Purchasing Renewable Energy

[fluffhead]

We have a plan here in Connecticut, and I know it exists in several other states as well, where you pay a little extra for your energy supply, and that "buys" more renewable energy which is put into the grid.
See http://www.smartpower.org
Essentially, you're not actually receiving the wind or solar or landfill gas power, but the amount that you purchase is supposedly bought from the renewable energy supplier by the utility company.
Now, I'm all for renewable energy, but this seems ridiculous to me. If I wanted to give charity to some renewable energy companies, then I would do it as a charitable gift to NRDC or something, and deduct it from my income. Paying more than other people for utilities just seems to me to be idiotic, unless I was actually purchasing the renewable energy for myself.
Once the system has shifted so that energy is purchased from renewable energy companies at some appreciable rate, I'd be happy to share the burden with my fellow taxpayers and pay more for energy until it becomes efficient enough to compete with fossil fuels.
You know what I'm saying?

Would you like to deal with the door-to-door solicitations I get for this? Please? And then they say, "it's only six dollars on average, don't you have six dollars?"

I wonder if they would like to just give me $6.

I agree that renewable energy is an important cause but I think the idea of paying extra to "buy" it is cheesy.

It must work though because some businesses here advertise doing so as their commitment to environmently-friendly business practices.

[spotty_dog]

I feel pretty strongly about "voting" with my dollar and paying to support the concepts I believe in. I think when we lived in Portland we opted into one of the energy programs that was equal to or barely more than the standard rate.

As I've been thinking about this since posting...there must be a better way around supporting renewable energy without the marketing set-up. Or another avenue besides a charitible contribution.

I wonder how much the rate-setting regulations keep energy companies from going about this a different way. Why not set a target amount of energy to be renewable and charge everyone the same rate?

[spotty_dog]

Because that would raise everyone's rates, and some people who just don't care about renewable resources would be in an uproar?

For example, I think that conventionally grown cotton has a horrible impact on the earth. I *choose* to buy organic much of the time, even though it means paying more. I don't think it would be feasible for *all* cotton sold to have to be 50% organic or something, raising prices for *all* cotton buyers. Does that make sense?

Oh yeah, I realize it would raise the rates for everyone, but applied across the board probably wouldn't be a whole lot, especially since they try to sell my on it being only so little. I think the difference between organic and convential cotton would be more substansial (though I understand your example).

Wasn't Bush just stumping for renewable energy? If it is really a national priority, then energy companies should be allowed to modify their rates to include more and more of it.

Honestly, part of what bugs me about this whole campaign is people coming to my door to sell it. I wonder how much of the program cost goes to their salary. And there is something about it that seems cheesy. But that's just me. :>

[fluffhead]

For example, I think that conventionally grown cotton has a horrible impact on the earth. I *choose* to buy organic much of the time, even though it means paying more. I don't think it would be feasible for *all* cotton sold to have to be 50% organic or something, raising prices for *all* cotton buyers. Does that make sense?

I think the essential difference is that when you buy organic cotton, you're receiving organic cotton. If you were to buy organic cotton, and receive conventional cotton, but the extra money you put in would go to put food on an organic cotton farmer's table, would that make sense?
I also think we should support the ideas in which we believe, and if I thought it were feasible in my region, I'd put solar panels on my roof and a windmill in my yard. But this scheme sounds to me like charity, and I don't do charity through my utility company. I send checks to NRDC and Sierra Club.

This is what my utility says (they explain it way down in the FAQs):

Green Source allows you to purchase 100 percent of your electricity from renewable sources and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

Sort of what Fluff's says -- you have the power to choose clean energy. Kind of.....

One of the options with my utility includes a monthly 2.50 contribution to the Nature Conservancy which is definitely a charitible contribution that would make sense to give directly.

[spotty_dog]

I think the essential difference is that when you buy organic cotton, you're receiving organic cotton. If you were to buy organic cotton, and receive conventional cotton, but the extra money you put in would go to put food on an organic cotton farmer's table, would that make sense?

Hm, the way I would understand it is more like, if I bought a lb. of cotton at the organic price, and I got mostly conventional cotton but exactly 1 lb. of organic cotton was distributed throughout all the conventional cotton that other people purchased as well. As long as the section of industry that produces the "good stuff" is getting economically rewarded and is able to continue producing the "good stuff", I think I'm OK with it. But I can see why it just seems...odd, as well.