'green tariff' electricity

sandersp

On Ecotricity’s website (under Tariff Options) they say that 26% of the electricity you receive from them is provided by their own wind farms, the remainder is from conventional sources. How is this any better than buying “green electricity” from a conventional provider who is simply selling you the 5% green electricity they sell as part of the renewables obligation? At least with the latter (such as British Gas) you are getting 100% green electricity (until there are more than 5% of customers wanting the green tariff, at which point they would have to “dilute” it with conventional electricity). Is this a minefield or what?

Peter

andy_ross

website team CRAGger Glasgow Leamington

At our Glasgow CRAG meeting last week, we realised again how fuzzy we all were about the realities of green tariffs. In the end, we decided (rightly or wrongly) to fully rate all tariffs except Ecotricity, Good Energy and NPowerJuice which each (rightly or wrongly) will get a 10% token CO2 reduction this coming year. Maybe after reading this thread there will be a proposal at our next meeting to ditch the 10%!

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

As the article says, power companies get Renewable Obligations Certificates (ROCs) per unit of green electricity they generate – but they get to sell them twice! Once to companies who use them to fulfill their obligations under the Renewables Obligation, and once again to consumers as “100% renewable” electricity! I was never sure how this was even legal?!

Any real boost you give over and above the Renewables Obligation is given the number of ROCs that electricity companies “retire” or “throw away” (i.e. only sell once) as a proportion of the tariff you order. Last time I looked, it was 7% at Good Energy – so your 10% might be quite near the mark, Andy.

I’ll try to find the source for this.

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

Ethiscore.org (largely based on FoE research) provide a decent overview and summary table of the green electrcity suppliers at: http://www.ethiscore.org/info.aspx?info=reports/full/greenelectricity .

They support the ROC retirement method as a robust way of accounting for the extra demand created by switching to a green tarriff.

I think this is slightly out-of-date (2005), so it may be worth giving the companies a ring-round?

Mary Paul

They are the only one of the energy companies that are committed to building “NEW” renewable energy supply. This is a link to “WhichEnergy” who compares the different energy suppliers. They show how much each company reinvested in new supplies or how little they didn’t invest: http://www.whichgreen.com/compare_green_energy_suppliers/green_gauge_ene…

Many of the other energy suppliers were just using the existing renewable power supplies (dams) to supply the renweable energy and not investing in making more green supply sources as Ecotricity is doing.

There isn’t enough renewable supply from their own wind turbines yet but they are have approval to build 27 new turbines in 2007 totaling 30,000 MW of energy. (Ecologist magazine March 2007).

Mary Paul

robinsmith3

website team CRAGger Islington Leeds Wokingham WSP

There is also a green incentive to create a renewables “demand” as well as a “supply” (Ecotricity). Ie some of the co’s will use your money to “retire” carbon and ROC’ and CCL certificates from the market, thus creating a greater demand for them. Both encourage greenism which cant be bad.

What is lost on the ROC’s thing is that everyone is paying for at least 5% of the supply whoever they go through, its an expensive subsidy to admin, skews any market because its a subsidy lining the pockets of Ecotricity and taxing the public indirectly without their explicit knowledge. If ever there was a stealth tax, this is it!

See here for latest news on EU renewables targets. I predict this will deliver another failure to regulate because its skewed politically towards renewables rather than low carbon. Industry and commerce wont buy it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6433503.stm

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

Good point, I agree Mary.

I did take the whichgreen site with a pinch of salt because it is run by Ecotricity themselves. Still, that’s not to say it’s necessarily wrong. There must be some other independent figures which can confirm this somewhere …

Rick M

CRAGger Sheffield area

See www.energywatch.org.uk/help_and_advice/green_tariffs/available_tariffs/b…

This states that the British Gas Zero Carbon tariff retires
12% of ROCs over & above the Renewable Obligation.
Accessed 17/11/07

Incidentally, where does the 0.43 figure come from in the
above and what is the logic.

Rick (new CRAGger, Sheffield)

Jamie

CRAGger Hackney CRAG Wychwood

The 0.43 figure comes from DEFRA as the grid average fuel mix, but it has now been revised upwards to 0.527 (see http://wiki.co2.dgen.net/index.php/ActOnCO2_Methodology#Grid_Electricity). Many experts think it should be higher still.

By the way, I would disagree slightly with John’s comment that www.electricityinfo.org is completely useless because it gives a full breakdown of suppliers’ fuel mix. That means that John’s methodology could be extended to not simply take into account a simple ‘non-renewable’ coefficient, and instead look at the contribution of different generation types: for example, a supplier with 10% renewables and 90% coal would not be better than a supplier with 8% renewables but 92% gas (because gas is much cleaner at generating electricity than coal).

Rick M

CRAGger Sheffield area

Ah ! Thanks Jamie. I see.

