When Amy Cabaniss, Campus Environmental Coordinator, and Ian Phillips, SGA Environmental Representative, presented the Environmental Model Committee’s (EMC) yearly request to purchase Green-e certified, renewable energy certificates (RECs) to offset the college’s energy purchase this past Thursday at SGA, the Assembly’s response was unprecedented.
It did not pass.
In 2001, students rallied around the idea of adding $25 to the college’s comprehensive fee to be allocated towards renewable energy, a fund that accrues approximately $40,000 each year.
This budget has previously been used to purchase RECs which support renewable energy sources and help to displace non-renewable energy sources from the national electric grid.
RECs also compensate for Conn’s electricity use, bringing down the college’s net greenhouse gas emissions through offsets.
This $40K budget, however, does not need to be used solely for the purchase of RECs.
According to the original Renewable Energy Policy, the student body authorizes the use of the funds to go toward the purchase renewable energy directly from the source of generation, to purchase equipment to establish renewable energy sources on campus or at a nearby location, to purchase renewable energy through a local electric utility, to make a grant or loan towards the construction of a new renewable energy facility or purchase independently certified Tradable Renewable Certificates.
Yearly, the EMC meets to decide how the fund should best be used, while SGA maintains the right to approve or reject their proposal.
Former recommendations from EMC have included using the fund to purchase wind energy RECs to offset the college’s energy usage by up to 100 percent.
Their proposal has previously always been passed by the Assembly.
The last three years, SGA and EMC were proud to offset the college’s energy usage by almost 100 percent by purchasing certificates and after last year’s RECs purchase, leftover funds were allocated towards a campus wind feasibility study.
Last Thursday, the SGA Assembly did not pass EMC’s proposal to pay $39,900 to offset the college’s electricity purchase by 100 percent for both this and the next fiscal year.
This purchase from vendor 3Degrees Energy would have offset the college’s yearly electricity purchase of approximately 15,000 MWh/year.
Although the proposal was passed, it did not meet the 4/5 majority vote necessary for approval.
Leland Stillman, Senator of River Ridge/Winchester, is one Assembly member who rejected the proposal.
“We are ultimately allowing companies to buy credits that allow them to pollute. I think it is more constructive to try to get actual renewable energy on campus rather than to purchase credits,” said Stillman at last week’s SGA meeting.
Ian Phillips, the Environmental Representative, reminded the Assembly that any money leftover in the fund rolls over from year to year.
“We could roll it over until we could make a much larger purchase, like buying solar panels for every rooftop on campus, but we purchase RECs each year because our college has the reputation of being a ‘green college.’ We do these things because it draws in like-minded, environmentally-conscious students.”
SGA President Peter Friedrichs agreed with Stillman.
“Although I think this is an amazing practice, I also think the trend is moving away from renewable credits and now it is more appropriate to have tangible things on campus.”
EMC will either have to go back to the drawing board on how to use the $40K fund this year, present a revised version of their initial plan or wait until next year to offer an on-campus renewable energy alternative for what will then be a $80K fund. This augmented sum may be used for LEED certification of the Fitness Center and Silfen Auditorium and an on-campus renewable energy study.
Up For Vote:
1. To purchase 100% wind, Green-e Certified Renewable Energy Certificates to offset nearly 100% of the college’s electricity purchase
2. For a REC purchase agreement for two fiscal years (7/1/09 – 6/30/11).
3. To purchase the RECs from 3Degrees at $1.33/MWh/year under a two year contract for $19,950/year to be paid this fiscal year for $39,900.
Recorded Votes:
16-10
22-6
5-16
Senator Stillman’s quote indicates a disturbing lack of understanding of how RECs work. He is confusing RECs with “Allowances” that are part of Cap & Trade programs. RECs do not allow companies to pollute. RECs are produced from renewable energy projects and are one of the best ways currently available to promote LARGE scale production of renewable energy. The vast majority of RECs come from utility-scale wind projects. I don’t disagree that the school should invest in on-site projects but one important thing to consider is now we will be spending the same amount of money but putting it towards a much SMALLER environmental benefit since it is very expensive to install a singular wind turbine or add solar panels with such limited buying power. Before making bold and uninformed public statements, I suggest the Senator read up on the distinct differences between RECs, carbon offsets, allowances, etc so he knows what he’s voting for.
RECs actually don’t necessarily promote production of additional renewable energy — there’s no stipulation in the purchase of a REC that insists on the single purchased megawatt-hour coming from a new wind turbine or anything similar. There’s also nothing in a REC that says purchasers can’t also be the least responsible ecovillains this side of an episode of Captain Planet. Stillman’s less confused than you are, I think. All a REC is, in its total sum of being, is proof that something, somewhere produced energy without using carbon, and that whoever has the certificate forked out like $20 per. Nothing else. Nobody has to build more wind plants or go out of their way to generate cleaner energy to sell RECs as long as they already have windmills or whatever. In fact, the fewer windmills there are, the more RECs cost. So they incentivize not building new clean energy production methods at least as much as the spur the opposite.
Interesting Andrew. What you are missing is that a REC is a market tool to incentivize the production of renewable power. New renewable facilities will be built if the demand for the REC is high enough, causing the price of the REC to equal the delta between generating energy from coal and generating energy from another, cleaner source that would allow for the creation of RECs. Although you are right that RECs don’t have to come from a “new” source, the REC itself helps fund “new” sources by providing that additional source of income for a renewable facility. Plus, the current market prices RECs from “new” sources at a premium to old renewable sources. A REC is proof that something somewhere produced energy without using carbon, and the person who owns that REC can make the verifiable statement that they purchased 1mw of renewable energy, 1mw of energy that did not come from a coal facility. Hopefully this reply will help supplement your rudimentary understanding of market dynamics.
Good for SGA to think more long-term about sustainability at Conn, wasn’t that the point of having a sustainability audit — to see what we can do here, on campus?
I’m reading this as RECs being a good thing to invest in, but also not the best choice every year for Conn. It doesn’t change much on campus, and little education about RECs has been done on campus. Do students even know about the $25 surcharge or why we have it? What power we have over it?
As an alumni of Conn. College actively involved in environmental commodities, I am seeing that a fundamental misunderstanding of how RECs function as a way to support the financing and growth of clean energy projects crept into the decision for the college to discontinue purchasing RECs. As mentioned, these are not carbon offsets used as tradable allowances, but are a marketable right, representing 1MWhr/year of clean energy generation. As just over 30 states have developed a renewable portfolio standard (including Connecticut) the method for utilities to comply with their state’s mandate is via the procurement of RECs. So, yes, the utilities are purchasing RECs from clean energy developers, thereby supporting further growth of clean enery companies. The utilities are operating under mandated regulations which use RECs to help them meet compliance and are vitally important in supporting states (and pending federal legislation) to increase the percentage of electricity generated from renewables – which is slowly increasing year by year. My attempt here is to provide another perspective on the value of RECs.