|
TR-109179
5232
Final Report, October 1997
Prepared by
B. G. Swezey
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401-3393
T. M. Peterson
Electric Power Research Institute
3412 Hillview Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Prepared for
Electric Power Research Institute
3412 Hillview Avenue
T.M. Peterson
Palo Alto, California 94304
Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585
EPRI Project Manager
T. M. Peterson
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION
OF LIABILITIES
THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S)
NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC
POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI,
ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF
OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION
WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION,
APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT, INCLUDING
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE
DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING
ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS REPORT IS SUITABLE
TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES
OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN
IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS REPORT OR ANY
INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS
REPORT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to Terry Peterson, (650) 855-2000
Copyright 1997 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. Permission granted to copy for non-commercial purposes.
1. OVERVIEW
2. KEYNOTE ADDRESS
3. PERSPECTIVES ON GREEN POWER MARKETING
4. LUNCHEON SPEAKER
5 .EXPERIENCE AND INSIGHTS FROM RETAIL ACCESS EXPERIMENTS
6. PANEL DISCUSSION ON GREEN POWER CERTIFICATION AND DISCLOSURE
7. UTILITY GREEN PRICING PROGRAMS: ONE YEAR LATER
8. NEW UTILITY GREEN PRICING PROGRAMS
Green pricing is an evolving utility service that responds to customer
preferences for electricity derived from renewable energy sources such as
solar, wind, or biomass. In April 1996, the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), in association
with the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and Public Service Company
of Colorado, organized a first-of-a-kind national workshop on utility
green-pricing programs in Golden, CO. At that workshop, representatives from
nine U.S. utilities presented information on their green-pricing efforts.
In the year since the first workshop, the number of utility green-pricing
programs launched or under development has more than doubled. In addition,
electric industry restructuring activities have accelerated in the states,
with retail access pilot programs providing opportunities for power marketers
and customer aggregators to test green power offerings in competitive markets.
On May 13-14, 1997, DOE, EPRI, and EEI, in association with Central &
South West Services, Inc., organized and conducted a second national
green power conference in Corpus Christi, TX. The conference was to: (1)
provide an update and overview of existing and new green-pricing programs,
(2) discuss lessons learned from selling green power in retail-access pilot
programs, and (3) hear perspectives on market-facilitating issues such as
green-power certification and information disclosure.
The number of utility green-pricing programs continues to grow. Utilities
reporting on established programs noted high customer retention rates, indicating
high rates of customer satisfaction. Utility representatives also stressed
the importance of engaging customers directly in program design and
implementation to maximize customer participation and program success.
Several of the new green-pricing programs build on successful early program
models. However, some utilities are beginning to design programs to better
reflect the types of services that might be offered to customers in a competitive
market. For example, some utilities are designing grid-based or project-specific
programs that allow customers to purchase up to 100% of their power from
renewable sources. And one utility reported on a grid-based program for larger
commercial and industrial customers.
Early indications from retail-access pilot programs are that the potential
demand for green power products and services in a more competitive electric
marketplace could be significant. Thus, as utility restructuring unfolds,
the market for green power services should expand. However, while utility
green-pricing programs have almost universally offered 100% renewables-based
electricity, retail access pilot programs have highlighted a number of important
issues related to selling green power in competitive markets, such as verifying
"green" product claims, including renewables content, and educating and informing
customers about competitive market choices.
Although there is general agreement on the need to address these emerging
market issues, no consensus has developed on the best approaches. Among the
possibilities are: requiring uniform information disclosure on all electricity
products and services, establishing protocols for tracking green electricity
sales, establishing verification mechanisms for environmental marketing claims,
and certifying green power marketers. Some supplier representatives suggested
that customers should be given as much latitude as possible to determine
what products and services best meet their own "green" criteria.
From a policy perspective, there was a general feeling that total reliance
on market forces to foster greater renewables deployment is not desirable,
particularly in the short term as the rules of the competitive market are
being developed. Policies that establish a minimum public obligation to fund
renewables, such as universal system benefits charges and a renewables portfolio
standard, should still be considered.
[ TOP ]
[ Table of Contents ]
Ed Smeloff, a Board Director of the Sacramento Municipal Utility
District (SMUD) provided a perspective on the changing nature of the
electric power industry. Mr. Smeloff noted that there are several aspects
of electric industry restructuring that will prove detrimental for renewables,
such as lower prices and shorter-term commitments for power supplies. On
the other hand, consumers will, for the first time, be given a choice of
electricity suppliers and competition will lead to the development of new
products and services, including a bundling of the electricity commodity
with other household services.
Although electric utility restructuring is being sold largely on the basis
of lowering rates, customer choice offers the potential for environmental
improvement by allowing consumers an option to purchase their power from
more environmentally benign generation sources. Mr. Smeloff also noted that
the insurance industry is becoming increasingly concerned about climate change
and the increased potential for natural disasters; these disasters represented
85% of insured losses in 1995.
Mr. Smeloff challenged the conference attendees to work on how to tap into
the potential consumer demand for clean power, including implementing public
education campaigns around the benefits of using different resources. He
also stressed the need to organize residential and small commercial customers
into effective power buying blocks.
[ TOP ]
[ Table of Contents ]
The Keynote Address was followed by presentations from electric utility and
renewable-energy industry representatives who provided different perspectives
on green power marketing.
Chuck Linderman of EEI began the session by suggesting that the domestic
market will become friendlier to renewables in the future. For example, new
regulations will drive up the cost of fossil generation to the benefit of
renewables and green power sales. Mr. Linderman stressed the importance,
over the shorter term, of tapping export markets to help build production
infrastructure and achieve cost improvements to further develop the U.S.
market.
Kathy Jones, representing Central & South West Services, Inc.
(CSW), noted how the traditional utility focus has been on providing lowest-cost
power and that investments in renewables have been regulatory-driven,
particularly through integrated resource planning (IRP). However, recent
CSW polls have revealed widespread customer support for renewables, primarily
for the portfolio benefits in reducing the risks of over reliance on traditional
fossil fuel sources and their overall concern for the future. These polls
also indicate a willingness of customers to pay more for renewables. In response,
CSW has established an IRP-targeted renewables purchase goal of 40 MW to
50 MW, which will cost all customers only 25¢ more on their monthly
bills. The company also plans to implement a green-pricing program that will
allow customers to support the procurement of additional renewables.
Bob Grace of ReGenSM Technologies, a newly formed green-power
marketer, described several challenges in marketing green power in competitive
markets. Among these challenges are developing green power into a core business,
defining and differentiating "green" products, setting a price for the service,
and establishing the credibility of the green product and the company. Mr.
Grace noted that the limited retail pilot programs in New England have not
really prepared companies for the challenges of marketing green power. Important
actions still need to be taken, such as educating customers, adopting policies
that support the development of the green power market, and pursuing
credibility-enhancing activities such as green power certification and uniform
information disclosure.
Mac Moore presented the green marketing perspective of the Solar Energy
Industries Association. Mr. Moore emphasized the need to "sell" consumers
on the value of green power rather than the price, what he termed a "premium
brand strategy." A premium brand strategy would focus on convincing consumers
that green power is better than standard power offerings, that even though
it might cost more, green power is worth the extra expense. Mr. Moore provided
examples of other markets in which companies have followed a premium brand
strategy to differentiate a particular commodity product or service, such
as with coffee, mail delivery, telephone, and drinking water.
Nancy Rader, representing the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA),
noted that electric industry restructuring is moving ahead faster than our
ability to address important issues for the green power market, including
market entry barriers and consumer education and information needs. Ms. Rader
also warned that because of classic market failures, such as environmental
externalities and inadequate provision of public goods, it is unreasonable
to expect the green power market to replace the need for public-policy
approaches. Public policies are essential to provide for a minimum amount
of renewables to meet societal goals. For this reason, AWEA supports the
development of a national renewable portfolio standard. Finally, Ms. Rader
laid out some green marketing "dos and don'ts" and addressed some of the
complexities of creating guidelines.
The Honorable Brent Alderfer, Commissioner with the Colorado Public Utilities
Commission, noted that market forces are now having a greater impact
on utility company actions than regulatory forces. He stressed that customer
choice is speeding the process of change in the electric industry, including
green power offerings. Mr. Alderfer identified four important issues that
will need to be addressed by market players, including regulators:
- The marketing of pre-existing versus new renewables supplies;
- Product differentiation versus company-wide differentiation;
- Agreement on protocols for tracking of (green) electricity sales;
- Development of minimum, enforceable, uniform standards of disclosure for
retail electricity sales.
Finally, Mr. Alderfer noted that no one has all the answers to making the
green power market work and stressed the importance of collaborative approaches
to addressing these important issues.
Doug Ogden of The Energy Foundation closed the morning session by
noting that environmental advocates are looking at many policies that will
help move renewables into the market. Among these are: (1) backstop policies,
such as uniform environmental standards, renewables portfolio standards and
system benefits charges that establish a minimum level of public support
for renewables; (2) policies to support distributed generation; and (3)
demand-pull mechanisms, such as customer choice, mandatory disclosure, and
emissions labeling that will allow market demands for cleaner energy to be
actualized. Mr. Ogden cautioned, however, that although green pricing and
green marketing are needed, they are not sufficient because the market cannot
be expected, by itself, to provide for public benefits.
[ TOP ]
[ Table of Contents ]
Cathy Zoi of the Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA),
a state government entity in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, discussed
the development of a Green Power accreditation program as a component of
SEDA's mission to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The purpose of the program
is to facilitate the installation of new "green" electricity generators by
enhancing the credibility of and thereby maximizing consumer confidence in
green power offerings. Qualifying green power sources include solar, wind,
hydro, biomass (generally excluding mass burn incineration), geothermal,
and wave and tidal power systems. Accredited companies may use the SEDA Green
Power logo in their marketing. SEDA also is implementing a statewide green
power public information and education campaign on behalf of participating
suppliers. To date, SEDA has accredited the green power products of eight
power retailers. Ms. Zoi said, "Each of NSW 2.3 million households can subscribe
to a green power scheme — making it perhaps the largest green power
offering in the world."
[ TOP ]
[ Table of Contents ]
Ed Holt of Ed Holt & Associates and Steven Rothstein of
Environmental Futures presented information on the New Hampshire and
Massachusetts Electric retail pilot programs, respectively. In New Hampshire,
approximately 3% of each electric utility's peak load, or a total of about
50 MW statewide, was made available to competition for which more than 30
power suppliers registered, and about 16 competed actively. Several of these
suppliers are differentiating their power product as "cleaner" than their
competitors. In four Massachusetts cities, Massachusetts Electric Company
opened up to 100-million kWh to competition; four companies were selected
to provide "environmentally sensitive" or "green" service options.
The pilot programs revealed significant customer interest in "green" service
offerings; for example, in New Hampshire, 20% of customer participants polled
were "strongly influenced" by the environmental message or image of their
supplier, and nearly a third of the residential participants in the Massachusetts
Electric pilot chose an environmental provider. They also highlighted a number
of important marketing issues. Mr. Holt reported that perhaps the greatest
marketing lesson from New Hampshire was the inability of customers to compare
service offerings accurately because of differing marketing approaches and
pricing schedules. Mr. Rothstein emphasized the importance of consumer
information and "grassroots" marketing to help customers make their market
decisions. And particularly in the New Hampshire pilot, the "green" attributes
of the power supplies proved difficult to substantiate.
Tom Rawls of Green Mountain Power (GMP) spoke of the marketing approach
used by Green Mountain Energy Partners (GMEP) in the New Hampshire pilot
program, stressing the importance of creating a brand through which customers
can "self actualize" their environmental commitment. GMEP's marketing strategy
was to get the customer personally involved with the environmental attributes
of the service. To this end, the company sent a spruce seedling to all of
their customers. Mr. Rawls said that GMEP is looking forward to the competitive
market because it means that customers will be making the purchase decisions
and will be able to exercise their environmental preferences. He addressed
the "green" definition issue by suggesting that as long as suppliers provide
clarity in their marketing claims and activities, the customer can decide
which services best meet its own needs.