If a simple non-renewable co-efficient is used based on a national average across all suppliers, the Good Energy tariff (for example) comes out with a higher kg CO2 per KWh value than some of the suppliers with lower carbon general fuel mixes (for example Energywatch quote British Gas’ general fuel mix as 0.382 kg/KWh at
http://www.energywatch.org.uk/help_and_advice/green_tariffs/fuel_mix_dis… )

The problem with this is more obvious still if we take the British Gas Zero Carbon tariff and use the revised grid average fuel mix :
0.527 * [1- ( 1 * 0.12)] = 0.599 kg CO2 / Kwh

This is a higher value than British Gas’ own general fuel mix containing 4% renewables even though the Zero Carbon tariff includes 19.9% electricity for which ROCs have been retired (7.9% for the 2007-8 Renewable Obligation plus the 12% voluntarily retired) !!!

So I suggest using the suppliers own general fuel mix.

For British Gas Zero Carbon tariff :
0.382 * { 1- ( 1 * 0.12 ) } = 0.336 Kg CO2 / KWh

For Good Energy :
0.0 * { 1- ( 1 * 0.05 ) } = 0.0

For RSPB Energy from Scottish & Southern Enery (SSE):

0.489 * { 1 – (1 * 0.1 ) } = 0.440 kg CO2 / KWh

In this last calculation I am trusting the statement at
www.energywatch.org.uk/help_and_advice/green_tariffs/available_tariffs/s…
that 10% of ROCs are retired over and above the statutory requirement.

But I am fairly new to this. So what do other people think ?

Rick M

CRAGger Sheffield area

My understanding of the National Consumer Council report Green Electricity : Reality or Rhetoric was that suppliers could sell ROC’s over & above the Renewable Obligation (RO) plus any voluntary percentage they retired.

For example, Good Energy supply electricity from 100% renewable sources, but after the RO (currently 7.9%) and 5% voluntary retired, can sell 87.9% of the ROCs to other suppliers. Those other suppliers can use the ROCs to meet their RO where they cannot generate or buy enough electricity from renewable sources that qualify for ROCs. So, the CO2 savings that can be attributed to a supply like Good Energys are small (footnote 18 to the report gives a worked example).

However, British Gas’ overall fuel mix contains only 4% renewables – not enough to meet the RO (Source : Energywatch link in previous posting). So, this particular supplier will have to buy ROCs in the market (or pay into OFGEMs buy-out fund) rather than sell a surplus. I would therefore now argue that the electricity in British Gas’ Zero Carbon tariff can reasonably be considered to have zero CO2 because none of the ROCs associated with the 100% renewable electricity tariff should be sold to another supplier.

Scottish & Southern Energy who supply RSPB Electricity have more than the current RO in their overall fuel mix and so would be able to sell surplus ROC’s.

So, I suggest :

British Gas Zero Carbon : 0.0 kg CO2 per Kwh

Good Energy 0.527 * { 1 – ( 1*0.05 ) } = 0.501 kg CO2 per Kwh

RSPB Energy 0.527 * { 1 – ( 1*0.10) } = 0.474 kg CO2 per Kwh

I think this would need to be reviewed as the both the RO and supplier fuel mixes change.

Any thoughts from anyone else ?

Rick M

CRAGger Sheffield area

I see a flaw in my argument which I feel obliged to correct at the risk of this thread looking like its turning into a monologue :-)

While British Gas might not be selling the surplus ROCs associated with its Zero Carbon tariff to other suppliers, they should go part way to meeting its obligation in respect of its ordinary or brown electricity supply. So, I think it would be better to use British Gas’ general fuel mix currently 0.382 Kg CO2 / Kwh.

For British Gas Zero Carbon tariff :
0.382 * { 1- ( 1 * 0.12 ) } = 0.336 Kg CO2 / KWh

The other two are as before

Good Energy 0.527 * { 1 – ( 1*0.05 ) } = 0.501 kg CO2 per Kwh

RSPB Energy 0.527 * { 1 – ( 1*0.10) } = 0.474 kg CO2 per Kwh

Anyone disagree ?

john ackers

website team CRAGger Islington

I think the numbers for Good Energy and RSPB Energy might be correct but neither supplier states exactly or guarantees what percentage of ROCs are retired, we are relying on third party websites.

Good Energy say today on their own web site that “we ‘retire’ some of these certificates from the market”. Green Electricity Marketplace say here that Good Energy retire an additional 2.1% of ROCs not 5%.

RSPB say nothing on their web site about ROCs. Try this search link.

Rick, can you explain why you have singled out British Gas Zero carbon for special treatment. I don’t think it makes any difference whether a supplier has its own source of renewable electricity and so is able to sells ROCs (e.g. Scottish and Southern) or it buys ROCs.

robinsmith3

website team CRAGger Islington Leeds Wokingham WSP

Not sure if you are aware of this. I was energy manager at a local authority for a few months recently procuring all their energy. One of our priorities was to source more than the obligatory 10% public sector for green. But when we asked the wholesalers for a quote (it will always cost a lot more, nearly double usually) they said “You’re out of luck. All the green electricity for next year has already been sold!” It turns out demand is outstripping supply and no more supply is being created (with new windmills, bio burners etc) Its not economical to do it! An interesting anecdote.

