from Coffin Butte
Landfill Gas Project
2.0¢/kWh
13,619
2
0.0%
4,400
83.3%
1.1¢/kWh
8,914
54
12.5%
375,915
-6.2%
2.0¢/kWh
16,500
12
0.0%
45,000
2.3%
Vigilante
Electric
Cooperative
MT
2003
Alternative Renewable Energy
Program
100 kWh blocks of wind and lowimpact hydro from BPA's
Environmentally Preferred Power
Yellowstone
Valley
Electric
Cooperative
MT
2003
Wind Generated Power
100 kWh blocks of wind and lowimpact hydro from BPA's
Environmentally Preferred Power
24
Powerful Choices IX
Table 5: Northwest Green Power Program Totals
Total # of NW Utilities
Offering Green Power
Programs
Total # of Green Power
Products Offered in NW
Total
Participants
Total Residential
Participants
Total nonTotal Residential
Total kWh Sales
Residential
kWh Sales of
of Green Power
Participants
Green Power
41
46
159,627
154,888
4,739
1,598,817,146
+ 2utility
0 programs
7%
7%
11%
20%
Total C&I kWh
Sales of Green
Power
Total aMW
1,106,977,347
491,839,799
183
20%
20%
20%
Totals
Change Since 2007
Notes
1. Chelan County PUD uses contributions to their green power program to subsidize the cost of local solar projects.
2. EPUD purchases only Green-e certified REC's generated at NW wind facilities.
3. Eugene Water Electricity Board froze their Windpower program in 2007. All new enrollments were directed to the Greenpower program which includes 1% solar.
4. PGE launched the Renewable Future pilot program in 2007, which enabled customers to sign up for a five year stable rate of 9.08¢/kWh for 100% wind power (generated by the Klondike II facility in
Sherman County Oregon). This stable-rate option represented a 1.4¢ premium over PGE's base rate, but was expected to decrease over time as the price of electricty continues to rise. The pilot program had a
particpation cap of 5 aMW, and the program was frozen when participation reached the cap.
5. Seattle City Light Green Power Program sales figures based on estimate of total kWh generated by PV demonstration projects installed using contributions from the program.
NR: Not Reported
25
Powerful Choices IX
Appendix IV: Contact Information
Table 6: Contact Information
Chris Drake
Mary Anderson
Nancy Philipp
Donna Becquet
Vern Rice
Susan Gillin
Dick Wanderscheid
Judy Packwood
Michelle Missfeldt
Jeremy Burt
Tim Lammers
James Ramseyer
Brian Booth
Todd C. Munsey
Rob Currier
Tom Williams
Guy Johnson
Debbie Lowe
Doug Smith
Patti Best
June Johnstone
Jay Himlie
Teresa Lackey
Ted Church
Deb Young
Susan Olson
Steve Schauer
Jim Dolan
Phone
Number
509 495 8624
406 446 2310
509 582 1269
503-266-1156
541 312 7775
509 661 4249
541 552 2061
360-565-3258
360 992 3109
208-798-5202
503 366 5470
541 929 8531
360 501 8157
541 673 6616
541 744 7402
541 341 8577
406 538 3465
509 766 2519
360-538-6508
208 388 5948
360 740 2433
360 426 8255
541 536 7232
406 342 5521
406 497 2339
360 376 3571
541 524 2822
360 942 2411
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.avistautilities.com/services/renewable/wind/pages/default.aspx
www.mtco-ops.com/Member_Coops/beartooth/index.html
www.bentonpud.org/products_and_services/green_power.html
www.canbybusiness.com/utilities.htm
www.centralelectriccoop.com
www.chelanpud.org/snap
www.greenashland.org/
www.clallampud.net
www.clarkpublicutilities.com
www.clearwaterpower.com
www.crpud.net
www.consumerspower.org/renewables/greenpower.php
www.cowlitzpud.org
www.douglaselectric.com/renewables/greenpower.php
www.epud.org/green_power.htm
www.eweb.org
www.ferguselectric.coop/About/About.htm
www.gcpud.org
www.ghpud.org
www.idahopower.com/greenpower
www.lcpud.org
www.masonpud3.org/Rates/GreenPower.asp
www.midstateelectric.coop
www.mtco-ops.com/Member_Coops/midyellow/index.html
www.northwesternenergy.com
www.opalco.com
www.otec.coop
www.pacificpud.org
Rhonda Rasmussen
Toni Cody
Ray Grinberg
Thor Hinckley
Heather Mulligan
Jack Brautigam
Doris Abravanel
Tim Gregori
503 813 7462
406 222 3100
253 857 1548
503 464 8089
425-456-2916
206-684-3954
425-783-1731
406 294-9527
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.pacificpower.net
www.parkelectric.coop/energy_programs/Green_Power_Program/index.html
www.penlight.org
www.portlandgeneral.com
www.pse.com
www.seattle.gov/light/green/greenpower
www.snopud.com/planetpower
www.smegt.net
Utility
Contact Name
Avista Utilities
Beartooth Electric Coop.
