A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Innovation for Our Energy Future 

Green Power Marketing in 

the United States: A Status 

Report (Ninth Edition) 

Lori Bird and Blair Swezey 

Technical Report 

NREL/TP-640-40904 

November 2006 

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 
Green Power Marketing in 

the United States: A Status 

Report (Ninth Edition) 

Lori Bird and Blair Swezey

Prepared under Task No. ASG6.1003 

Technical Report 

NREL/TP-640-40904 

November 2006 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov 

Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle 

Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing 100% postconsumer waste
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction..........................................................................................................................2 

Green Power Market Summary and Trends.........................................................................4 

 Green Power Sales .........................................................................................................4 

 Customer Participation...................................................................................................6 

Utility Green Pricing Programs ...........................................................................................8 

 Products and Pricing ......................................................................................................9 

 Green Pricing Sales......................................................................................................10 

 Customer Participation.................................................................................................12 

Competitive Green Power and REC Markets ....................................................................14 

 Products and Pricing ....................................................................................................15 

 Customer Participation.................................................................................................16 

 Green Power Sales .......................................................................................................17 

Market Trends and Issues ..................................................................................................20 

 Product Pricing.............................................................................................................20

 Utility/Marketer Partnerships.......................................................................................22 

 Interaction with Energy and Environmental Policies ..................................................23 

Is Green Power Simply an Evolutionary Step in Renewable Energy 

Development? ..............................................................................................................25 

Conclusions and Observations...........................................................................................26 

References .........................................................................................................................27 

Appendix A – Estimates of New Renewable Energy Capacity Serving Green Power 

Markets, 2000-2004 ....................................................................................................29 

Appendix B – Top 25 Purchasers in the U.S. EPA Green Power Partnership, 

September 2006 ...........................................................................................................30 

Appendix C – Estimated U.S. Green Power Customers by State, 2003 and 2004 ............31 

Appendix D – Utilities Offering Green Pricing Programs in 2005 ...................................32 

Appendix E – Utility Green Pricing Programs, November 2006 ......................................33 

Appendix F – Utilities That Have Lowered Their Base Green Power Premium...............46 

Appendix G – Retail Green Power Product Offerings in Competitive Electricity 

Markets, November 2006.............................................................................................47 

Appendix H – Renewable Energy Certificate Retail Products, November 2006 ..............51

 iii
LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Estimated Green Power Sales by Market Sector, 2003-2005................................5 

Table 2. Estimated Green Power Sales by Customer Segment, 2004 and 2005..................5 

Table 3. Estimated Green Power Sales by Customer Segment and Market Sector, 

2005................................................................................................................................6 

Table 4. Estimated Renewable Energy Capacity Supplying Green Power Markets, 

2005................................................................................................................................6 

Table 5. Estimated Cumulative Green Power Customers by Market Segment, 

2000-2005 ......................................................................................................................7 

Table 6. Price Differential Charged for Utility Green Power Products...............................9 

Table 7. Annual Sales of Renewable Energy through Utility Green Pricing Programs ....11 

Table 8. Renewable Energy Sources Supplying Utility Green Pricing Program, 2005 ....11 

Table 9. Estimated Cumulative Number of Customer Participants in Utility Green 

Pricing Programs..........................................................................................................12 

Table 10. Customer Participation Rates in Utility Green Pricing Programs by Year........13 

Table 11. Estimated Cumulative Number of Customers Purchasing RECs or Green Power 

from Competitive Marketers, 2002-2004 ....................................................................17 

Table 12. Retail Sales of Renewable Energy in Competitive Markets and RECs.............18 

Table 13. Renewable Energy Sources Supplying Competitive and REC Markets, 

2005..............................................................................................................................19

Table 14. Voluntary REC Offers and Pricing, October 2006............................................22 

Table A-1. Estimated Cumulative New Renewable Energy Capacity Supplying Green 

Power Markets, 2000-2004..........................................................................................29 

Table B-1. Top 25 Purchasers in the U.S. EPA Green Power Partnership, 

September 2006 ...........................................................................................................30 

Table C-1. Estimated U.S. Green Power Customers by State, 2003 and 2004 .................31 

Table D-1. Utilities Offering Green Pricing Programs in 2005.........................................32 

Table E-1. Utility Green Pricing Programs, November 2006............................................33 

Table F-1. Utilities That Have Lowered Their Base Green Power Premium....................46 

Table G-1. Retail Green Power Product Offerings in Competitive Electricity Markets, 

November 2006............................................................................................................47 

Table H-1. Renewable Energy Certificate Retail Products, November 2006....................47 

 iv
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Number of Utilities and Electricity Suppliers Offering Green Power Options 

by State...........................................................................................................................3 

Figure 2. Estimated Green Power Sales by Renewable Energy Source, 2005 ....................4 

Figure 3. U.S. Map of Utility Green Pricing Activities.......................................................8 

Figure 4. Trend in Utility Green Pricing Premiums, 2000-2005 .......................................10 

Figure 5. Utility Green Pricing Sales, 2000-2005..............................................................11 

Figure 6. States with Competitive Green Power Offerings ...............................................15 

Figure 7. Trend in Green Power Purchase Contract Prices ...............................................21 

 v
Acknowledgments 

This work was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy (EERE). The authors wish to thank Linda Silverman and the EERE 

renewable energy technology programs for their support of this work. The authors also wish to 

thank Blaine Collison of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Green Power Partnership, 

Susan Innis of Western Resource Advocates, Linda Silverman of DOE, and Doug Arent and Ron 

Benioff of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for their thoughtful review of the 

document, as well as Michelle Kubik of NREL for her editorial support. Finally, the authors 

thank the many green power marketers and utility contacts that provided the information 

summarized in this report. Additional information on green power market trends and activities 

can be found on the U.S. DOE’s Green Power Network Web site 

(http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/). 

 1
Introduction 

Voluntary consumer decisions to purchase electricity supplied from renewable energy sources 

represent a powerful market support mechanism for renewable energy development. Beginning 

in the early 1990s, a small number of U.S. utilities began offering “green power” options to their 

customers.1

 Since then, these products have become more prevalent, both from traditional 

utilities and from marketers operating in states that have introduced competition into their retail 

electricity markets. Today, more than half of all U.S. electricity customers have an option to 

purchase some type of green power product from a retail electricity provider. 

Currently, more than 600 utilities, or about 20% of utilities nationally, offer green power 

programs to customers. These programs allow customers to purchase some portion of their 

power supply as renewable energy—almost always at a higher price—or to contribute funds for 

the utility to invest in renewable energy development. The term “green pricing” is typically used 

to refer to these utility programs offered in regulated or noncompetitive electricity markets. 

In states with competitive (or restructured) retail electricity markets, electricity customers can 

often purchase electricity generated from renewable sources by switching to an alternative 

electricity supplier that offers green power. In some of these states, default utility electricity 

suppliers offer green power options to their customers in conjunction with competitive green 

power marketers.2

 To date, nearly a dozen states that have opened their markets to retail 

competition have experienced some green power marketing activity. Through the combination of 

utility green pricing and competitive retail markets, green power is available to most electricity 

customers living in 44 out of the 50 U.S. states (Figure 1). 

Finally, regardless of whether they have access to a green power product from their retail power 

provider, any consumer can purchase green power through renewable energy certificates (RECs), 

which represent the “attributes” of electricity generated from renewable energy-based projects. 

Consumers in competitive markets can also support renewable energy development through REC 

purchases without having to switch to an alternative electricity supplier. Today, several dozen 

companies actively market RECs to residential or business customers throughout the United 

States. 

 

This report documents green power marketing activities and trends in the United States. First, we 

present aggregate green power sales data for all voluntary purchase markets across the United 

States. The next two sections provide summary data on (1) utility green pricing programs offered 

in regulated electricity markets and (2) green power marketing activity in competitive electricity 

markets and green power sold to voluntary purchasers in the form of RECs. These are followed 

by a discussion of key market trends and issues. The final section offers conclusions and 

observations. The data presented in this report are based on figures provided to NREL by utilities 

and independent renewable energy marketers.3

 

1

 The term "green power" generally refers to electricity supplied in whole or in part from renewable energy sources, 

such as wind and solar power, geothermal, hydropower, and various forms of biomass. 

2

 Under these programs, consumers can purchase renewable energy from independent renewable energy marketing 

companies without switching their electricity service from the default or standard offer service provider. 3 Green power market data for previous years are available in Bird and Swezey (2005a), Bird and Swezey (2004), 

Bird and Swezey (2003), Swezey and Bird (2000), Swezey and Bird (1999). 