I made a small table you can review here to show the real carbon content of electricity supply. I choose Ecotricity because it reduces my footprint by about 50% if you include the green and nuclear components. Unfortunately British Energy is only available as a business tariff. The rest are so close its moot

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pYDw6GR4D-S6Yqm0JoDijGg

Cheers

john ackers

website team CRAGger Islington

I think individual suppliers fuel mix is a bit of a minefield; yes electricity generated from natural gas emits less CO2 per KwH than coal but natural gas is a premium fuel and the UK has squandered its North Sea reserves over the last 30 years to heat our shoddy housing. In the next few years, there might be natural gas fed, fuel cell based, domestic CHP units on the market and perhaps we should be conserving (our remaining and Russia’s) gas resources for that use.

I think we have to accept that the energy mix in the UK as a whole is driven by external factors like the current ROC scheme and the retirement of existing nuclear capacity. Some argue that the grid is going to be supply constrained in the next decade. So if 5 million households chose to purchase electricity from a supplier with a high gas component, another 5 million households would nominally be taking electricity from the coal stations.

We are also not considering when that electricity is being consumed. Electricity consumed in the middle of the night is more likely to come from one of the remaining nuclear stations or a large coal station like Drax that service the 24 hour UK base load. Electricity consumed at 8.10AM on a cold morning might come from a fast response gas turbine station that has only be running for an hour.

Individuals should choose the supplier that they feel most comfortable with. But I think we need to keep CRAG accounting as simple as possible and only suppliers with very clear evidence of lower carbon emissions should get a discount from the 0.527 Kg CO2 per KwH.

Rick M

CRAGger Sheffield area

Hi John, I was indeed relying on the Energywatch website for the percentage of ROCs retired over & above the Renewable Obligation because I felt, as Energywatch is the official consumer watchdog for the UK domestic electricity market, it was reasonable to treat it as a trusted source. However, I have since found that Good Energy publish an environmental report which includes verification by an apparently independent auditor of the percentage of ROCs retired Good Energy environmental reports. See the 2006 report. Disappointingly there is a discrepancy between the date ranges in item 4 of the auditors report and the following paragraph. But the best we can say is that the figures are not really very up to date. I will write to them.

I thought I’d explained why I treated BG differently. Whereas Good Energy & SSE supply more renewable electricity than the RO, BG supply less.

According to the Energywatch site, for the year ended 31/3/07, British Gas’ overall electricity contained 4% from renewables. This was less than the Renewable Obligation for the same period of 6.7%. To quote from Virgina Grahams report for the National Consumer Council Green Electricity Reality or Rhetoric?“Generators sell the Renewables Obligation Certificates to suppliers, usually with the associated electricity. ... Suppliers must present the required number of Renewable Obligation Certificates to OFGEM to comply with their obligation. Since the obligation is set at a higher level than the available supply, it will not be possible for all suppliers to comply using Renewable Obligation Certificates. Some will have to ‘buy out’ instead. The cost of the buying out the obligation is set by the government. The proceeds of the ‘buy out’ fund are redistributed among the suppliers who have presented Renewable Obligation Certificates.” ( Page 4, Legislative Framework, Renewables Obligation, second paragraph.) The argument I put in my postings of 8th & 12th December rests on the assumption that a supplier in British Gas’ position will retain all the ROCs associated with the renewable electricity it supplied for presentation to OFGEM because it does not have an excess of ROCs above the Renewable Obligation (RO) to sell to other suppliers. Good Energy and Scottish & Southern Energy (who supply RSPB electricity) are not in this position since they supply more renewable electricity than the RO and, I assume, might sell the excess ROCs. I have to admit though that I am only using what I take to be “common sense” here and I am no expert in the renewable energy market.

For its Zero Carbon supply, British Gas commits to retire 12% of the ROCs above the RO (7.9% for 2007/8). So, for 2007/8 80.1% of any ROCs associated with electricity supplied under its Zero Carbon tariff could be used by it towards meeting its RO in respect of its general supply. The Fuel Mixture Disclosure regulations mean that we will, in due course, have a kg CO2 per Kwh figure for British Gas overall supply for 2007/8. ( In my posting of 12th December I used the BG figure for 2006/7 from the Energywatch site of 0.382 kg CO2 per Kwh in error. According to Centrica the tariff was only launched 31 July 2007. So, I think the 2007/8 kg CO2 per Kwh figure should be used when it becomes available later in 2008. )

Because fuel mixture disclosure figures appear to be published sometime after the period to which they refer, the members of a CRAG that agrees to allow the different kg CO2 per Kwh figures of different suppliers to be taken into account, would need to keep a record of Kwh for each supplier & tariff they purchased electricity from during the accounting year for calculation of the CO2 content when the fuel mixture disclosure figures were published. For example, if a member switched from eON {in disgust at their plan to build a new coal fired power station in Kent say :-) } to British Gas Zero Carbon tariff, the data that would be needed would include the final meter reading on their eON account, eONs general fuel mix CO2 figure for that year and the reduced CO2 figure for the British Gas Zero Carbon tariff.