Lew Milford of the Conservation Law Foundation cautioned against
over-interpreting the retail pilot-program experiences because of their limited
size and duration; the pilots are essentially snapshots of the electric industry
in transition. Mr. Milford noted that we are now moving beyond the pilot
programs to real competitive markets and need to understand and address the
environmental implications of electric industry restructuring. The key
environmental issue in the electric industry is the stock of older fossil
fuel plants that do not meet today's environmental standards. Electric industry
restructuring may offer several opportunities to address environmental issues,
including pursuing mechanisms to commercialize clean energy sources. Although
he believes that the green market represents a real business opportunity,
he stressed the continuing need for policy mechanisms for renewables—in
particular, new financing mechanisms to commercialize these new
technologies—because there will be a lag in new investments as the
competitive market develops.
[ TOP ]
[ Table of Contents ]
Ensuring that all market players have adequate information to make rational
decisions is fundamental to market effectiveness. Therefore, an important
challenge for green-power marketers is to present adequate information to
differentiate their products and services based on their environmental
attributes. Customers will also need assurances that the green services they
are paying for do indeed represent some improvement in the environmental
footprint of electricity generation.
To meet these marketplace needs, one concept under consideration is uniform
information disclosure, which represents an objective statement of fact regarding
the price, environmental, and other important attributes of an electricity
service, similar to food product labeling. Another idea is certification,
whereby green power products would be "branded" or otherwise certified as
environmentally preferable, based on some predetermined qualification criteria.
The conference brought together a panel of representatives from across the
electric industry spectrum to discuss potential certification and disclosure
needs and approaches.
Steve Dayney of Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) stressed
the value of a green brand and that customer perception of a green product
or service is as important as objective determination of product values and
attributes. However, he also stressed the importance of assuring that
environmental marketing claims can be substantiated. He asked whether a national
green power definition might benefit consumers.
Karl Rábago of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) defined
disclosure simply as providing information to consumers to make market-based
decisions. He cautioned, however, that information is not the same as education.
Disclosure, by itself, doesn't teach consumers about the importance of the
information or how to use it. Noting that disclosure and education are two
independent needs, Mr. Rábago warned against burdening information
requirements with education programs. He also noted that all of the information
required to provide for disclosure already exists, collected in various forms
and formats. What is most critical is to assemble the information into the
appropriate format for disclosure.
Bob Grace of ReGenSM Technologies offered the analogy of
the mutual fund industry for addressing green power verification issues.
The mutual fund industry uses standard accounting principles that include
settlement and audit procedures. Of particular concern is that marketers
may not be able to specify a green power fuel mix in advance because it will
always be subject to change. Mutual fund companies provide information disclosure
but also warn, "past performance is no guarantee of future results."
Tom Rawls of GMP suggested that future sales is the appropriate measure
for disclosure because, when making overtures to new customers, a company's
disclosure should tell the customers what it plans to sell them (as is the
case in every other commercial transaction). He also stated that disclosure
will be a challenge because of the difficulty of tracking complex electricity
transactions in the future. Mr. Rawls stressed the subjectivity of terms
like "clean," "green," and "renewable," which may pose problems for the industry.
For this reason, GMP supports a "claims-based" approach to disclosure under
which companies would be required to substantiate their marketing claims.
David Moskovitz of the Regulatory Assistance Project reinforced the
notion that disclosure provides uniform factual information with which customers
can comparison shop among different electricity product offerings and that
it is both in the consumer's interest and the public interest to have a national
system of information disclosure. Mr. Moskovitz reported that consumer focus
groups have found that consumers are interested in fuel mix and emissions
information. He noted that there is a considerable amount of education that
will be necessary to maximize the use of disclosure information.
Finally, Chuck Linderman of EEI stressed the importance of voluntary
standards for disclosure and certification. He also suggested that making
renewables the focus of green power would greatly simplify the validation
process.
[ TOP ]
[ Table of Contents ]
Five utility companies that participated in the first national workshop provided
updates on their green-pricing programs. Among the most important findings
over the last year are that many programs continue to be oversubscribed and
that the participant retention rate has been high. The speakers also stressed
the importance of customer involvement and recognition as elements of successful
programs.
Steve Smiley, representing Traverse City Power & Light, reported
that community support for their 600-kW wind project remains strong, with
no drop-out customers. Program subscribers pay a 20% premium, on average,
and represent a broad spectrum of the customer base, both residential and
commercial. Overall, 171 customers (145 residential and 26 business, 3.1%
of total customers) are participating and another 79 are on a waiting list;
on an energy basis, the program is 40% oversubscribed. Mr. Smiley emphasized
that a utility company's intention is a primary determinant of the quality
and scope of the program and its ultimate success.