 2
Green Power Products Available

Restructured Electricity Market

No Green Power Activity

Indicates Number of Utilities/Companies Offering 

Green Power Products #

2

18

14

9

1

9

4

3

5

7

27

26

5

4

29

29

4

57

124

5

4

103

13

11 14

16

48

3 13 19

6

17

37

1

2

1

4

6

1

2

13

3

4 3

Figure 1: Number of Utilities and Electricity Suppliers Offering Green Power Options by State 

 3
Green Power Market Summary and Trends 

Green Power Sales 

Overall, retail sales of renewable energy in voluntary purchase markets totaled 8.5 billion 

kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 2005, or about 0.2% of total U.S. electricity sales.4

 This include sales of 

renewable energy derived from both “new” and “existing” renewable energy sources, with most 

sales supplied from new sources.5

 Wind energy provided 61% of green power sales, followed by 

biomass energy sources, including landfill gas (27%), hydropower (6%), geothermal (5%), and 

solar (1%) (Figure 2). Based on the sales and pricing data presented in this report, we estimate 

the market value of green power sales in 2005 to be from $50 million to $70 million. 

Landfill Gas

8% Other 

Biomass

19%

Geothermal

5%

Hydro

6%

Solar

1%

Wind

61%

Figure 2: Estimated Green Power Sales by Renewable Energy Source, 2005 

Green power sales increased by 37% on an energy basis in 2005, following growth of about 60% 

in 2004 (Table 1). REC sales more than doubled in 2005, while sales through utility green 

pricing programs also exhibited strong annual growth of more than 30%.6

 However, sales in 

competitive markets fell by about 20%, because rising costs associated with supplying customers 

with renewable electricity service caused some marketers to lose or turn back customers to 

 

4 U.S. electricity sales totaled 3,660 billion kWh in 2005, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration 

(EIA). See http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat7p2.html. 5 With green power, a distinction is often made based on the vintage of the renewable energy generator. The green 

power industry generally follows the Green-e national standard, which defines a “new” renewable generation 

facility as one placed in operation or repowered on or after January 1, 1997. An “existing” generation facility, 

therefore, is one placed in service before January 1, 1997. For more information on the Green-e national standard, 

see http://www.green-e.org/ipp/national_standard.html. 6

 The REC sales figures reflect sales to end use customers separate from electricity. RECs bundled with electricity 

and sold to end use customers through utility green pricing programs or in competitive electricity markets are 

counted in these other categories. 

 4
default service (see the competitive markets discussion). REC markets now represent nearly half 

of industry sales, replacing competitive markets as the dominant market sector. 

The year 2005 marked the first year that the majority of green power sales were made to 

nonresidential customers, representing 65% of sales, up from about 45% in 2004 (Table 2). In 

fact, during 2005, nonresidential sales doubled, while sales to residential customers declined by 

14%. Although sales to residential customers through utility green pricing programs increased in 

2005, losses in some competitive markets, such as Pennsylvania and Virginia, led to the overall 

decline in residential sales. Nearly all REC sales were to nonresidential customers, while 

residential customers played a larger role in green pricing programs and competitive markets, 

where they accounted for more than 60% of renewable energy sales (Table 3). 

At the end of 2005, sales of renewable energy in voluntary markets represented a generating 

capacity equivalent of about 2,500 MW, with more than 2,000 MW from new renewable energy 

sources (Table 4). Since 2000, the amount of renewable energy capacity serving green power 

markets has increased more than 10-fold (see Appendix A). 

Table 1: Estimated Green Power Sales by Market Sector, 2003-2005* 

(millions of kWh) 

Market Sector 2003 2004 2005 % Change 

2004/2003 

% Change 

2005/2004 

Utility Green Pricing 1,280 1,840 2,450 44% 33% 

Competitive Markets 1,900 2,650 2,150 39% -19% 

REC Markets 660 1,720 3,890 161% 126% 

Retail Total 3,840 6,210 8,490 62% 37% 

*Includes sales of new and existing renewable energy. 

Table 2: Estimated Green Power Sales by Customer Segment, 2004 and 2005 

(millions of kWh) 

Customer Segment 2004 2005 % Change 

Residential 3,480 2,980 -14% 

Nonresidential 2,740 5,510 101% 

Total* 6,210 8,490 37% 

% Nonresidential 44% 65% -- 

 *Totals may not add due to rounding. 

 5
Table 3: Estimated Green Power Sales by Customer Segment and Market Sector, 2005 

(millions of kWh) 

Customer Segment Green 

Pricing 

Competitive 

Markets 

REC 

Markets Total 

Residential 1,610 1,330 40 2,980 

Nonresidential 840 820 3,840 5,510 

Total 2,450 2,150 3,890 8,490 

% Residential 66% 62% 1% 35% 

 Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 

Table 4: Estimated Renewable Energy Capacity Supplying Green Power Markets, 2005

(megawatts) 

Market Total Renewables 

Capacity 

New 

Renewables 

Capacity 

Utility Green Pricing 800 740 

Competitive Markets/RECs 1,710 1,300 

Total 2,510 2,040 

According to EIA, about 9,000 MW of new renewable energy capacity was installed in the 

United States between 1997 and the end of 2005; thus, voluntary green power markets provide 

support for 22% of new renewable energy capacity additions, nationally.7 Much of the remaining 

renewable energy generation from recent capacity additions is used for compliance with state 

renewable portfolio standards or other policy mandates, separate from voluntary green power 

markets. 

Customer Participation 

In 2005, nearly 600,000 electricity customers nationally purchased green power products through 

regulated utility companies, from green power marketers in a competitive market setting, or in 

the form of RECs (Table 5).8 In aggregate, utility green pricing programs have shown steady 

growth in customers over time as the number of utility programs has increased and as existing 

 

7

 Excluding capacity losses over the period, 8,980 MW of new renewable energy capacity came online from 1997 

through 2005. Data from EIA Renewable Energy Annual reports, various years, 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/rea_data/rea_sum.html with 2005 data derived from projections 

contained in the EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2006 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/aeoref_tab.html. 8

 It is important to note that there is greater uncertainty in our customer estimates for competitive and REC markets 

because of data limitations. For more detailed estimates by state for 2003 and 2004, see data from U.S. EIA 2006a in 

Appendix C. Generally, our estimates are consistent with the EIA estimates when adjusted for customers in Ohio 

who participate in community aggregations. We exclude these customers from our estimates because they purchase 

products with very low renewable energy content (1% to 2%). 

 6
programs have grown. On the other hand, competitive markets have been less consistent. While 

green power sales have grown in Texas and some Northeast states, other markets have failed 

altogether—notably in California, Connecticut, and most recently Pennsylvania. While REC 

customers represent a small fraction of the total customer base, REC sales represent nearly half 

of all green power sales and have grown dramatically in recent years as a result of a number of 

very large purchases (see Appendix B for a list of top green power purchasers). 

Average participation rates among utility green pricing programs increased slightly to 1.5% in 

2005, with a median value of 1.0%; top performing programs have achieved rates ranging from 

4% to 15%. Competitive markets have experienced green power customer penetration rates 

ranging from 1% to 2% in states where the market has been conducive to retail competition. 

Table 5: Estimated Cumulative Green Power Customers by Market Segment, 2000-2005 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Utility Green Pricing 130,000a 170,000a 230,000a 270,000 330,000 390,000 

Competitive Markets >160,000b >110,000b ~150,000 >170,000c >140,000c >180,000 

REC Markets -- -- < 10,000 < 10,000 < 10,000 < 10,000 

Retail Total >290,000 >280,000 ~390,000 ~450,000 ~480,000 ~580,000 

% Change n/a -3% 39% 15% 7% 21% 

a

 Estimates have been adjusted downward from those originally reported in Bird and Swezey (2003) because of 

program participation revisions made by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

b

 Includes only customers purchasing Green-e certified green power products, as reported by the Center for 

Resource Solutions (2001; 2002). 

c

 Estimates have been adjusted from those originally reported in Bird and Swezey (2005a) based on data available 

in U.S. EIA 2006a (see Appendix C). 

 7
Utility Green Pricing Programs 

The number of utilities offering green pricing has grown steadily in recent years—today, more 

than 600 investor-owned, public, and cooperative utilities in 36 states offer green pricing 

programs (Figure 3). Appendix D provides a list of utilities offering green pricing while 

Appendix E provides detailed program information.9

 Because a number of small municipal or 

cooperative utilities offer programs developed by their power suppliers, the number of distinct 

green pricing programs is about 130. Since 1999, between 10 and 25 new programs have been 

added each year. Initially, some portion of the growth in utility green power offerings was 

attributable to the threat of retail market competition, while more recent growth has been spurred 

by state laws requiring utilities to offer green pricing.10 In addition, a number of utilities have 

expanded their programs as customer demand has grown. 

Green Power Products Available

Indicates Number of Utilities/Companies Offering 

Green Power Products #

2

18

14

9

1

9

4

3

5

3

27

26

5

4

29

29

4

57

124

5

4

103

13

11 14

16

48

3 13 19

6

17

37

1

1

2

Green Power Products Available

Indicates Number of Utilities/Companies Offering 

Green Power Products #

2

18

14

9

1

9

4

3

5

3

27

26

5

4

29

29

4

57

124

5

4

103

13

11 14

16

48

3 13 19

6

17

37

1

1

2

Figure 3: U.S. Map of Utility Green Pricing Activities 

 

9

 For an up-to-date list of utilities with green pricing programs, see the U.S. Department of Energy’s Green Power 

Network Web site at http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/pricing.shtml?page=1. 10 These states include Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington. 

