Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

NC Greenpower Approved

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Ron Thigpen

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 1:11:16 PM1/28/03
to Chapel Hill Music Lovers
The NC Utilities Commission has approved the NC Greenpower proposal.
This is a statewide program that will give consumers the option to
purchase blocks of electricity from renewable sources. An average
household should be able to convert to 100% renewable power for about
$40 per month. The money goes to renewable suppliers, creating a new
market. There are issues of "purity" between different sources, and
things like net-metering are still TBD, but this looks like a good start.

Oddly, I'm now looking forward to paying more on my light bill.

Some background --

Mission:
NC GreenPower (NCGP) is a statewide program designed to improve the
quality of the environment by encouraging the development of renewable
energy resources through consumers' voluntary funding of green power
purchases by electric utilities in North Carolina. The program revenues
will help provide financial incentives for generators of electricity
from renewable sources.

More Here:
http://www.advancedenergy.org/greenpower/index.html

Program Plan:
http://www.advancedenergy.org/root/greenpower/program_plan_revised.pdf

NCUC Documents:
http://tinyurl.com/2o7q
(links are to TIFF files, save for viewing)

--rt

Jim Wagner

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 1:43:30 PM1/28/03
to
Ron Thigpen wrote:

So I read over those links to see what this is all about. It boils down
to you get to pay extra for power that isn't actually delivered to you
as a consumer to subsidize small "green" power companies putting what
power they can into the grid. Does anyone else see the real potential
for fraud in all this? The power companies will get to scrape off
"administration" fees for collecting your money and disbursing it
to the little greens. The little greens get a free ride.

If you live in the right place you can put up a wind generator and
as long as you put more power into the grid than you take out you'll
qualify for this money. Of course, you'd already qualified to be
paid by the power company for the power you put into the grid before
this program.

And the truth comes out - the power company already has to pay
anyone putting power into the grid, but now they have a high
sounding politically correct scam for getting the consumers
to pay that money for them. And the green consumers will line
up and beg to pay it for them so they can show they "care"
about the environment. Meanwhile, will the little green power
companies be held to the same environmental impact standards
that the big power companies are? Will they actually, in the end,
do more environmental harm than the big boys do.

And the real kicker here, is that the big power companies can
now avoid having to become more green because they can point
to the little greens and say, "look at what we are supporting
for you". As usual, everyone wins but the consumer.

It should be interesting to watch. Now where's my popcorn?

Jim


Ron Thigpen

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 3:34:15 PM1/28/03
to Chapel Hill Music Lovers
Jim Wagner wrote:

> So I read over those links to see what this is all about.

but apparently w/ low comprehension, or perhaps a little pre-judgement, eh?

> It boils down to you get to pay extra for power that isn't actually
> delivered to you as a consumer to subsidize small "green" power
> companies putting what power they can into the grid.

only it _is_ delivered to you. it's mixed up with all that other, dirty
electromotive force, natch. there's no percentage in metering
individual electrons or stringing a new network but it's easy enough to
account for net inflows and outflows.

by "subsidize", you mean freely choose to purchase a product at or above
cost? i fail to see where the subsidy is.

> The power companies will get to scrape off "administration" fees for
> collecting your money and disbursing it to the little greens.

do you really think the power companies lobbied for this because they
see it as a new income stream? go back and do some more reading.
they've been foot dragging on this for years.

> The little greens get a free ride.

the producers get access to a market that natural monopoly ownership had
excluded them from. they'll sell at a fair, regulated "avoided cost"
price. consumers see the benefit of additional choices. and anyone who
chooses not to participate gets the benefit of the cleaner air and
reduced dependence as shared public goods. if anything, it's the
non-participants who are getting a free ride.

> If you live in the right place you can put up a wind generator and
> as long as you put more power into the grid than you take out you'll
> qualify for this money. Of course, you'd already qualified to be
> paid by the power company for the power you put into the grid before
> this program.

only you're not free to do so, as NC doesn't yet have a net metering
law. and why are you bothered by the idea of small producers entering
the market?