My initial view is that it is worth taking the different kg CO2 per Kwh figures from different suppliers into account. I would like to believe that I can a make a difference by choosing a certain supplier &/or tariff (I am currently a long standing Good Energy customer by the way). A number of carbon calculators including the Carbon Account mentioned in the Big Green Challenge thread use AMEE for their underlying data See AMEE. AMEE seeks to use different figures for different suppliers although their data did not look up to date when I viewed it in December See discussion. (They have undertaken to address this). If AMEE do due diligence so that their electricity data is reliable and we use a carbon calculator that takes its data from this central source & calculates CO2 according to the fuel mix disclosure year and tariff data, then calculation for CRAG members need not be onerous.

Rick M

CRAGger Sheffield area

Following John Ackers posting 18:30 2 Jan, I e-mailed Good Energy to query the percentage of ROCs they retire above the Renewable Obligation. I have cut & pasted my enquiry followed by Good Energys reply below :

“Hi, I am a long standing Good Energy customer and I have been searching your website to try and find definitive and up-to-date figures for the percentage of ROCs you retire above & beyond the Renewable Obligation (RO).

In the latest published Environmental Report

http://www.good-energy.co.uk/PDF/GE_enviro_report_2006.pdf

the Independent Accountants Report dated 8th March 2007 states in item 4

‘ for the period 1st April 2004 to 31st March 2005 Good Energy Ltd surrendered sufficient renewable obligations (ROC) to meet the Governments target of 4.9% of Mwh usage for the period and held sufficient ROC to retire a further 5.1% ROC equivalents for the period’

Can you give me more up to date information please ?

Do you have a firm committment to continue retiring 5% of ROCs in excess of the RO ?

Using ‘Retire ROCs’ in the Quick Search facility on your website today I get :

‘...we retire some of these certificates from the market…’ at

http://www.good-energy.co.uk/renewable_energy

and at http://www.good-energy.co.uk/factfile_renewables under the sub-heading difference between ROCs and LECs

‘Therefore, in addition to meeting the small percentage required by the government, Good Energy retires extra ROCs up to an equivalent of 10% ‘

Thanks

Rick “

Reply from Good Energy :

“Thanks for your question – I will ask our web manager to update our position on ROCs.

We do have a firm commitment to retire ROCs and our position is detailed below:

As part of the Government’s target to have 15% of the UK’s electricity generated from renewable sources by 2015, all electricity providers are required to submit a growing percentage of Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) which they can buy from renewable generators. They can also choose to pay a buyout. Good Energy goes above and beyond the percentage required by the government (5.5% in 2005/2006), by retiring an extra 5% ROCs (i.e. 10.5% in 2005/6). This reduces the number of ROCs available and helps raise the market price for renewable generators and attract further investment into the renewables market.

In 2007/2008 the requirement is 7.9% so Good Energy will retire a total of 12.9% of ROCs.

If you have any further questions please let me know.

Kind regards

Anna Roberts
Customer Care Manager “

john ackers

website team CRAGger Islington

Rick, I think we both agree that using some green tariffs slightly reduces carbon emissions and I am guessing that most CRAGs do take the existing green tariffs into account. However there is no evidence that switching from one brown supplier to another has any impact whatsoever on the overall supply mix and I don't think you are offering any.

Most commentators appear to believe that the retirement of the ROCs is the key issue. A green tariff that retires ROCs for all of the electricity delivered to its customers would nominally be a carbon free source.

So members of a CRAG could decide to purchase their electricity from any old brown supplier; then the group as a whole, at the time of settlement could reduce its carbon from electricity to zero by simply purchasing ROCs to match the group consumption.

ROCs this month cost £50 (for 1 MWh). That works out to be 5p per KWh. 1 KWh of brown electricity results in 0.5 Kg of carbon, that's equivalent to 2.5p per Kg of carbon - cheap, as Islington and other CRAGs charge 5p per Kg for carbon credits. There is a small snag, trying to find a source of ROCs that does not charge £300 per ROC sale.

andrewc

Thanks to rick m who brought this discussion to my attention. It’s relevant to the data we’ve put in AMEE on this page: http://wiki.co2.dgen.net/index.php/Suppliers. I’d welcome any comments on that page and its discussion page. Starting point for AMEE is here: http://blog.co2.dgen.net.