 8
Products and Pricing 

Typically, green pricing programs are structured so that customers can either purchase green 

power for a certain percentage of their electricity use (often called “percent-of-use products”) or 

in discrete amounts or blocks at a fixed price (“block products”), such as a 100-kWh block. Most 

utilities offer block products but may also allow customers to purchase green power for their 

entire monthly electricity use. Utilities that offer percent-of-use products generally allow 

residential customers to elect to purchase 25%, 50%, or 100% of their electricity use as 

renewable energy, while a few offer fractions as small as 10%. Under these types of programs, 

larger purchasers, such as businesses, can often purchase green power for a smaller fraction of 

their electricity use. 

In 2005, the price differentials charged in green pricing programs ranged from –0.67¢/kWh to as 

much as 17.6¢/kWh, with a mean of 2.36¢/kWh and a median of 2.0¢/kWh (Table 6). Programs 

that feature solar-based products represent the high end of the range. 

Table 6: Price Differential Charged for Utility Green Power Products 

(¢/kWh) 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Average 2.15 3.48 2.93 2.82 2.62 2.45 2.36 

Median 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 

Range 0.4-5.0 (0.5)-20.0 0.9-17.6 0.7-17.6 0.6-17.6 0.33-17.6 (0.67)-17.6

Lowest Premium 

Programs* 0.4-2.5** (0.5)-2.5 1.0-1.5 0.7-1.5 0.6-1.3 0.33-1.0 (0.67)-0.91

No. of Programs 

Represented 24 50 60 80 91 101 104 

*Represents the 10 utility programs with the lowest price premiums for new renewable energy sources. In 2001, a 

discrepancy exists between the low end of the range for all programs and the Top 10 programs, because the program 

with the lowest premium (0.9¢/kWh) was either selling some existing renewables or had not installed any new 

renewable capacity for its program. 

**Data for April 2000. 

Source: Bird and Brown (2006a) 

The average price premium has dropped at an annual average rate of about 8% since 2000 

(Figure 4). Some of this reduction can be attributed to lower market costs for renewable energy 

supplies. Also, increases in the price of natural gas have narrowed the price gap between 

renewables and gas-fired generation alternatives, which has led to lower initial premiums for 

many new programs but has also reduced the effective premiums in programs that exempt 

participating customers from fuel-related price increases.11 In addition, a number of utilities have 

lowered their premiums over time to reflect changing market conditions (see Appendix F). 

 

11 Some utilities periodically adjust the green power premium to reflect changes in the cost of fossil fuels used for 

electricity generation. Other utilities offer a fixed-rate green power product. In either case, when fuel prices increase, 

the effective green power premium falls. Utilities offering fixed-rate green power options or other types of fuel-price 

exemptions include Austin Energy, Alliant Energy, Clallum County PUD, Edmond Electric, Eugene Water and 

Electric Board, Green Mountain Power, Holy Cross Energy, Madison Gas & Electric, OG&E Electric Services, We 

Energies, and Xcel Energy. 

 9
1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

¢/kWh

Average

Median

Figure 4: Trend in Utility Green Pricing Premiums, 2000–2005 

A growing number of utilities also offer lower premiums for bulk green power purchases by 

larger nonresidential customers.12 In these programs, the premium charged to nonresidential 

customers can range from 0.5¢/kWh to 2¢/kWh less than the residential green energy premium. 

A number of these bulk purchase rates have been introduced in recent years to help utilities 

compete against low-priced REC offerings. 

Green Pricing Sales 

Utility green pricing sales continue to exhibit strong growth (Figure 5). Collectively, utilities in 

regulated electricity markets sold more than 2.4 billion kWh of green power to retail customers 

through green pricing programs in 2005. Green power sales to all customer classes increased by 

33% in 2005, compared to growth rates in excess of 40% in the past several years (Table 7). 

Sales growth is attributed to both continued expansion of the green power customer base as well 

as larger purchases by nonresidential customers. 

Renewable energy sold through green pricing programs in 2005 represents an equivalent 

renewable energy generation capacity of nearly 800 MW, with more than 740 MW from new 

renewable energy resources (Table 8). Wind, solar, and landfill gas are the renewable resources 

most commonly used for utility programs, with wind energy representing the largest portion of 

the total capacity. Appendix A presents estimates of new capacity serving green pricing 

programs in previous years. 

 

12 These include Continental Cooperative Services/Soyland, Midstate Electric Cooperative, utilities participating in 

the NC Green Power Program, PacifiCorp, Portland General Electric, Puget Sound Energy, Salt River Project, We 

Energies, and Wisconsin Public Power Inc. 

 10
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

million kWh

Total Sales

Residential Sales

Nonresidential Sales

Figure 5: Utility Green Pricing Sales, 2000-2005 

Table 7: Annual Sales of Renewable Energy through Utility Green Pricing Programs 

(millions of kWh) 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Sales to Residential Customers --- 400 661 874 1,295 1,606 

Sales to Nonresidential Customers --- 173 234 410 544 842 

Total Sales to All Customers 454 573 895 1,284 1,839 2,448 

% Annual Growth in Total Sales --- 26% 56% 43% 43% 33% 

% Nonresidential of Total Sales --- 30% 26% 32% 30% 34% 

 *Sales information by customer segment not available for 2000.

 Source: Bird and Brown (2006a) 

Table 8: Renewable Energy Sources Supplying Utility Green Pricing Programs, 2005 

Landfill 

Gas Digesters Wood Geothermal Hydro Solar Wind Total 

Sales (MWh) 323,000 28,000 63,000 72,000 97,000 6,000 1,859,000 2,448,000 

% of Total Sales 13% 1% 3% 3% 4% <1% 76% 100% 

% New Sales 59% 100% 88% 4% 12% 100% 99% 87% 

Capacity Factor* 90% 90% 80% 90% 50% 20% 30% n/a 

Total MW 41 4 9 9 22 3 707 796 

MW New RE 24 4 8 <1 3 3 702 744 

* Capacity factors are derived from EPRI/DOE 1997 and EIA 2006b to reflect a blend of technologies installed over 

time and in areas with varying resource quality. 

 11
Customer Participation 

At the end of 2005, nearly 400,000 customers were participating in utility green pricing 

programs nationwide, including more than 11,000 nonresidential customers.13 From 1999 to 

2005, the number of customer participants increased nearly six-fold, with growth rates in recent 

years ranging from 16% to 35%. 

Table 9 delineates residential and nonresidential customer participation in utility green pricing 

programs over time. The vast majority of participants are residential customers; nonresidential 

customers accounted for only 3% of all participants in 2005. However, nonresidential 

participation is growing at a faster rate than residential participation, which is having a 

significant positive impact on overall sales volume because of the larger size of nonresidential 

purchases. 

Table 9: Estimated Cumulative Number of Customer Participants 

in Utility Green Pricing Programs 

Customer Segment 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Residential n/a* 131,000 166,300 224,500 258,700 323,700 383,400

Nonresidential n/a* 1,700 2,500 3,900 6,500 8,100 11,300

Total 66,900 132,700 168,800 228,400 265,000 331,800 394,700

% Total Annual Growth n/a 98% 27% 35% 16% 25% 19% 

% Residential Growth n/a n/a 27% 35% 15% 25% 18% 

% Nonresidential Growth n/a n/a 47% 56% 67% 25% 40% 

*Information on residential and nonresidential participants is not available for 1999. 

Source: Bird and Brown (2006a) 

At the end of 2005, the average participation rate in utility green pricing programs among 

eligible utility customers was 1.5%, with a median of 1% (Table 10). These industry-wide rates 

have shown very little change in recent years. The overall lack of improvement in participation 

rates results from a number of factors, including a lack of customer awareness of the green 

power program,14 customer unwillingness to pay a premium for green power, customer 

uncertainty regarding the actual benefits of the program, and varied levels of interest among 

utilities in marketing and promoting the program (Holt and Holt 2004, Swezey and Bird 2001). 

However, the top performing programs continue to show improvement, with participation rates 

ranging from about 5% to nearly 14% in 2005, compared to a range of 3% to 6% in 2002. 

In 2005, utilities reported that an average of 6.5% and a median of 5.1% of customers dropped 

out of green pricing programs, reversing a trend of increasing attrition rates during the past 

several years (Bird and Brown, 2006a). This finding is somewhat surprising in a year in which 

customers throughout the country faced higher electricity and energy prices. Although the reason 

 

13 NREL received participant and sales data for about 70% of utility green pricing programs in 2005, including all of 

the major programs. The remaining programs, which are smaller in size, do not have a large impact on overall 

participant numbers. 

14 A number of utilities have reported that only 20% to 30% of their customers are aware that a green power option 

is offered. 

 12
for the increase in customer retention is not clear, this finding suggests that customers are 

“sticky” and maintain participation in green power programs despite other energy cost increases. 

Table 10: Customer Participation Rates in Utility Green Pricing Programs by Year 

Participation Rate 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Average 0.9% 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.5% 

Median 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 

Top 10 programs 2.1%–

4.7%* 

2.6%–

7.3% 

3.0%–

7.0% 

3.0%–

5.8% 

3.9%–

11.1% 

3.8%–

14.5% 

4.6%–

13.6% 

 *Data for April 2000

 Source: Bird and Brown (2006a) 

 13
Competitive Green Power and REC Markets 

About one-third of U.S. states have restructured their electricity markets to introduce retail 

service competition. Currently, electricity consumers in the following states can purchase 

competitively marketed green power: Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Virginia, as well as the District of 

Columbia (Figure 6 and Appendix G).15, 16

Initially, buying green power in competitive retail markets entailed switching service from the 

incumbent utility to a green power supplier. However, with few exceptions, green power 

marketers have found it difficult to compete or to persuade customers to switch suppliers. As a 

remedy, a number of states now require default suppliers (which are often the incumbent 

distribution utilities) to offer green power options to their customers. These suppliers typically 

provide customers with a choice of several products offered by competing green power 

marketers. In addition, several utility suppliers have voluntarily teamed with a single green 

power marketer to offer a green power option to their customers. Utility/marketer partnership 

programs are now offered in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, 

and Rhode Island. 

RECs provide another alternative to switching electricity suppliers. Also known as “green tags” 

or tradable renewable certificates (TRCs), RECs represent the “green” attributes of renewable 

energy generation and can be sold separately from commodity electricity. REC-based products 

may be supplied from a variety of renewable energy sources throughout the country and sold to 

customers nationally; or they may be supplied from renewable energy sources in a particular 

region or locality and marketed as such to local customers. More than 20 companies offer 

certificate-based green power products to retail customers via the Internet, and a number of other 

companies market RECs solely to commercial and industrial customers (Appendix H).17 

RECs are also sold in the wholesale market and are frequently used by utilities and marketers 

who bundle the RECs with commodity electricity to sell green power to retail customers. In fact, 

RECs are used to supply most of the programs in which default suppliers have teamed with green 

power marketers. Thus, it can be difficult to distinguish REC products from other green power 

offerings. This is particularly true when REC products are supplied from renewable sources 

located in the same region in which they are marketed. 

 

15 For an up-to-date list of products offered by competitive green power marketers, see the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s Green Power Network Web site at 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/marketing.shtml?page=1 16 We do not include Oregon and Ohio in this list. In Oregon, only large commercial and industrial customers are 

able to switch to competitive green power providers; residential and small commercial customers have access to 

green power options offered by the incumbent utilities, which we categorize as green pricing. In Ohio, at least one 

green power marketer supplied customers of municipal aggregation groups with a “cleaner energy” product, but the 

renewable energy content was very low (this offer was terminated at the end of 2005). Green power is not offered 

more broadly in the Ohio market. 

17 For an up-to-date list of companies offering REC-based green power products, see the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s Green Power Network Web site at: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/certificates.shtml?page=1 

 14
Restructuring Active

Retail Green Power Products Available

Restructuring Not Active

Indicates Number of Utilities/Companies Offering 

Green Power Products.

Green pricing products are available to residential customers.

Green power products are available to customers who switched 

electricity providers prior to termination of direct access.

#

5

1

3

1

2

4

4

5

1

13

3

Figure 6: States with Competitive Green Power Offerings 

Products and Pricing 

Green power products offered in competitive markets tend to differ from those offered by 

utilities in regulated markets, in that they may contain a mix of electricity generated from new 

and preexisting renewable energy projects; whereas utility green pricing programs generally 

utilize only new renewable energy supplies. One reason for this is that competitive suppliers are 

subject to price competition, and existing resources are typically available at lower costs. Also, 

when markets initially opened to competition, green power marketers often were forced to offer 

existing renewables because of a lack of new renewable energy supplies. However, as new 

renewable energy facilities have come online, the fraction of new renewables in competitive 

retail products has increased. In addition, certification programs have required increasing 

amounts of new renewables. Effective January 1, 2007, the Green-e certification program will 

require all certified products to be supplied exclusively from new renewable energy projects.18

Similarly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Green Power Partnership will 

 

18 Administered by the San Francisco-based Center for Resource Solutions, the Green-e program certifies retail and 

wholesale green power products that meet its environmental and product content standards. In 2005, the Green-e 

program certified about half of the renewable energy sold in the U.S. voluntary green power market. For details on 

the Green-e National Standard, see http://www.green-e.org/. 

 15
require its partners to purchase new renewables to meet its minimum purchase criteria, starting in 

2007.19

The price premium charged for competitive market products depends on several factors such as 

the price of standard offer or default service, the availability of incentives to green power 

marketers or suppliers, and the cost of renewable energy generation available in the regional 

market. Some marketers charge prices close to or even below the default market price; others 

offer fixed-price products at a premium, which provide customers with protection against 

increasing prices for a specified period of time, usually one year. 

Competitively marketed green power products generally carry a price premium of between 

1¢/kWh and 2.5¢/kWh, although offerings range from discounts to a premium of about 

10¢/kWh. During 2005, a number of marketers were forced to increase the price premiums for 

their products as a result of market conditions. The renewable energy sources most commonly 

used to supply competitive green power offerings are wind, landfill gas, and small or low-impact 

hydropower, while a number of products also contain a small amount of solar energy. Higherpriced products often contain a larger fraction of new renewable energy content or more 

desirable resources, such as new wind and solar. 

Similar to competitively marketed products, retail prices charged for REC products typically 

range from about 1¢/kWh to 2.5¢/kWh for residential and small commercial customers. In most 

cases, larger customers are able to negotiate lower prices. Nearly all REC products are sourced 

from new renewable energy generation projects, which is a requirement of both Green-e

certification and the EPA Green Power Partnership. Purchasers often seek certification out of 

concerns over “double counting” or because RECs are generally not subject to regulatory 

scrutiny. 

Wind energy is the most commonly used renewable energy source for RECs, although some 

REC products feature other renewable energy sources or blends of renewable sources, such as 

biomass (typically from bio-methane sources) and solar. 

Customer Participation 

Based on data received from green power marketers, we estimate that as many as 200,000 retail 

customers were purchasing green power from competitive suppliers or as RECs at the end of 

2005 (Table 11). This number includes about 60,000 participants in utility/marketer programs 

available in competitive markets. The number of customers participating in utility/marketer 

programs doubled during 2005 as these programs, most only recently launched, have begun to 

gain traction. 

In competitive markets, the vast majority of customers purchasing green power are residential 

customers. Of the 200,000 retail customers, fewer than 10,000 purchase REC products. While 

most of the REC purchasers are also residential customers, the vast majority of REC sales are 

made to nonresidential customers due to the much larger purchase sizes. 

 

19 See http://www.epa.gov/greenpower. 

 16
Table 11: Estimated Cumulative Number of Customers Purchasing RECs or Green Power 

from Competitive Marketers, 2002-2004 

2002 2003 2004 2005 

Competitive Markets ~150,000 ~170,000* <140,000* >180,000 

RECs <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 

Total <160,000 ~180,000 <150,000 ~190,000 

% Change n/a 13% -17% 27% 

*Estimates are revised from those reported in Bird and Swezey (2005a) based on EIA data (EIA 2006a); see 

Appendix C. Customer numbers in competitive markets for 2003 were increased from the 150,000 originally 

reported to 170,000, and 2004 customer numbers were adjusted downward from the 180,000 originally 

reported to 140,000. 

During 2005, most of the customer gains resulted from utility/marketer partnership programs in 

the Northeast. These gains were tempered by losses, particularly in Pennsylvania and Virginia, 

where marketers struggled to provide electricity service to consumers amidst adverse market 

conditions and increasing costs. For example, one marketer ceased offering electricity generation 

service to its 30,000 customers in late 2005, citing adverse market rules and conditions that 

increased its operating costs. The company instead began offering a REC-based product supplied 

from national renewable energy resources, but likely suffered losses when turning back its 

customers to default electricity service.20

Green Power Sales 

An estimated 6 billion kWh of renewable energy was sold to retail customers by competitive and 

REC marketers in 2005 (Table 12). This figure includes renewable energy from both existing 

and new sources as well as that sold to customers in products that contain only a small 

percentage of renewable energy. 

About 2.2 billion kWh of the total was sold as a bundled green power product in competitive 

electricity markets—nearly a 20% decline from 2004. As noted earlier, the decline in sales in 

competitive markets occurred as a result of adverse market conditions and increasing costs of 

serving customers with electricity in states such as Pennsylvania and Virginia. The competitive 

market sales figure includes renewable energy sales through default utility/marketer programs or 

individual utility/marketer partnership in competitive markets, which amounted to approximately 

290 million kWh in 2005. Retail REC sales more than doubled in 2005, reaching 3.9 billion 

kWh. All of the growth in REC sales is attributable to the nonresidential sector. 

