By Eric Sutherland
1:05 a.m. MT Apr 18, 2008

About the author:

Eric Sutherland is an outspoken critic of what he calls “pseustanability,” environmental efforts that are falsely claimed to be “sustainable” in that they strive not to damage or deplete a given resource. He lives in Fort Collins.

Fort Collins is missing an opportunity to truly be a leader in renewable energy.

After spending more than $1 million in the Renewable Energy Credit (REC) marketplace, Fort Collins Utilities and Platte River Power Authority have the chance to analyze what results this expenditure of ratepayer money has produced. How is the world different today than it would have been if no one in Fort Collins had ever heard of a REC?

The answer to this question would be very informative. Communities and electrical utilities across the country are developing strategies to address climate change while improving their electrical generation systems. Fort Collins was an early leader in developing a policy to address these issues back in 2003 when it adopted a renewable energy goal. How are we doing? Has Fort Collins learned anything that could help others?

Unfortunately, no one in Utilities or PRPA has an answer to this question. As hard as it is to imagine, it appears that over $1,000 a day is being spent without anyone on city staff asking what outcomes are being produced. Several times over the past months, local officials have been asked to demonstrate the outcomes of REC purchases. Most recently, Brian Janonis, the executive director of Fort Collins Utilities, admitted that he did not think that such an analysis was even possible.

Actually, experts in renewable energy and greenhouse gas accounting have done analyses of REC purchases. The results are very unflattering. In general, inexpensive RECs, such as those purchased by PRPA, are one of the worst investments that can be made in clean energy or GHG emission reductions. While some RECs are very productive, most RECs amount to nothing more than very small subsidies paid to renewable generation sources that would have been built without REC sales. The irony here is that RECs, which cost a fraction of direct investment, are universally billed as being among the best investments available. Without a doubt, communities like Fort Collins would be much better off spending the money on local renewable generation assets.

At the heart of this irony is the large differential between the “claims” that are made and the “results” that are obtained when a REC is purchased. Local officials often point to Green-e certification as validation that the “claims” are equivalent to the “results.” However, a $2 REC is certified to the same standard as a $50 REC. Green-e certification represents only the bare minimum criteria that would convey value to a REC.

Several conversations I have had with Green-e have convinced me that this organization is aware of the broad gap between “claims” and “results.” They know that RECs are being hyper-valued and that this is leading to bad decision-making here in Fort Collins and across the country. After trying for months to get Green-e to help disambiguate our local situation, I am now convinced that this organization is on the same ethical playing field as the folks who brought us the sub-prime mortgage crisis. They seem to have rationalized their own self-interest as the driving force behind renewable energy generation.

Fort Collins’ city government should be slamming the gate shut on the path that led to this misadventure in the REC market. No other community should have to suffer a similar fate. An accurate assessment of the benefits of REC purchases needs to be made if the oft-cited goal of being a leader in clean energy is to again become a reality.

Fort Collins needs to be the change, not buy the change.

Latest Comments Post Your Comment Discussion Subject: Message:  By posting you agree to the terms and conditions Email: Password: Remember Me: