Update on PG&E's ClimateSmart Offset Program

On how electric utilities should become carbon neutral

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 12:59 PM on 07 Sep 2007

Read more about: climate | climate change mitigation | carbon offsets

Since my first post dissing PG&E's offset program, I've had phone calls with PG&E, NRDC, members of PG&E's ClimateSmart External Advisory Group, plus a call with a forestry expert who consults with those who oversee the van Eck forest, which is featured on the "Our Projects" page of the ClimateSmart website. I have four basic conclusions:

I still think, in general, the vast majority of electric utilities should not be in the business of selling their customers offsets like trees (as opposed to selling them energy efficiency and renewable power).
PG&E is perhaps a special case since state regulations have driven them to be a leader on both energy efficiency and renewables. This is an important point, since many other utilities are looking to PG&E's program as a model but, I doubt groups like NRDC would be thrilled to see most U.S. utilities adopt a similar program.
But trees are still lousy offsets (even offset seller Terrapass thinks so); and PG&E was wrong to start by emphasizing forestry offsets, and especially wrong to feature the van Eck forest on their website. They have modified their website slightly -- they still feature only trees as offset projects, but say the van Eck forest is "shown for illustrative purposes as the type of project that may be eligible for the ClimateSmart competitive selection process" -- now that's the kind of nano-success that makes all this blogging worthwhile!
To customers for most U.S. utilities who want to become "climate neutral," I would recommend (a) doing all cost-effective energy efficiency, (b) purchasing 100 percent renewable power, or -- if renewable power is unavailable in your area -- renewable energy credits or green tags, and (c) buying offsets for your remaining emissions.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: Update on PG&E's ClimateSmart Offset Program
5 Comments | Post a Comment

RECs vs. offsets

if renewable power is unavailable in your area -- renewable energy credits or green tags, and (c) buying offsets for your remaining emissions.

I often hear RECs and offsets lumped together in the same category, both by supporters and (more often) by detractors.

There is a difference between them, in how they are generated. I personally think that this difference translates into a difference in their economic and climate impacts. Apparently you do as well.

Care to expand on that theme? In particular, I can see that RECs and much better than tree-based offsets, because RECs go straight to renewable energy (which is relatively easy to quantify and clearly reduces carbon), while tree offsets suck. However, the difference between RECs and offsets based on renewable energy projects is less clear, and would be the basis for an interesting article, or at least a post.

by GreenEngineer at 1:40 PM on 07 Sep 2007

RECs vs Offsets

I agree with Green Engineer.

RECs are a more mature market. Green-E certified RECs are even better. California now has WREGIS that tracks REC production and retirement as part of a regulatory scheme.

California's Climate Registry recognizes RECs to offset grid power emissions under the general reporting protocol.

Offsets on the other hand, are the wild west with no standards either 3rd party voluntary or regulatory standards. CRS/Green-e is working on a voluntary offset standard. So offsets will likely make sense one day as the market matures but for now it is caveat emptor.

by Aklemm at 3:24 PM on 07 Sep 2007

More complicated then you might think

It's 2AM on Saturday, so I'm not going to say much about this right now, but there's actually a fair bit of contention over the appropriate way to make carbon claims from RECs. Commenters are right that this is an interesting topic worthy of a blog post. However, It's not as simple as saying that RECs are a more mature market and therefore a safer bet.

And for the record, one third of TerraPass' carbon portfolio consists of Green-e certified RECs.

www.terrapass.com/blog

by Adam Stein at 11:09 PM on 08 Sep 2007

Consider saying this in another way

"... trees are still lousy offsets..."

The statement is too simplified and is therefore very misleading and counterproductive because there are some schemes that involve trees to offset carbon that hold tremendous potential.

"Some" offsets involving trees are lousy, just as some offsets involving any number of ideas are.

It would be better to say something a little more informative like "Some offset schemes that involve trees are not valid..."

I do agree that power companies should stick with offsets involving power, not trees.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 12:37 PM on 09 Sep 2007

RECs

Adam:

RECs are perfectly appropriate and accepted in regulatory frameworks for offsetting only electricity use.

RECs being used to offset other impacts is inappropriate and not acceptable under California's GHG law.

Selling disembodied RECs to offset mobile combustion is laughable, unless they are driving a plug in hybrid.

by Aklemm at 2:56 PM on 10 Sep 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.