 

20 Green Mountain Energy Company News Release, October 11, 2005, “Green Mountain Energy Company 

Introduces New Renewable Energy Product in Pennsylvania.” 

http://www.greenmountain.com/about/press_events/prviewer.jsp?dbId=18, accessed November 10, 2006. 

Green Mountain quit the Ohio market at the same time, citing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's 

implementation of Seams Elimination Charge Adjustment and its resulting litigation, in addition to unexpected 

charges associated with the start of Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc.'s Day II energy 

markets (see Austin Business Journal article, October 26, 2005 

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2005/10/24/daily30.html?from_rss=1).

 17
Table 12: Retail Sales of Renewable Energy in Competitive Markets and RECs 

(million kWh) 

2003 2004 2005 % Change 

2005/2004 

Competitive Markets 

Residential n/a 2,140 1,330 -38% 

Nonresidential n/a 510 820 61% 

Subtotal 1,900 2,650 2,150 -19% 

% Residential 81% 62% 

RECs 

Residential n/a 40 40 0% 

Nonresidential n/a 1,690 3,840 127% 

Subtotal 660 1,720 3,890 126% 

% Residential 2% 1% 

Total Sales 2,560 4,370 6,040 38% 

 n/a = not available 

 Totals may not add due to rounding. 

Table 12 also delineates green power sales by customer segment. In 2005, about 60% of green 

power sales in competitive markets were to residential customers, down from 80% in 2004. In 

contrast, nearly all REC sales were to nonresidential customers. Generally, nonresidential 

customers find REC products attractive because of their flexibility and the greater potential for 

cost savings,21 whereas residential customers may be not be aware that RECs are available or 

may not understand them. For commercial and institutional customers that operate facilities in 

multiple locations across the country, RECs may also provide a more efficient green power 

sourcing solution than working with utilities in each individual utility territory.22

In 2005, renewable energy sold in competitive markets or as RECs represented an equivalent 

renewable energy capacity of more than 1,700 MW, with more than 1,300 MW of this total 

coming from new renewable energy resources (Table 13). Wind energy supplied 55% of sales, 

followed by biomass (26%), hydropower—often from small or low-impact installations—(7%), 

landfill gas (6%), geothermal (6%), and solar (1%). 

 

21 RECs can provide cost savings when they are sourced from renewable energy projects in more favorable resource 

locations and because the electricity need not be delivered directly to the customer, which lowers transaction costs. 22 For example, the EPA Green Power Partnership reports that the majority of its top 25 partners purchase RECs 

(Appendix B). See http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/. In addition, the Green Power Market Development Group 

promotes the purchase of RECs among its members. See http://www.thegreenpowergroup.org/. 

 18
Table 13: Renewable Energy Sources Supplying Competitive and REC Markets, 2005 

Biomass Landfill 

Gas 

Geothermal Hydro Solar Wind Total 

MWh Sales 1,542,000 342,000 340,000 431,000 66,000 3,318,000 6,040,000 

% of Total Sales 26% 6% 6% 7% 1% 55% 100% 

Estimated % New 10% 75% 1% 10% 100% 95% n/a 

Capacity Factor* 80% 90% 90% 50% 20% 30% n/a 

Total MW 220 43 43 98 38 1,263 1,706 

MW New RE 22 33 1 10 38 1,200 1,302 

* Capacity factors are derived from EPRI/DOE 1997 and EIA 2006b to reflect a blend of technologies installed over 

time and in areas with varying resource quality. 

 19
Market Trends and Issues 

Taken as a whole, the voluntary green power market continues to exhibit strong growth. 

However, green power markets do not operate in isolation from other markets and are also 

impacted by both state and federal policy initiatives and changes. In this section, we briefly 

describe a number of market and policy developments that will have an important influence on 

the future of green power markets. 

 

Product Pricing 

Utility Green Pricing 

As noted previously, green power price premiums have been falling over time due to a 

combination of higher prices for conventional fuels and lower renewable energy costs. 

Nationally, the average premium charged in green pricing programs has fallen from 3.48¢/kWh 

in 2000 to 2.36¢/kWh in 2005. Clearly, when the cost differential between renewable and 

conventional generation is narrowed, green power becomes a more attractive purchase option. 

Several utilities exempt their green power customers from rate adjustments caused by changes in 

the prices of nonrenewable generation fuels. For three of these utilities, rising natural gas prices 

caused the green power price differential to turn negative at the end of 2005, that is, green power 

customers were actually paying less for their power than base rate customers.23 This situation led 

to a “run on the bank” which exhausted the green power supplies of two of the three utilities. 

And three other utilities24 offer a fixed-rate green power product, which also provides customers 

with protection from fuel price changes. The most successful of these programs is the 

GreenChoice program offered by Austin Energy, which in 2005 accounted for nearly 20% of all 

green power sales by the nation’s utilities. The utility signs 10-year, fixed-price wind energy 

supply contracts and likewise requires its customers to commit to a 10-year green power 

purchase. The program has proven extremely popular with larger commercial customers who, in 

addition to buying renewable energy, are able to lock in a hedge against future fossil energy 

price volatility. GreenChoice customers have also seen the utility’s base rates rise above those 

charged for green power. 

Why don’t more utilities offer fixed-rate green power products or fuel-price exemptions? 

Utilities are generally risk averse and are concerned that customers will drop the green power 

service and leave the utility with “stranded” investment in renewable energy projects. Many 

utilities (and their regulators) strictly avoid any cross-subsidization between green power 

customers and other customer classes. The Austin Energy model works, in large measure, 

because the utility and city are willing to accept these risks. On the other hand, the great success 

of the Austin program clearly shows that customers place a high value on the fixed-price 

characteristic of the product.25

 

23 The three utilities are Edmund Electric (Okla.), OG&E Electric Services (Okla.), and Xcel Energy (Colorado 

program). 

24 The three utilities are Austin Energy (Tex.), Eugene Water and Electric Board (Ore.), and Clallum County Public 

Utility District (Wash.). 

25 A forthcoming NREL report will provide a detailed examination of fixed-rate green power products. 

 20
Renewable Energy Certificates 

Increasingly, REC sales have come to dominate the green power market. In particular, large 

national-scale companies and organizations find RECs to be an attractive green power option 

because of the greater flexibility they offer in cost and procurement. Because RECs can be 

derived from renewable energy projects located anywhere in the country, there is a greater level 

of competition among suppliers, which exerts downward pressure on prices. Figure 7, compiled 

from a very limited sample of publicly available data on large REC purchases, shows that similar 

to green pricing, REC prices have declined considerably in recent years.26 REC prices tend to be 

lower than utility green pricing premiums, again owing to a greater level of competition among 

suppliers and the existence of a national marketplace for RECs. In fact, published market data for 

October 2006 shows a price range of from 0.15¢/kWh to 0.9¢/kWh for non-solar voluntary REC 

offers (Table 14). 

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

(3)

¢/kWh

Note: In 2004, there were three publicly announced REC deals priced at 1.50¢/kWh. 

Figure 7: Trend in Green Power Purchase Contract Prices 

 

26 Several caveats must be offered on the price data presented in Figure 7. First, no attempt has been made to control 

for renewable fuel type, e.g., wind, landfill gas, or small hydro, or for product quality, e.g., products supplied from 

100% “new” projects vs. product blends sourced from new and existing projects. Second, the regional mix of 

purchases for which price data is available may not be representative of the nation as a whole. The type of buyer, 

e.g., public agency vs. private company, and the quantity purchased can also be important. In the latter case, 

customers likely are able to negotiate more favorable pricing for larger purchase amounts. Finally, whether a 

purchase consists of local/regional RECs or national RECs can affect the price—national RECs are generally more 

plentiful and available at very low prices whereas customers may face higher prices for local/regional RECs because 

of more limited supply and sourcing options. 

 21
Table 14: Voluntary REC Offers and Pricing, October 2006 

Source: Evolution Markets Inc., “Monthly Market Update: REC Markets,” October 2006. 

(http://www.evomarkets.com/resources/index.php?xp1=1&type=mmu) 

Whether REC prices will continue to fall is an open question. Because of global demand 

pressures, market prices for wind turbines and solar modules have been rising, increasing the 

cost of some new renewable energy projects. However, costs are also rising for construction of 

new power plants utilizing conventional fuels, perhaps negating any near-term impact on REC 

prices. Competition for RECs could also heat up as RPS policies proliferate and compliance 

requirements ramp up. Nevertheless, REC prices remain low currently and early indications are 

that 2006 will be another year of significant growth in green power sales. For example, in 

October 2006, the EPA Green Power Partnership announced that total annual renewable energy 

purchase commitments among its partners had risen to more than 7 billion kWh, up from about 4 

billion kWh at the end of 2005.27

Utility/Marketer Partnerships 

As noted previously, utility green pricing programs, on average, have achieved participation 

rates of about 1.5%. And under the most favorable market conditions, competitive green power 

marketers have garnered about 1% to 2% of retail customers. Meanwhile, the most successful 

green power programs have achieved participation rates of from 5% to 15%. 