Rick M

CRAGger Sheffield area

I was intrigued by Johns suggestion of purchasing ROC’s, but the thought of purchasing several hundred of them at auction (minimum lot size several hundred) seemed daunting. So, I wrote back to Good Energy who collect ROCs from their small home generators to ask (A) if they accept the findings of the National Consumer Council report (Green Electricity : Reality or Rhetoric) on the CO2 savings of green tariffs and (B) if they would consider selling ROCs to their customers. That was 3 weeks ago. Despite chasing them last week, I have not received even a partial reply.

Incidentally, if 1kWh of brown electricity results in about 0.5 kg CO2*
then I think 2 Kwh of the same electricity results in about 1 kg of CO2
and so, if a ROC cost about £50 (for 1000 Kwh) or 5p per Kwh,
the notional ROC price per kg CO2 would be that for 2 Kwh i.e. 10p per kg CO2.

• grid average mix from Annex 3 June 2007 at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/envrp/pdf/conversion-factor…

robinsmith3

website team CRAGger Islington Leeds Wokingham WSP

Folks take a look at this. I called them on it as I’m at an impasse with my power footprint. Currently I base it purely on what they declare in the energy mix and don’t factor ROC’s. I’d be willing to change if the rationale for doing so made sense.

So would welcome your comments on the response below?

Cheers

“Dear Mr Smith

Thank you for your recent email to Ecotricity and I hope I can answer your questions.

We do not retire any ROCs. We retain enough of them (a little over 20% of the total we are awarded – for 2006/7) to ensure that we are 100% compliant with our company’s RO target. We have no need to buy ROCs from third parties or to pay to buy-out.

The RO is a financial obligation (albeit one that ultimately supports new renewable build). The RO can be satisfied by using two currencies, namely cash or ROCs. Either is acceptable. Money we earn from selling excess ROCs helps make way for financing new builds of renewable energy. ROCs make renewable energy projects bankable (that’s the whole point of the RO) and if we didn’t sell them we wouldn’t be able to build the turbines.

Some suppliers have suggested that retiring ROCs shifts the market by creating extra demand for ROCs that will then encourage new renewable build. This is misleading. In an annual market of over 14 million ROCs, there is already considerable under supply. Retiring a handful of ROCs will make no material difference to the market dynamics.

We are hoping to release a more official statement in the future regarding ROC’s.

If you have any further information please feel free to give us a call on 08000 326 100 or send us an email to info@ecotricity.co.uk

Kind regards

Ecotricity Customer Experience Team
ecotricity
tel
08000 326 100
email
info@ecotricity.co.uk
www
.ecotricity.co.uk
“

Jessica

website team CRAGger Islington

Robin – Thanks for posting the above. I thought I would post this email I got today from Ecotricity explaining their price rises and about their charging and investment policy in general.

Jessica R

RE: A message from Ecotricity, 23 January 2008

Dear XX,

You’ve probably seen or heard some of the recent press reports concerning rising electricity prices.

There are two factors behind this as far as we can see. The first is the continuing soaring global energy demand coupled with insecurity in the places where most of the world’s energy comes from. Oil is now at record levels and this always impacts on the price of gas which in turn impacts the price of electricity.

The second factor is perhaps not all bad news, new EU regulations on carbon emissions are beginning to bite, and this is pushing up the price of electricity generation significantly now. The upside of this is that renewable forms of energy and energy efficiency measures are both better enabled in such conditions. Of course the downside is dearer energy. In effect it’s a carbon tax sending signals to the market, not unlike the duty on petrol – it will result in more efficient and cleaner technology, as we have seen with cars.

Npower announced price rises early in January followed by EDF two weeks later and then British Gas, the rest of the Big Six will join them in the coming days.

You may recall that, for our New Energy tariff, we pledge to match exactly the standard price of each regional supplier in the UK. Our price matching is not just a matter of policy, it is necessary as price rises for conventional electricity always affect the price of green electricity in the marketplace. And we do not generate all of our own green electricity yet – though we are making significant progress towards that as you will see from our latest annual report which we are about to send out.

To be able to continue to do the work we do and to be continually building new sources of this clean energy, we need to match the movement in the market price. We hope you understand that.

This simple pegging of prices enables us to spend more per customer each year on new renewable energy than any other electricity supplier in the UK. We’ve just published the figures for 2007 and they show that we spent £550 last year per customer building new sources of green electricity, the Big Six barely spent £25 between them and none of the small ‘green electricity suppliers’ even spent a penny! So once again we spent more per customer than all of the UK’s electricity suppliers put together, twenty times more in fact.

Wind energy holds great potential for the UK. It offers us the opportunity to be energy independent once more, if we utilise it to the full – the UK actually has enough wind to power the whole country several times over. It could be our new North Sea oil.

To realise this goal and to effectively combat climate change we need to be building new sources of green energy to replace the conventional ones. This is what we do at Ecotricity, we take your electricity bill and we create new green energy sources with it.