> And the truth comes out - the power company already has to pay
> anyone putting power into the grid, but now they have a high
> sounding politically correct scam for getting the consumers
> to pay that money for them.

only they aren't required to provide any of this power from renewable
resources. perhaps you'd prefer a plan that required them to use
renewables and forced regulated price hikes on consumers? the point of
this program is to let consumers voluntarily put money into the system
and create a market for the green power product. this should encourage
more producers to entry.

> And the green consumers will line up and beg to pay it for them so
> they can show they "care" about the environment.

yeah, i hope so.

> Meanwhile, will the little green power companies be held to the same
> environmental impact standards that the big power companies are? Will
> they actually, in the end, do more environmental harm than the big
> boys do.

the environmental laws apply equally to all suppliers. consumers have
the choice of which source to support. green certification and
environmental advocacy groups will give them the means to stay informed.

none of these options are zero-emissions or zero-impact. producing
silicon solar cells has environmental and economic costs as does burning
coal. the fact remains that the life-cycle impacts of energy from these
green programs is much lower than those from fossil fuels.

once you factor in many costs of dependence and the answer becomes even
more clear. and don't forget the security argument where decentralized
power gives fewer attractive targets and provides system redundancy.

> And the real kicker here, is that the big power companies can
> now avoid having to become more green because they can point
> to the little greens and say, "look at what we are supporting
> for you". As usual, everyone wins but the consumer.

big power is under no less pressure to produce cleanly as a result of
this proposal. they are being required to support it by the NCUC.
they'll get some good PR from it, but i don't have a problem with that,
as they'll be doing a good thing. publicity can only benefit the
program by informing the public. i hope to hear some good discussion on
its merits and faults. merit we can bank on, faults we can work to fix.
and the consumer chooses for themselves what form of a "win" they
would like. some will win by participating, some will win by not.

i'm also curious to see how all of this plays out, but i think maybe i
have a different ending in mind. as i said before, it's far from
perfect, but it does seem like a good first step.

--rt


grady

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 4:19:32 PM1/28/03
to Chapel Hill Music Lovers
"Far from perfect" is an understatement; it annoys the crap out of me
that (a) the surcharge for "buying green" is so high and [more
importantly] (b) we *still* don't have net metering in NC. Although it
pains me to say it because I support the cause wholeheartedly, NC
Greenpower as it stands now is like saying "we've convinced the guards
to switch to hemp cat-o-nine-tails instead of leather for the daily
floggings, and they've also agreed to not urinate *as much* in our gruel."

I encourage anybody who wants to spend a little extra for green power to
consider going guerilla-solar
(http://www.homepower.com/magazine/guerrilla.cfm) or, still better, to
embrace the concept of conservation.

So if you're considering spending $40 a month in funny-money to buy the
same amount of power from "green" sources, please consider instead
spending $30 a month on compact fluorescent lights, an insulating
blanket for your hot water heater (and foam insulation for your
hot-water pipes, if they're accessible from your crawl space),
weatherstripping for your doors and windows, storm windows or plastic
sheeting for your windows in the winter, window fans instead of air
conditioning in the spring & fall, etc.

You can also do simple stuff like turning your thermostat down or off
when you're not home (I believe the rule of thumb is that it's
worthwhile if you're going to be gone for any time more than an hour,
although I think you could also argue that it's worthwhile if you're
going to be gone for *any* length of time), and/or putting on a sweater
in the winter, and taking off clothes in the summer.

Some combination of those things will result in the removal of more
"dirty power" from the grid than the NC Greenpower program will, and
they'll cost you less in the long run.

Ross

blandings dunman

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 4:30:06 PM1/28/03
to Chapel Hill Music Lovers
grady wrote:

> So if you're considering spending $40 a month in funny-money to buy the
> same amount of power from "green" sources, please consider instead
> spending $30 a month on compact fluorescent lights,

i did this, and now nearly all the lighting in my house is from compact
fluorescent bulbs. unfortunately, all my friends now complain about the
lighting in my house! (though it doesn't really bother me.)

have you found certain brands to be more effective than others?

have you tried the new full spectrum compact fluorescents? they're
pretty expensive as i recall.


grady

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 4:42:53 PM1/28/03
to Chapel Hill Music Lovers
Ha, well, I'm not allowed to put CFs in all the fixtures in my house
because the person I live with complains about the quality of the light ;-)

The most recent ones we got were closer to "full-spectrum" and they were
noticeably better than the earlier ones. I haven't bought any in over a
year, though (the damn things don't burn out, of course, so . . . ) so I
assume the latest-and-greatest are probably even better. Or so I have
been told.