In recent years, a number of utilities have turned to partnering with independent, third-party 

renewable energy marketers to design and promote their green power programs or to enhance the 

effectiveness of existing programs. Today, more than 25 utilities either voluntarily team with 

marketers to offer green power options or do so under legal or regulatory requirements. Several 

states also require default electricity suppliers to offer green power options in conjunction with 

competitive marketers. These programs provide access to retail green energy products in 

restructured markets where none may otherwise exist. 

A recent review showed that strategic partnerships between utilities and marketers can be an 

effective approach to marketing green power in both regulated and restructured electricity 

markets (Bird and Brown, 2006b). Such partnerships leverage the program design, sales, and 

resource procurement experience of marketers and the utility’s service reputation and access to 

 

27 “EPA's Green Power Top-25 Announced: Wells Fargo Joins List as Top Corporation,” EPA News Release, 

October 3, 2006. 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a8f952395381d3968525701c005e65b5/390b6eff78f77da6852571fc00611

971!OpenDocument

 22
customers. In states with competitive electricity markets, partnerships between default suppliers 

and marketers provide greater choices for residential and small commercial customers, who may 

otherwise be hesitant to switch suppliers. Partnerships also create greater incentives for success 

because marketers have a vested financial interest in maximizing customer participation and 

green power sales. 

Interaction with Energy and Environmental Policies 

Renewable Portfolio Standards 

Voluntary green power markets represent a market-based mechanism for increasing renewable 

energy development through consumer demand while renewable portfolio standards (RPS) 

represent a policy mandate.28 An RPS requires electricity providers to supply a certain quantity 

or percentage of their delivered energy from renewable energy sources. RPS policies have been 

adopted in 21 states and the District of Columbia through legislative action, regulatory order, or 

ballot initiative. 

Depending on the design, an RPS policy can either support or limit the voluntary market for 

renewable energy. Most important is whether or not renewable electricity used for voluntary 

green power programs should be counted towards the RPS requirement. By counting voluntary 

purchases, suppliers may have an easier time meeting the RPS requirements and at a lower 

overall cost. On the other hand, counting voluntary market sales toward RPS compliance 

undermines one of the fundamental tenets of these markets, which is that voluntary purchases 

support renewable energy development that is additional to policy mandates for which all 

customers share the cost. 

Most states with an RPS policy have determined that voluntary green power purchases should 

not be counted toward RPS compliance. For example, Minnesota statutes require the state’s 

utilities to both offer their customers the opportunity to purchase some or all of their energy from 

renewable energy sources and to make good-faith efforts to generate or otherwise secure enough 

electricity from qualifying renewable energy technologies to represent 10% of total retail electric 

sales by 2015. In considering how to integrate these two policies, the Minnesota Public Utilities 

Commission determined that counting green pricing sales toward the renewable energy 

objectives was not consistent with the public interest or other state energy policies that seek to 

encourage renewable energy development. 

However, in Texas, a 2005 law that increased the state’s RPS included a section that requires all 

renewable energy capacity in the state to count toward RPS compliance. If implemented, this 

could have a deleterious effect on voluntary market sales from Texas-based renewable energy 

projects. Most voluntary market customers expect their purchases to be additional to any policy 

requirements. In fact, such “additionality” is a primary requirement of the Green-e certification 

program as well as for membership in the EPA Green Power Partnership. 

 

28 Generally, RPS policies do include some market-based mechanisms, such as requiring renewable energy 

developers to compete for power supply contracts and employing renewable energy credit trading. 

 23
In many cases, voluntary green power programs have preceded establishment of a state RPS 

mandate. Voluntary green power markets have raised public awareness of and support for 

renewables, provided utilities with experience in the operation and grid integration of renewable 

energy technologies, and built new constituencies for renewable energy among rural landowners 

and farmers, all of which have provided key arguments and support for RPS policy adoption. 

Many renewable energy project developers support continuation of both markets to provide 

revenue options and reduce the risk of holding unutilized renewable energy generation.29

Carbon Emissions Policies 

While renewable energy purchases provide a number of benefits, many consumer purchases have 

been motivated, at least in part, by their greenhouse gas benefits. Currently, green power 

purchasing is one accessible and relatively easy way for consumers, companies and 

organizations to reduce their carbon footprints. Most utilities and marketers that offer green 

power promote their products by touting the greenhouse gas benefits. Likewise, many purchasers 

point to the carbon reduction benefits of their green power purchases in news releases and other 

promotional materials. 

Carbon control policies have the potential to substantially impact voluntary markets for 

renewable energy. Carbon regulation is now emerging in the Northeast under the Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and in California as a result of recently adopted legislation 

(AB32). There is increased discussion about carbon regulation at the national level as well. Both 

RGGI and California plan to implement cap-and-trade programs to achieve carbon reductions, 

similar to the successful national sulfur dioxide (SO2) cap-and-trade system developed under the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to address acid rain. 

Under a carbon cap-and-trade program, the ability for renewable energy generation sources to 

affect carbon emissions levels will depend on the program design; for example, whether 

renewable generation sources are allocated allowances that can be retired or are otherwise 

considered in setting the level of the cap. This, in turn, will impact the claims that renewable 

energy generators and marketers can make with respect to carbon reductions. If cap-and-trade 

programs are designed such that voluntary green power purchases do not lead to overall carbon 

emission reductions, this will limit the greenhouse gas benefit claims of purchasers and pose a 

challenge for green power marketers. 

The design of emerging regulatory programs to reduce carbon emissions will thus have 

important implications for the operation and perhaps even the viability of voluntary renewable 

energy markets in the future.30 In the meantime, a growing number of companies and 

organizations are marketing carbon-offset products to help consumers reduce their carbon 

footprints, covering everything from offsetting the carbon emissions associated with personal car 

and air travel to “greening” the electricity used at business conferences. Carbon offsets face 

many of the same issues and challenges of definition, verification and certification as green 

 

29 “Supplying Green Power in Compliance and Voluntary Markets,” Presentation by Barrett Stambler, PPM Energy, 

at the Tenth National Green Power Marketing Conference, Austin, Texas, October 26, 2005. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/conference/10gpmc05/stambler.pdf. 30 A forthcoming NREL report will provide a detailed examination of the implications of emerging carbon markets 

and policies on voluntary renewable energy markets. 

 24
power; in fact verification of carbon offsets is more challenging than for green power because of 

the wide array of offset activities. 

Carbon-offset products can be both a threat and opportunity for green power. If offset products 

include renewable energy as a component, then this market will provide a stimulus for renewable 

energy development. On the other hand, there are any number of alternative measures that could 

qualify as carbon offsets, which creates competition for green power as a carbon reduction 

strategy.31

Is Green Power Simply an Evolutionary Step in Renewable Energy Development? 

Finally, when, if ever, does premium-priced green power become unnecessary? Most new green 

power today is being supplied by wind energy, which is arguably becoming more widely cost 

competitive with conventional electricity supplies. Should customers continue to pay a premium 

for green power once it becomes cost competitive? For example, when Minnkota Power 

Cooperative, which serves 11 distribution cooperatives in Minnesota and North Dakota, recently 

lowered the premium charged for its Infinity Wind Energy program from 1.5¢/kWh to 0.5¢/kWh, 

one distribution utility—Nodak Electric—decided to drop the premium-priced program 

altogether and include the wind energy in base rates.32

Some argue that green pricing should be focused on renewable energy technologies that are 

furthest from market competitiveness and thus need additional financial support, such as solar 

energy. And many believe that an RPS is a fair and effective policy for accelerating renewable 

energy development and sharing the cost of that development among all consumers. On the other 

hand, there are an abundance of customers who want to support renewable energy beyond the 

minimum deployment levels called for in an RPS, which is typically from 10% to 20% of total 

electricity supply. For example, many customers, including large Fortune 500 companies, choose 

to offset 100% of their power usage with green power and are willing to pay more for that 

opportunity. 

Voluntary green power markets continue to play an important role in educating the public about 

renewable energy sources and options. And there is ample evidence that voluntary markets 

encourage new renewable energy development as well as support and build on RPS markets by 

providing an additional market outlet and revenue source for renewable energy project output. 

 

31 The ClimateBiz Web site notes that “there are three main types of projects that produce offsets: projects that 

prevent the release of CO2, projects that reduce non-CO2 greenhouse gases, and projects that sequester carbon in 

vegetation or soil.” 