Ed Smeloff, representing SMUD, recounted the utility's success with
its PV Pioneers green-pricing program, through which 420 residential and
20 commercial rooftop systems have been installed. By implementing a program
of "sustained orderly development" of photovoltaics, SMUD has seen PV system
prices fall from an average of $8.79/watt in 1993 to $5.50/watt in 1997.
With retail competition coming to California in 1998, SMUD will offer two
additional green power services: (1) a neighborhood PV program utilizing
customer donations and (2) a green rate, by which customers can receive 100%
of their power from renewables (initially geothermal and small hydro). Mr.
Smeloff emphasized that customer involvement in the utility planning process
helps build customer loyalty.
Chip Bircher of Wisconsin Public Service (WPS) reported on the status
of the utility's SolarWiseTM for Schools contribution program,
through which the utility has installed 12-kW PV systems at three high school
sites. Customer participation has grown to 2,600 out of 368,000 total customers;
the average customer contribution is $1.70/month. Mr. Bircher noted that
the education tie-in has been an important selling point for the program.
Providing some type of recognition for participating customers is also important.
Corporately, WPS has adopted a "green portfolio approach" based on a belief
that different products are necessary for different segments of the green
market. To this end, WPS will soon launch a green rate for new renewables
(initially solar) to be developed within the utility's territory.
Norm Stevens of Detroit Edison reported on the status of the utility's
SolarCurrents® program, through which the utility developed
a 28.4-kW, centrally located PV demonstration facility. A unique aspect of
the program is that customers pay for 100-watt blocks of solar capacity plus
a delivery charge for each kWh of solar energy credited to their accounts,
rather than a single charge for the electricity generated. The project is
fully subscribed with 195 participants and a waiting list of over 70 customers.
On average, participants have increased their monthly bills by $10.75 (17.2%)
with an average subscription of 145 watts of PV capacity. The retention rate
was 97.4% after the first year. Mr. Stevens noted that the majority of customer
inquiries received focused on the billing and payment changes. Given continued
customer interest, the utility is planning to site three additional projects
and also to develop a schools-based program, called
SolarSchoolsSM, for commercial customer sponsors.
Steve Dayney of Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) reported
that participation in the company's Renewable Energy Trust (RET) has grown
to about 15,000 customers; 5,500 customers contribute a total of $102,000
annually, and 10,000 customers use a bill "round up" option which provides
an additional $53,000 annually. Through the RET program, PSCo has deployed
about 15 kW of off-grid PV systems. The RET was set up as a non-profit vehicle
to provide tax advantages to participating customers. During 1997, PSCo will
unveil two new green-pricing options for its customers. The WindSource program
will offer customers the ability to influence generation sources by subscribing
for 100 kWh blocks of electricity from a new wind project. And the SolarSource
program will offer customer-sited PV systems; initially, 20 systems will
be installed.
[ TOP ]
[ Table of Contents ]
Several presentations were made on new green-pricing programs indicating
the spreading attractiveness of these programs. Although some of these programs
build on the models of early utility programs, others are beginning to adopt
features to reflect the types of choices that customers might be offered
in a competitive market.
John Bigger of EPRI presented material on the Utility PhotoVoltaic
Group (UPVG) TEAM-UP (Technology Experience to Accelerate Markets in
Utility Photovoltaics) ventures, which involve green pricing. (UPVG's term
is PV-Friendly pricing) The TEAM-UP program uses DOE funding to provide technical
and financial support for utilities to gain experience with PV technology
and applications.
In the three TEAM-UP green-pricing ventures now underway, 17 utilities are
siting PV systems on: (1) residential and commercial customers' buildings;
(2) community buildings; and (3) utility facilities. Mr. Bigger discussed
the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches. Utilities are also
using various approaches to fund these programs, including one-time
contributions, monthly contributions, and fixed monthly premiums. The importance
of market research and the critical information that customers can bring
to the program planners was emphasized.