Several of the most-often-used lights at our house are table lamps with
yr standard paper/cardboard/fiber/whatever shades, and CFs do fine in
those because the shade colors the light anyway. You can even get 3-way CFs.

Of course, just turning the damn lights off when you leave the room is
more efficient than using CFs anyway.

According to the government's EnergyStar website
(http://www.epa.gov/nrgystar/purchasing/6ccc_cflb.html), the current
standard for CFs is that they should be between 2700 and 3000K or
clearly state why not, and that they should have a color rendering index
of >=80 (where 100 is equivalent to incandescent, which is kind of
perverse, but whatever).

In *theory*, 2700K is near incandescent, color-wise, so all modern (that
is, brand-new) CFs should be a lot closer to yr friends' idea of
"pleasant" light than the older ones (and by older I mean as little as 2
or 3 years old).

But like I said, I haven't bought any in the past year or two, so I
dunno for sure.

xoxox

Ross

Ron Thigpen

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 6:10:53 PM1/28/03
to Chapel Hill Music Lovers
grady wrote:
>
>So if you're considering spending $40 a month in funny-money to buy the
>same amount of power from "green" sources, please consider instead
>spending $30 a month on compact fluorescent lights,

absolutely. spending on conservation: CF lighting, insulation,
efficient appliances, etc. is almost always where you'll get the most
bang for your buck. this is especially true when you are spending more
per watt. but, you run out of high cost/benefit items pretty quickly in
the short term. longer term, things like appliances are more viable.

the biggest limitation for me and CFs is the fact that they won't fit
into most of my fixtures. table lamps with wire loop shade holders are
a tough match as are most of my few overhead fixtures. i've done all
that i can.

one of my CFs gets both brighter and more yellow after it has been on
for a few seconds.

--rt


blandings dunman

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 8:59:49 PM1/28/03
to Chapel Hill Music Lovers
grady wrote:
>
> Ha, well, I'm not allowed to put CFs in all the fixtures in my house
> because the person I live with complains about the quality of the light ;-)
>
> The most recent ones we got were closer to "full-spectrum" and they were
> noticeably better than the earlier ones. I haven't bought any in over a
> year, though (the damn things don't burn out, of course, so . . . )

just watch leaving them on when the power goes down; lost one there. and
don't try putting them in the bathroom where you take showers; lost one
there, too. (yeah, i know the labels carry a warning about moisture-i
gambled.)

> so I
> assume the latest-and-greatest are probably even better. Or so I have
> been told.

mine are all about a year old. like i said, to me the light seems ok. i
keep things kinda dim and mossy about the house anyway.

>
> Several of the most-often-used lights at our house are table lamps with
> yr standard paper/cardboard/fiber/whatever shades, and CFs do fine in
> those because the shade colors the light anyway. You can even get 3-way CFs.
>
> Of course, just turning the damn lights off when you leave the room is
> more efficient than using CFs anyway.
>
> According to the government's EnergyStar website
> (http://www.epa.gov/nrgystar/purchasing/6ccc_cflb.html), the current
> standard for CFs is that they should be between 2700 and 3000K or
> clearly state why not, and that they should have a color rendering index
> of >=80 (where 100 is equivalent to incandescent, which is kind of
> perverse, but whatever).
>
> In *theory*, 2700K is near incandescent, color-wise, so all modern (that
> is, brand-new) CFs should be a lot closer to yr friends' idea of
> "pleasant" light than the older ones (and by older I mean as little as 2
> or 3 years old).

mine are all 2700K, so my friends are just a bunch of whiners!

i bet you can guess which one of my friends has fussed about the light
the most. ;)

blandings dunman

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 8:57:02 PM1/28/03
to Chapel Hill Music Lovers
Ron Thigpen wrote:

> one of my CFs gets both brighter and more yellow after it has been on
> for a few seconds.
>
> --rt

i'm sure glad you mentioned this, because it means i am NOT crazy after
all, at least in regard to this particular issue.

phew!


0 new messages