See http://www.climatebiz.com/sections/backgrounder_detail.cfm?UseKeyword=Carbon%20Offsets 32 See “Wind subscription cost eliminated” in Nodak Neighbor customer newsletter (July/August 2006). 

http://www.nodakelectric.com/pdf/JulyAug%202006%20NN.pdf

 25
Conclusions and Observations 

The green power market continues to exhibit strong growth and provide an important demanddriven stimulus for renewable energy development. Green power markets provide an additional 

revenue stream for renewable energy projects, and raise consumer awareness of the benefits of 

renewable energy. Based on this review, we have identified the following market trends: 

• In 2005, retail sales of renewable energy in voluntary purchase markets totaled 8.5 billion 

kWh, representing a capacity equivalent of 2,500 MW of renewable energy, including 2,000 

MW from new renewable energy sources. The latter figure corresponds to 22% of the total 

renewable energy capacity additions since 1997; thus, green power purchases are providing 

support for a significant fraction of new renewable energy projects, nationally. 

• Wind energy provided 61% of green power sales in 2005, followed by biomass energy 

sources (27%), hydropower (6%), geothermal (5%), and solar (1%). 

• Total market sales increased by 37% in 2005. Much of this growth was driven by REC sales 

to nonresidential consumers, which more than doubled during 2005. As a result, commercial 

and institutional REC markets now represent nearly half of total green power market sales, 

surpassing sales in competitive electricity markets and utility green pricing programs. 

• Utility green pricing programs in regulated electricity markets continued to show steady 

growth, with sales increasing by 33% in 2005. However, a relatively small number of utility 

programs continue to dominate sales and customer numbers. This suggests that stronger 

performance is possible with effective program design and implementation, and dedicated 

marketing strategies but also that many programs are not achieving their full potential. 

• Competitive markets continued to exhibit volatility, with sales declining nearly 20% during 

2005. Difficulties posed by market rules and conditions, as well as the continuing challenge 

of convincing customers to switch electricity providers, has led marketers to shift away from 

delivered renewable electricity products toward marketing REC products as well as to pursue 

partnerships with default suppliers to supply and market green power. Despite the losses in 

competitive markets, programs in which marketers have teamed with default suppliers 

doubled in terms of both sales and customers during 2005, showing that utility/marketer 

partnerships hold promise for future growth. 

• Overall, the number of customers purchasing green power increased modestly, with gains in 

utility green pricing programs and utility/marketer programs offsetting losses elsewhere in 

competitive retail markets. 

• In 2005, for the first time, a majority of green power sales (65%) were made to nonresidential 

customers. Overall, nonresidential sales doubled while sales to residential customers declined 

by 14% because of losses in competitive retail markets. The growing dominance of 

nonresidential sales is a departure from the early history of green power markets when most 

products and programs were oriented toward residential customers. Looking forward, 

demand by the nonresidential sector appears to be increasing and will likely continue to drive 

future voluntary market growth. 

• Utility green pricing premiums have continued to fall, owing to a combination of higher 

prices of conventional generation fuels and lower renewable resource costs. In fact, a number 

of programs that exempt customers from fossil fuel costs saw the price of green power fall 

below conventional electricity prices, which necessitated customer waiting lists. Wholesale 

REC prices have also fallen in some markets, contributing to REC sales growth. 

 26
References 

Bird, L. and E. Brown, 2006a. Trends in Utility Green Pricing Programs (2005), NREL/TP-620-

40777 Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, October. 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/40777.pdf

Bird, L. and E. Brown, 2006b. Utility-Marketer Partnerships: An Effective Strategy for 

Marketing Green Power? NREL/TP-620-39730 Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory, April. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39730.pdf 

Bird, L. and E. Brown, 2005. Trends in Utility Green Pricing Programs (2004), NREL/TP-620-

38800 Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, September. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/resources/pdfs/38800.pdf 

Bird, L. and K. Cardinal, 2004. Trends in Utility Green Pricing Programs (2003), NREL/TP620-36833 Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, September. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/pdfs/36833.pdf 

Bird, L. and B. Swezey, 2005a. Green Power Marketing in the United States: A Status Report 

(Eighth Edition), NREL/TP-620-38994. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

October. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/resources/pdfs/38994.pdf 

Bird, L. and B. Swezey, 2005b. “Estimates of New Renewable Energy Capacity Serving U.S. 

Green Power Markets” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, September. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/resources/tables/new_gp_cap.shtml

Bird, L. and B. Swezey, 2004. Green Power Marketing in the United States: A Status Report 

(Seventh Edition), NREL/TP-620-36823. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

September. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/pdfs/36823.pdf 

Bird, L. and B. Swezey, 2003. Green Power Marketing in the United States: A Status Report (6th

Edition), NREL/TP-620-35119. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, October. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/resources/pdfs/35119.pdf

Center for Resource Solutions, 2002. Green-e Verification Report, 2001 http://www.greene.org/what_is/standard/verification.html 

Center for Resource Solutions, 2001. Green-e Verification Report, 2000 http://www.greene.org/what_is/standard/verification.html

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 1997. 

Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations, TR-109496, December. 

Holt, E.A., and M. Holt, 2004. Green Pricing Resource Guide (2nd Edition), Ed Holt & 

Associates, Inc., Harpswell, Maine. Prepared for the American Wind Energy Association, 

 27
Washington DC, September. 

http://www.awea.org/greenpower/greenPricingResourceGuide040726.pdf

Swezey, B. and L. Bird, 2001. Utility Green Pricing Programs: What Defines Success?

NREL/TP-620-29831. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, August. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/29831.pdf 

Swezey, B. and L. Bird, 2000. Green Power Marketing in the United States: A Status Report (5th

Edition), NREL/TP-620-28738. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, August. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/resources/pdfs/28738.pdf 

Swezey, B. and L. Bird, 1999. Information Brief on Green Power Marketing, 4th Edition.

NREL/TP-620-26901. Golden: CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, August. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/resources/pdfs/26901.pdf 

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2006a. Renewable Energy Annual 2004, 

DOE/EIA, June. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/rea_data/rea_sum.html 

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2006b. Annual Energy Outlook 2006, DOE/EIA, 

DOE/EIA-0383(2006), February.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html 

Wiser, R. and S. Olsen, with L. Bird and B. Swezey, 2004. Utility Green Pricing Programs: A 

Statistical Analysis of Program Effectiveness. Report prepared by Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, Berkeley, California, February. LBNL-54437. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/resources/pdfs/lbnl_54437.pdf 

 28
Appendix A 

Estimates of New Renewable Energy Capacity Serving Green Power Markets, 2000-2004 

Prior to 2005, estimates of the capacity serving green power markets were made based on 

renewable energy projects used to serve green power programs, rather than derived from 

renewable energy sales. Therefore, the 2005 estimated capacity is not directly comparable to 

capacity estimates from previous years. However, the two approaches yield relatively consistent 

results. 

Bird and Swezey (2005b) provide details on the derivation of capacity estimates for years 2004 

and earlier. Table A-1 presents estimates of the cumulative new renewable energy capacity 

serving voluntary markets from 2000 to 2004. A brief description of the methodology is included 

below. 

Table A-1: Estimated Cumulative New Renewable Energy Capacity Supplying Green Power 

Markets, 2000-2004* (megawatts) 

Market 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Utility Green Pricing 77 221 279 510 706 

Competitive Markets/RECs 90 542 695 1,126 1,528 

Total** 167 764 974 1,636 2,233 

*Data not directly comparable with Table 4. 

**Totals may not add due to rounding. 

 Source: Bird and Swezey (2005b). 

The 2004 and earlier estimates of capacity serving green power markets focus on new renewable 

resources used to serve green power customers. New renewable resources are defined as projects 

or portions of projects built specifically to serve green power customers or recently constructed 

projects that are used to supply green power customers and meet the regional Green-e standards 

for new renewables. The estimates do not include pre-existing renewable energy projects used 

for green power supply or capacity used to meet state RPS requirements or other renewable 

energy mandates. 

These estimates generally include the entire capacity of a given renewable energy project 

irrespective of whether the output has been fully subscribed by green power purchasers, e.g., if a 

utility or developer completed a project before the entire output was sold to prospective 

customers. Thus, the estimates may include some capacity for which a green power buyer was 

not yet secured. However, in cases where a portion of a project is used to meet a renewable 

energy mandate, only the remainder of the project is counted. 