We’ve set out details of the new prices below. Just to be absolutely clear our new prices are exactly the same as EDF’s standard tariff and so being with Ecotricity won’t cost you any more than if you had conventional electricity from the regional supplier.

Should you have any questions or want to discuss anything with us please contact us on 08000 326 100 or send an email to info@ecotricity.co.uk

Best Regards

Dale Vince OBE

Managing Director

The new price in your region:

You live in EDF’s London region and we’re matching their price for conventional electricity.

From 8th February 2008 your revised price will be:

Standing Charge per year £0.00

Standard Rate Customers

Day Rate (pence per unit) 16.98p for the first 900 units and

10.35p for all units over 900

Economy 7 Customers

Day Rate (pence per unit) 18.66p for the first 900 units and

11.19p for all units over 900 Night Rate (Economy 7 only) 4.47p

All prices include VAT.

robinsmith3

website team CRAGger Islington Leeds Wokingham WSP

Thanks not got my letter yet. But wow, 16p per kWh, thats a whopping 60% increase. I guess electricity price is still quite inelastic.

There’s much blame going on here a bit like the pilot who always blames ATC for delays (:

Hubris here: “has enough wind to power the whole country several times over” So where is it then?

But good that they are creating more supply. What he doesn’t say is that they are deliberately holding back further supply because they would make less revenue if they built too many wind mills. This has something to do with the RO again, how it is a flawed subsidy (he calls it a tax as it is to us) and how the RO limits the amount of supply that it makes economic sense to deliver.

Rick M

CRAGger Sheffield area

I wrote to Good Energy on January 10th asking whether they accepted the findings of the National Consumer Council report on the CO2 emissions figures for renewable electricity tariffs (i.e. that they are not zero) and whether they would consider selling their customers ROCs to overcome the issue identified in the report. This is the reply I got from Anna Roberts on Monday 4th Feb :

“Dear Rick,

Sorry for getting back to you so late. You have raised a very valid question which I am happy to answer. I would also be happy to discuss it on the phone if we manage to catch each other.

The NCC report is very helpful in laying out the full details of each green tariff – there had not been such transparency before this report apart from when Friends of the earth ran their league table. Having said that the issue that you highlight regarding CO2 saving presents a misunderstanding within the industry – that between CO2 saving (actual carbon avoidance) and additionality (investing in new generation). I hope the details below help to clarify the difference and explain why Good Energy’s tariff does not emit CO2.

Good Energy supplies electricity from renewable technologies; including wind, solar and small-scale hydro. The evidence we hold to prove this is called REGO (Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin).

A REGO is the outcome of a European Directive aimed to help consumers know where their electricity comes from. We believe they are the only acceptable proof that a company has supplied electricity from a renewable source* because they cannot be double counted.

If your electricity supplier holds 100% REGOs, like Good Energy does then the electricity supplied is responsible for emitting zero kg of carbon dioxide per kWh supplied**. Therefore Good Energy’s customers have no carbon dioxide emissions from their electricity use.

• Under the Electricity (Fuel Mix Disclosure) Regulations 2005 http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file21794.pdf

• See the DTI Fuel Mix Disclosure annual data table http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/policy-strategy/consumer-policy/fuel-mix/pa…

ROCs (Renewable Obligation Certificates) are a market based mechanism to encourage and reward the generation of renewable energy. They are not linked in any way to carbon and do not demonstrate megawatt hours produced. In fact some renewable sources are not entitled to ROCs because they are legacy installations that do not contribute to the new carbon reduction targets, e.g. large-scale hydro. Some ROCs are worthless, e.g. co-fired biomass and some ROCs are worth more, e.g. Scottish wave and tidal.

ROCs are a very important mechanism as they promote investment in renewables. Our tariff is “additional” because it does more than just supplying 100% renewable electricity – bringing additional environmental benefits.

Good Energy goes above and beyond the percentage required by the government (5.5% in 2005/2006), by retiring an extra 5% ROCs (i.e. 10.5% in 2005/6). This reduces the number of ROCs available and helps raise the market price for renewable generators and attract further investment into the renewables market.

As the NCC report indicates, ROCs are very expensive so if we were to retire 100% ROCs we would need to increase our prices to a level where most customers wouldn’t be able to afford our 100% renewable electricity. We want as many people as possible to cut their carbon dioxide emissions which is why we only have a relatively small premium.

I hope this clarifies the point, but please do call if you wish to discuss it. “

Anna presents a plausible argument for 0.0 Kg CO2/KWh. My first thoughts are that it would be good to know if OFGEM &/or Energywatch have a view on the Good Energy and NCC’s different positions. Lastly, as a Good Energy customer I was recently asked to complete an online questionnaire which, amongst other things, asked if I would be interested in buying offsets from Good Energy if they were to sell them. This would probably be cheaper than buying ROCs but I replied that any offsets would have to be from the Clean Development Mechanism.

Does anyone else have views on Good Energys case for 0.0 kg CO2 / KWh ?