Some utilities are finding that market development—turning customers
who say they support renewables into signed-up program participants—is
more difficult than they expected. Mr. Bigger covered the range of approaches
and tools they are using to reach out to their customers to encourage
participation. One major recommendation was to get experienced market-development
people on the team as early as possible. With the wide range of approaches
to PV hardware siting, program financing, and market development, the TEAM-UP
ventures should provide much valuable information for utilities considering
such programs in their service areas.
Donna Danihel of Wisconsin Electric Power Company described the company's
grid-based green-pricing program. The program, called Energy for Tomorrow,
offers an optional renewable electricity service to customers from sources
procured by the utility in the wholesale power market. Customers can choose
to receive 25%, 50%, or 100% of their power from renewables at a premium
of approximately 2.0¢ on each 'green' kilowatthour. The renewable power
provided for the first year of the project came from existing hydro and biomass
projects and Wisconsin Electric is working to add landfill gas for the program's
second year, which will entail up to 5 MW of renewable supply. As of the
conference date, 5,500 customers were participating in the program with a
dropout of only 100 customers. Wisconsin Electric believes that their program
represents a good test of the forthcoming competitive market for green power
services, which the company believes may represent up to 10% of the future
electricity market.
Rick Weijo of Portland General Electric (PGE) reported on the company's
efforts to develop a green-pricing program for larger commercial and industrial
customers (with loads greater than 1 MW). PGE is pursuing this customer segment
because the utility has determined that the transaction costs of engaging
the residential market make it less attractive than larger-scale customer
sales. PGE believes in a "product line" approach to green pricing and that
there are niche markets for green power with state and local governments,
image-sensitive retailers, and industrial customers interested in repairing
a damaged public image. The Earth SmartTM program offers green
power (from solar, wind, and geothermal) to these customers at a premium
of approximately 1¢/kWh. Discussions are underway with several candidate
customers.
Art Seki of Hawaiian Electric Company described the company's Sun
Power for Schools pilot program, which has a goal of installing 20 kW of
PV on qualifying schools over the next two years. Surveys have indicated
that, depending on the island, one third to more than one half of the utility's
customers are willing to pay more to use renewable energy sources. Like other
schools-based green-pricing programs, an important component of the program
is development of an energy curriculum for the students. Ownership of the
PV systems will be transferred to the schools. As of the conference date,
the overall customer response rate was 0.35%, which is about one-third of
the way toward the utility's goal of 1.0% total participation.
Ward Marshall of Central and South West recounted the company's
"deliberative polling" results in which a plurality of customers supported
greater utility investment in renewables. As a result, CSW is offering 100%,
50% and 25% renewables options for its customers. The CSW Marketing group
was skeptical until detailed analysis of the deliberative polling results
was performed, showing that a significant number of customers may be willing
to spend an extra $5 to $20 per month for 25% to 100% renewable energy. The
subsequent involvement of the marketing department has been an important
driver of the company's green-pricing efforts.
[ TOP ]
[ Table of Contents ]
National Renewable Energy Marketing Conference 2008
Download: Presentations | Green Power Leadership Awards
Twelfth National Renewable Energy Marketing Conference
Download: Presentations | Green Power Leadership Awards
Eleventh National Renewable Energy Marketing Conference
Download: Presentations | Green Power Leadership Awards
Tenth National Green Power Marketing Conference
Download: Overview | Presentations | Green Power Leadership Awards
Ninth National Green Power Marketing Conference
Download: Overview | Presentations | Green Power Leadership Awards
Eighth National Green Power Marketing Conference
Download: Overview | Proceedings | Presentations | Green Power Leadership Awards
Seventh National Green Power Marketing Conference
Download: Overview | Proceedings | Presentations | Green Power Leadership Awards
Sixth National Green Power Marketing Conference
Download: Overview | Proceedings | Presentations | Green Power Leadership Awards
Fifth National Green Power Marketing Conference Summary
Download: Overview | Presentations
Fourth National Green Power Marketing Conference Summary
Download: Overview | Presentations
Third National Green Power Marketing Conference Summary
Download: Overview | Proceedings (PDF 84 KB)
Second National Green Power Marketing Conference Summary
Download: HTML Format
First National Green Power Marketing Conference Summary
Download: HTML Format
|