Benton PUD
Canby Utility
Central Electric Coop.
Chelan County PUD
City of Ashland
Clallam County PUD
Clark Public Utilities
Clearwater Power
Columbia River PUD
Consumers Power Inc.
Cowlitz PUD
Douglas Electric Coop.
Emerald PUD
Eugene Water & Electric Board
Fergus Electric Coop.
Grant County PUD
Grays Harbor PUD
Idaho Power
Lewis County PUD
Mason County PUD No. 3
Midstate Electric Coop.
Mid-Yellowstone Electric Coop.
Northwestern Energy
Orcas Power & Light
Oregon Trail Electric Coop.
Pacific County PUD
PacifiCorp: Pacific/Rocky Mtn
Power
Park Electric Coop.
Peninsula Light
Portland General Electric
Puget Sound Energy
Seattle City Light
Snohomish County PUD
Southern Montana Coop.
Email
Website
26
Powerful Choices IX
Tacoma Power
Tongue River Electric Coop.
Umatilla Electric Coop.
Vigilante Electric Coop.
Yellowstone Valley Electric
Coop.
Mark Aalfs
Alan See
Kathy L. Moore
Rod Siring
253 502 8939
406 784 2341
541 564 4357
406 683 2327
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.ci.tacoma.wa.us/power
www.mtco-ops.com/Member_Coops/tongue
www.umatillaelectric.com
www.vec.coop
Justin Grantham
406 348 3411
[email protected]
www.yvec.com
27
Appendix V: Sources of Additional Information
PUBLICATIONS
2007 (October). Bird, Lori and Kaiser, Marshall. Trends in Utility Green Pricing Programs (2006). Golden,
Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (www.nrel.gov)
2006 (March). Nararin, Jan, Dan Lieberman and Meredith Wingate. Regulator’s Handbook On Renewable Energy
Programs and Tariffs. San Francisco, CA: Center for Resource Solutions. (www.resource-solutions.org/)
2005 (December). Hanson, Craig. “The Business Case for Using Renewable Energy.” Corporate Guide to Green
Power Markets (Installment 7). Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute. (www.wri.org)
2004 (December). Aulisi, Andrew and Craig Hanson. “Developing ‘Next Generation’ Green Power Products for
Corporate Markets in North America.” Corporate Guide to Green Power Markets (Installment 6). Washington,
D.C.: World Resources Institute. (www.wri.org)
2003. Northwest Economic Associates. “Assessing the Economic Development Impacts of Wind Power.” Final
Report. Washington, D.C.: Northwest Wind coordinating Committee. (www.nationalwind.org)
2003 (March). Austin, Duncan. “Introducing the Green Power Analysis Tool.” Corporate Guide to Green Power
Markets (Installment 4). Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute. (www.wri.org)
2003 (February). Hanson, Craig, and Janet Ranganathan. “Corporate Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories:
Accounting for the Climate Benefits of Green Power.” Corporate Guide to Green Power Markets (Installment
3). Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute. (www.wri.org)
2002 (July). Austin, Duncan, and Craig Hanson. “Introducing Green Power for Corporate Markets: Business Case,
Challenges, and Steps Forward.” Corporate Guide to Green Power Markets (Installment 1). Washington, D.C.:
World Resources Institute. (www.wri.org)
2002 (October). Lieberman, Dan. “Green Pricing at Public Utilities: A How-to Guide Based on Lessons Learned to
Date.” Public Renewables Partnership. San Fancisco, CA: Center for Resource Solutions. (www.resourcesolutions.org)
2002 (September). Atcha, Shehnaz, and Vince Van Son. “Opportunities with Landfill Gas.” Corporate Guide to
Green Power Markets (Installment 2). Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute. (www.wri.org)
2001. Holt, Edward, Ryan Wiser, Meredith Fowlie, Rudd Mayer, Susan Innis. “Understanding Nonresidential
Demand for Green Power.” Consensus Report. Washington, D.C.: National Wind Coordinating Committee.
(www.nationalwind.org)
1999. Mayer, Rudd, Eric Blank, and Blair Swezey. “The Grassroots Are Greener: A Community-Based Approach to
Marketing Green Power.” Research Report #8. Washington, D.C.: Renewable Energy Policy Project.