Rick M

CRAGger Sheffield area

OFGEM have been consulting on a new code of practice. It was due out in February but appears to have been delayed. To follow the debate so far see
OFGEM site

I’m hoping this should sort out the ROCs debate once & for all.

shane

website team CRAGger Bedford

I can’t help but think that the government position expressed in this thread and the thread about losing 40% of our energy generation capacity are in someway connected in the bid for new nuclear. The official line that there’s no carbon accounting insentive to buy green tariffs, is in my opinion, under-promoting large scale renewables and supporting the drive for nuclear.

In so many buildings onsite electricity generation is a poor option in terms of carbon/cost/energy/planning permission, when green tariffs are viable This is of course even after energy management and efficiency measures have been implemented.
We have a small window of opportunity to grow large scale renewables before they’re deemed as incapable of filling the electricity gap (probably already closed), exentuated by the closure of major plants, and nuclear will be the “logical” choice.

I’m fully in support of people being able to demonstrate, on their carbon balance sheet, some form of reduction derived from using green tariffs, independent of DEFRA’s stance old and new. The question, which may be answered in CRAG discussions, is how to do it credibly and in a way that is simple enough to be promoted and significantly adopted.
Shane

Rick M

CRAGger Sheffield area

Hi Shane, The argument against green tariffs being counted as zero carbon first came from Virgina Graham at the National Consumer Council in a report which the OFGEM review seems to have been a reaction to. (See John Ackers posting of 22/10/2007 on this thread for a link to it). As a Good Energy customer I was reluctant to accept Virgina Grahams argument but once I got my head around the implications of the trading of ROCs, I had to acknowledge that she was right. OFGEM initially took up a different position to Virginia Grahams but changed to their current stance in July. I looked at some of the responses to OFGEMs July proposals including that of Which? (formerly The Consumers Association). Which? seemed to go-along with OFGEM. It was suppliers like Good Energy who objected. So, while the new guidelines might be to the advantage of nuclear, I think they are right.

The guidelines (more details in separate entry below) do provide suppliers with the option of using carbon offsetting (subject to the offsetting scheme meeting government standards) and this could be a way for CRAGs to give their members credit for choosing a green tariff. However, personally, I am highly dubious about carbon offsetting schemes and would want to take a very close look at what is offered.

Rick M

CRAGger Sheffield area

What all this boils down to is that, if CRAGs wish to follow the UK industry regulator guidance, they should count the carbon intensity (kg CO2 per kWh) of all grid tariffs (green or otherwise) as the UK grid average.

I have found UK grid electricity average figures at

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/envrp/conversion-factors.ht…

The Guidelines to Defra’s Greenhouse Gas Conversion Factors for Company Reporting make it clear that the conversion factors are suitable for voluntary schemes like CRAGs.

Sheffield CRAG has adopted the 5 year rolling average for grid electricity for its first carbon year ending 31/3/09 (0.537 kg Co2 per kWh). This should smooth out fluctuations in the annual figures while reflecting any more sustained changes such as a move towards a higher proportion of electricity from renewables.

When I looked at a few carbon calculators 6 months ago (book form & on-line) most treated tariffs where the customers consumption was matched 100% by electricity from renewable sources as zero carbon. The Carbon Account (which Sheffield CRAG are using) was among these and, although its Change Supplier facility listed UK Average as an option, the value used is currently much lower than the DEFRA figure(at about 0.323 kg CO2 per kWh ). I have sent Carbon Account developers Torchbox a message via the sites Contact Us facility FAO Tom Dyson. I have asked if Torchbox will change the carbon intensity of all electricity suppliers / tariffs to the UK grid average and amend the UK Average figure to one consistent with DEFRAs.

shane

website team CRAGger Bedford

hi there rick, i’ve not read the whole thread but in general i think the debate is still very open as to if the DEFRA figures are the best way. i for one disagree with the 0.537 figure and support any calculation that attempts a more site specific approach. the DEFRA figure promotes the continued status quo

Rick M

CRAGger Sheffield area

Hi Shane, I respect your view point and this is an issue that I’ve given a great deal of thought to. I do urge you to read the National Consumer Council report if you have not already done so.

Given the official position from the industry regulator OFGEM that no grid tariff is zero carbon, I think it would be irresponsible to encourage CRAG members to sign up to a “100% from renewables” tariff in the belief that they can reduce their personal CO2. It might even encourage some to substitute electricity use for gas ( as it did me ). I think we should be encouraging people

(1) to reduce their consumption of electricity – even if from renewables
(2) support the expansion of renewables in other ways such as :

• a local community renewables group like http://www.torrshydro.co.uk/ or http://sheffieldcommunityrenewables.org.uk/

• helping pro campaigns for local renewable schemes that appear to be reasonable – wind farm planning applications are often subject to well organised anti – campaigns.

