What Are Some Pros and Cons of Different Organizations that Assist With Purchasing Renewable Energy Credits?

Question

There are two organizations that I have been considering: 1) LiveNeutral (www.liveneutral.org); and 2) Native Energy (www.nativeenergy.com).

Some issues that I am considering are: 1) non-profit vs. for-profit; 2) credits purchased from the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) vs. credits created from renewable energy sources; 3) "imaginary" market vs. real-world projects; and 4) managed by educational institution vs. managed by Native American organization. Please feel free to suggest additional criteria.

Also, if there is another organization that you think I should consider, please let me know, and please provide your reasoning for the suggestion.

Thanks!

Answer 1

There is a table from the Dept. of Energy that compares various vendors and their costs.  See:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/ma...

In effect, you are donating money to fund alternative energy sources (wind, solar, hydro, biogas) that subsequently feed into the nat'l power grid.

Since you are donating money, you might as well get a charitable deducation on your income taxes.  The nativeenergy.com site won't give a definitive answer on this question, but suggests you can do it.

So go with a group which is a charitable non-profit organization that clearly states donations are tax deductible.  Look at your yearly electricity bills, multiply kilowatt hours by 2 cents and donate that much.

Unlike the carbon offset credits that are often nebulous and sometimes outright fraudulent, renewable energy credits (RECs) trace back to definite generating capacity that can be (and usually are) audited to make sure they are above board.  (The US gov't buys RECs, so any egregious fraud tends to get uncovered quickly.)

I think you are taking the right approach to renewable energy, and these projects will stand the test of time regardless of how the global warming issue pans out.

Despite all the bashing of the US, the graph at:

http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsr...

shows how the EU-25 don't come close to meeting their Kyoto promises.

The non-Kyoto country, the US, in 2006 DECREASED CO2 emissions in by 1.4%.

I guess that signing Kyoto and then reneging somehow makes countries feel noble and good about themselves.  But buying RECs that actually do something doesn't count.