(www.repp.org)
1999. Kalweit, B., Peterson, T. “Green Power Guidelines, Vol. 2: Assessing the Small and Medium Size Market
Segments.” Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research Institute. (www.epri.com)
1998. Asmus, Peter. “Power to the People: How Local Governments Can Build Green Electricity Markets.” Issue
Brief #9. Washington, D.C.: Renewable Energy Policy Project. (www.repp.org)
28
SELECTED WEBSITES AND ORGANIZATIONS
Business for Social Responsibility (BSR). A “global organization that helps member companies achieve success
in ways that respect ethical values, people, communities and the environment. BSR provides information, tools,
training and advisory services to make corporate social responsibility an integral part of business operations and
strategies. A nonprofit organization, BSR promotes cross sector collaboration and contributes to global efforts to
advance the field of corporate social responsibility.” (www.bsr.org)
Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF). BEF “was founded in 1998 to support watershed restoration
programs and develop new sources of renewable energy.” BEF is a not-for-profit organization that markets green
power products to public utilities, businesses, government agencies and individuals. BEF also provides grants for
watershed and renewable energy projects in the Northwest. (www.b-e-f.org)
Center for Resource Solutions (CRS). Based in San Francisco, CRS “brings together diverse interests to
implement practical resources solutions. Our national and international programs promote clean and efficient
energy use, encourage sustainable economic growth, and help sustain the environment for present and future
generations.” (www.resource-solutions.org)
Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE). A coalition of local governments, utilities, and citizens
working to promote the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency in the Rocky Mountain area.
(www.aspencore.org)
Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE). A comprehensive source of information on state,
local, utility, and selected federal incentives that promote renewable energy, as well as information and green power
programs. (www.dsireusa.org)
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). Part of the U.S. Department of Energy. EERE provides up to
date information on green power market trends through their Green Power Network.
(http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Green Power Partnership. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency runs the Green Power Partnership Program to assist and recognize organizations that demonstrate
environmental leadership by choosing green power. The website will help you make a better choice by providing
information about green power and how to purchase it. (http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Part of the U.S. Department of Energy, NREL collects data
annually on the nation’s utility green power programs, and publishes a ranking of the programs based on
participation, pricing, and sales. (http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2004/1404_green_pwr_programs.html)
Northwest Energy Coalition (NWEC). NWEC is an alliance of over 85 advocacy groups, progressive utilities,
and businesses from the Northwest, promoting conservation, renewables, consumer protection, and fish and wildlife
restoration on the Columbia and Snake rivers. (www.nwenergy.org)
Green Power Market Development Group (GPMDG). GPMDG is part of the World Resources Institute. This is
“a unique commercial and industrial partnership dedicated to building corporate markets for green power. The
Group is transforming energy markets to enable corporate buyers to diversify their energy portfolios with green
power and reduce their impact on climate change.” The group also recently released the Green Power Analysis
Tool, which allows corporate managers to easily calculate the economic and environmental effects of green power
projects. (www.thegreenpowergroup.org)
Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP). “REPP's goal is to accelerate the use of renewable energy by
providing credible information, insightful policy analysis, and innovative strategies amid changing energy markets
and mounting environmental needs by researching, publishing, and disseminating information, creating policy tools,
and hosting highly active, on-line, renewable energy discussion groups.” (www.repp.org)
29
Renewable Northwest Project (RNP). RNP is a broad coalition of public-interest organizations and energy
companies founded in 1994 to actively promote the development of the region's untapped renewable resources. RNP
has proven to be a forceful advocate for expanding solar, wind, and geothermal energy in the Northwest. RNP works
with local organizations and energy companies to get workable renewable projects in the ground, actively promotes
policies that support renewable energy development, encourages utilities and customer groups to invest in new
renewables, and nurtures the development of a market for renewables. (www.RNP.org)
The Marketer’s Marketers Group (MMG), part of the Center for Resource Solutions. “A forum for the
communications and marketing professionals of green power providers and utilities . . . currently composed of
representatives from 36 utilities and Electric Service Providers (ESPs) across the nation, and 2 Canadian utilities. To
date, the group has discussed topics such as designing effective direct mail campaigns, barriers to green power
marketing and how to overcome them, effective language to describe renewables, and partnering with NGOs for
effective green power outreach.” (www.resource-solutions.org/MMG.htm)
Western Resource Advocates (WRA). WRA (formerly Land and Water Fund of the Rockies) uses law,
economics, and policy analysis to protect land and water resources, protect essential habitats for plants and animals,
and assure that energy demands are met in environmentally sound and sustainable ways.
(www.westernresourceadvocates.org)
World Resources Institute (WRI). “The World Resources Institute's mission is to move
human society to live in ways that protect Earth's environment and its capacity to provide for the
needs and aspirations of current and future generations. Because people are inspired by ideas,
empowered by knowledge, and moved to change by greater understanding, WRI provides—and
helps other institutions provide—objective information and practical proposals for policy and
institutional change that will foster environmentally sound, socially equitable development.”
(www.wri.org)
30
917 SW Oak St, Suite 303 • Portland, OR 97205 • 503-223-4544
www.RNP.org
31