• helping campaigns against dirty or dangerous alternatives

I believe Good Energy have occasionally offered new shares to their customers to raise finance. As they now have planning permission to “repower” their wind farm in north Cornwall, another opportunity may arise which people could consider.

shane

website team CRAGger Bedford

Hi rick,
we have a different perspective on this one.
In my opinion you should do all the above and purchase a green tariff and some form of carbon reduction should be accounted, on your footprint balance sheet, because of the green tariff. Exactly how you quantify it is up for debate.

Am i missing something here – a 100% renewable tariff, is it not renewable energy just generated offsite??
are offstead still confusing the idea of ROC’s and REC’s into the debate?

Your comments are exactly what i was worried about. because of, what is in my mind, largely a theoretical debate about how to quantify the CO2 benefits, greens are not only “not” promoting green tariffs, they’re doubting their validity as a source of carbon reduction.

you’ve suggested;

“(1) to reduce their consumption of electricity – even if from renewables”

that’s a given, we can’t simply replace brown with green energy, we have no option but to reduce demand.

“(2) support the expansion of renewables in other ways such as : * a local community renewables group like http://www.torrshydro.co.uk/ or http://sheffieldcommunityrenewables.org.uk/ * helping pro campaigns for local renewable schemes that appear to be reasonable – wind farm planning applications are often subject to well organised anti – campaigns.”

i agree, i’m currently driving a project with h2ope (who helped bring Torrs to life) to install a community owned hydro project on our local river. But the key question is, who do you think will buy this “green” electricity? and do you quantify this as zero carbon? because we’ll send it through the grid and sell it through a PPA to GOOD ENERGY!!!! who will sell it as a GREEN TARIFF, that is if they still want it, as hypothetically, if there’s a drop off in demand from customers canceling their accounts because they feel there’s no carbon savings, there’d be no purchase of our energy.

you also said;

“ * helping campaigns against dirty or dangerous alternatives”

don’t just campaign vote with your cash, purchase a “good” green tariff; This micro hydro turbine that i’m battling to develop and that of Torrs will supply about 50 houses worth of electricity. i live in a town with over 50,000 houses with practically no other renewables. household renewables and Torrs community style renewables can only do so much, and will surely benefit from more people purchasing green tariffs but i feel that what sometimes doesn’t get noticed is that by not purchasing green tariffs is also tantamount to supporting the uptake of nuclear because green tariffs are an essential part of the offsite renewables mix and without a massive demand side push on supply side development only nuclear will fill the gap.

to those who think it’s politics that will drive the supply, i think we have to give them the mandate.

Shane

john ackers

website team CRAGger Islington

Shane

Great that you are involved with a community hydro project.

Back to the issue. I think the key question is not who will buy your green electricity but who will buy the ROCs. It sounds to me as if you’ll sell them to Good Energy who will then sell them onto EDF or another large supplier. Your hydro project will help EDF fulfil its mandatory ROC requirements. (Even if Good Energy didn’t exist, EDF would still want to buy your ROCs and perhaps your electricity).

If your hydro project was to sell its electricity, off grid, directly to some CRAG members, then that really would qualify as a zero carbon green tariff.

This thread is mainly about how CRAGs count the carbon in green tariffs not whether green tariffs are something we should all be using. Strong points in their favour is that they engage individual consumers, demonstrate real support for renewables, and give suppliers a public platform from which to promote renewables, Dale Vince being a great example.

shane

website team CRAGger Bedford

John,

ROC’s are a distraction from the point. what do they have to do with physical emissions of carbon? they may influence how much money energy companies get in hand outs but this is not where the focus should be when calculating emissions on a household level.

I think the question is “who will buy the green energy?” because if i buy it i want to show the carbon gains. the question “who will buy the ROC? is a step removed and enters into politics.

In your response i’d really appreciate it if, just for a second we could forget about third party obligations, financial incentives and legislations and think in pure carbon emissions. Are you suggesting that if i set up a community run micro hydro turbine and feed the electricity off grid it’s zero carbon, but if i feed it through the grid and then the community purchase it back (which we can do through fixed Power Purchase Agreement) through the grid we should accept the grid emissions factor. i.e. there are no specific carbon gains for us and the guy next door that has done nothing should get a reduction in his grid emissions factor even though they’ve done nothing.
None of the experts that i have spoken to (dulas etc) recommend going off grid when a grid connection is so close (and there is no one source like a factory to use up the energy), but the idea that we could only get carbon emissions benefits through going off grid would force people, rather unrationally, in that direction.

the carbon was reduced!!! The grid is just the vehicle… not the generator of energy. it is one component and the other components should be grouped regardless.
the idea that this should simply reduce the overall grid emissions factor is oversimplified and wrong.
i understand that this is more complex but we don’t accept a nation figure for solid fuel use or a nation figure for average vehicle use and we shouldn’t accept a national figure for grid electricity use when we consider the size of the overall contribution to our footprint and the potential variation in approaches.