 29
Appendix B 

Table B-1: Top 25 Purchasers in the U.S. EPA Green Power Partnership, September 2006 

Rank Organization Green Power 

Usage (kWh) 

% of Total 

Electricity 

Organization Type Resources 

1 U.S. Air Force 1,043,558,000 11% Government (Federal) Biomass, Geothermal, 

Wind 

2 Wells Fargo & Co. 550,000,000 42% Banking Wind 

3 Whole Foods 

Market 

463,128,000 100% Retail Biomass, Geothermal, 

Small-hydro, Solar, Wind

4 U.S. EPA 329,880,185 100% Government (Federal) Biogas, Biomass, 

Geothermal, Wind 

5 Johnson & 

Johnson 

306,418,000 30% Manufacturing Biomass, Small-hydro, 

Solar, Wind 

6 Starbucks 185,000,000 20% Food, Food Services Wind 

7 DuPont Co. 170,000,000 4% Chemical Biomass 

8 U.S. DOE 165,063,000 3% Government (Federal) Biomass, Geothermal, 

Wind 

9 Vail Resorts 152,000,000 100% Tourism, Recreation Wind 

10 HSBC N.A. 124,544,000 35% Banking Wind 

11 University of 

Pennsylvania 

112,000,000 29% Education (Higher) Wind 

12 World Bank Group 106,762,000 100% Non-Profit Wind 

13 IBM Corp. 93,725,000 3% Manufacturing Solar, Wind 

14 Sprint Nextel 87,600,000 47% Telecommunications Wind 

15 Safeway Inc. 87,000,000 2% Retail Wind 

16 Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania 

79,801,000 8% Government (State) Wind 

17 The Tower 

Companies 

79,000,000 100% Real Estate Wind 

18 U.S. GSA 76,366,800 33% Government (Federal) Biogas, Wind 

19 California State 

University System 

75,435,000 13% Education (Higher) Biomass, Geothermal, 

Wind 

20 Staples 71,600,588 14% Retail Biogas, Biomass, Solar, 

Wind 

21 City of Austin 65,454,000 54% Government (Muni) Biogas, Wind 

22 City of San Diego 65,400,000 25% Government (Muni) Biogas, small-hydro, 

solar 

23 NatureWorks LLC 59,000,000 59% Manufacturing Wind 

24 FedEx Kinko’s 54,690,033 20% Retail Various 

25 Duke University 54,075,000 31% Education (Higher) Small-hydro, Wind 

Source: U.S. EPA Green Power Partnership http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/partners/top25.htm

 30
Appendix C 

Table C-1: Estimated U.S. Green Power Customers by State, 2003 and 2004 

 Participating Customers 

 2004 p 2003 

State 

Electric Industry 

Participants 

2004a Residential Nonresidential Total Total 

 Alabama 2 735 20 755 

 Alaska 

 Arizona 3 5,701 91 5,792 5,934 

 Arkansas 

 California 12 59,158 2,932 62,090 62,279 

 Colorado 23 39,389 777 40,166 44,194 

 Connecticut 

 Delaware 2 8 7 15 

 District of Columbia 2 4,994 228 5,222 4,824 

 Florida 3 11,053 23 11,076 218 

 Georgia 14 3,223 18 3,241 3,895 

 Hawaii 3 3,965 40 4,005 3,579 

 Idaho 6 4,173 110 4,283 2,508 

 Illinois 3 31 31 8 

 Indiana 8 1,313 26 1,339 1,091 

 Iowa 50 7,239 74 7,313 5,785 

 Kansas 

 Kentucky 11 502 11 513 118 

 Maine 1 8 8 5 

 Maryland 2 14,985 193 15,178 14,356 

 Massachusetts 3 2,741 125 2,866 1 

 Michigan 7 1,319 57 1,376 1,346 

 Minnesota 90 22,803 255 23,058 20,255 

 Mississippi 2 79 2 81 7 

 Missouri 7 392 6 398 261 

 Montana 6 398 9 407 49 

 Nebraska 5 4,017 54 4,071 4,171 

 Nevada 2 493 5 498 285 

 New Hampshire 

 New Jersey 3 1,575 336 1,911 1,816 

 New Mexico 7 8,031 430 8,461 5,774 

 New York 3 1,272 213 1,485 134 

 North Carolina 15 6,024 242 6,266 3,913 

 North Dakota 11 4,666 21 4,687 1,792 

 Ohio 3 407,051 47,458 454,509 428,849 

 Oklahoma 7 9,342 195 9,537 6,758 

 Oregon 12 52,655 1,247 53,902 42,139 

 Pennsylvania 3 36,299 29 36,328 74,676 

 Rhode Island 2 1,469 36 1,505 

 South Carolina 8 1,842 234 2,076 1,725 

 South Dakota 8 460 13 473 624 

 Tennessee 1 6,216 307 6,523 1 

 Texas 4 62,331 6,049 68,380 68,611 

 Utah 3 13,660 407 14,067 15,480 

 Vermont 1 868 31 899 

 Virginia 2 3,418 20 3,438 4,639 

 Washington 19 27,554 555 28,109 16,858 

 West Virginia 

 Wisconsin 56 28,607 592 29,199 26,595 

 Wyoming 6 2,743 53 2,796 1,573 

Total 403 864,794 63,539 928,333 877,126 a

 Includes entities with green pricing programs in more than one state. 

P

 = Preliminary 

Note: Nonresidential may include some customers for whom no customer class is specified. Blank cells indicate no data was reported for the state 

or the number of customers in a class was zero. Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

Source: Energy Information Administration, Renewable Energy Annual (2004 Edition). June 2006. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/rea_data/rea_sum.html Data from Form EIA-861, "Annual Electric Power Industry Report." 

 31
Appendix D 

Table D-1: Utilities Offering Green Pricing Programs in 2005 

Investor-Owned Utilities 

Alabama Power Company 

Alliant Energy 

Arizona Public Service 

Avista Utilities 

Central Vermont Public Service 

Dominion NC Power 

Duke Power 

El Paso Electric 

Florida Power & Light Company 

Green Mountain Power 

Gulf Power 

Hawaiian Electric 

Idaho Power Company 

Indianapolis Power & Light Company 

Madison Gas & Electric 

MidAmerican Energy 

Minnesota Power 

Northwestern Energy 

OG&E Electric Services 

Otter Tail Power Company 

PacifiCorp* 

Portland General Electric 

Progress Energy 

PSI Energy/Cinergy 

Public Service of New Mexico 

Puget Sound Energy 

Tampa Electric Company 

Tucson Electric Power Company 

UniSource Energy Services 

Upper Peninsula Power Company 

We Energies 

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation 

Xcel Energy 

Electric Cooperatives

Basin Electric Power Cooperative* 

Boone Electric Cooperative 

Continental Cooperative Services/Soyland 

Corn Belt Power Cooperatives 

Dairyland Power Cooperative* 

Deseret Power 

East Kentucky Power Cooperative* 

Farmers Electric Cooperative 

Georgia Electric Membership Corporation* 

Golden Valley Electric Association 

Great River Energy* 

Holy Cross Energy 

Hoosier Energy* 

Lower Valley Energy 

Midstate Electric Cooperative 

Minnkota Power Cooperative* 

Orcas Power & Light Cooperative 

Oregon Trail Electric Cooperative 

PNGC Power* 

Park Electric Cooperative 

Peninsula Light Company 

Southern Montana Electric G&T Cooperative 

Tri-State Generation and Transmission Assoc.* 

Vigilante Electric Cooperative 

Wabash Valley Power Association* 

Western Farmers Electric Cooperative 

Yampa Valley Electric Association

Federal

Tennessee Valley Authority* 

Municipals/Other Public Utilities

City of Alameda 

AMP Ohio 

Anaheim Public Utilities 

City of Ashland 

Austin Energy 

Benton County PUD 

City of Bowling Green 

Burbank Water and Power 

Cedar Falls Utilities 

Chelan County PUD 

Clallum County PUD 

Clark Public Utilities 

Colorado Springs Utilities 

Columbia River PUD 

Concord Municipal Light Plant 

Cowlitz PUD 

ElectriCities 

Emerald People’s Utility District 

Eugene Water & Electric Board 

Gainsville Regional Utilities 

Grant County PUD 

Grays Harbor PUD 

Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities* 

Keys Energy Services 

Lansing Board of Water and Light 

Lewis County PUD 

Lincoln Electric System 

Los Alamos Department of Public Utilities 

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 

Mason County PUD No. 3 

Missouri River Energy Services* 

Moorhead Public Service 

Muscatine Power and Water 

City of Naperville 

City of New Smyrna Beach 

Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority 

Omaha Public Power District 

Pacific County PUD #2 

Pasadena Water & Power 

City of Palo Alto Utilities 

Platte River Power Authority* 

Roseville Electric 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

City of St. Charles 

City of St. George Energy Services Department 

Salt River Project 

City Public Service of San Antonio 

Santee Cooper* 

Seattle City Light 

Silicon Valley Power 

Snohomish County PUD 

Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency* 

City Utilities of Springfield 

Tacoma Power 

City of Tallahassee 

Traverse City Light & Power 

Waverly Light & Power 

Wisconsin Public Power Inc.* 

*denotes program offered through multiple utilities or 

distribution cooperatives

 32
Appendix E 

Table E-1: Utility Green Pricing Programs, November 2006 

State Utility Name Program Name Type Start Date Premium 

AL Alabama Electric Cooperative: Central 

Alabama Electric Cooperative, Coosa 

Valley Electric Cooperative, Dixie 

Electric Cooperative, South Alabama 

Electric Cooperative, Southern Pine 

Electric Cooperative, Tallapoosa River 

Electric Cooperative, Wiregrass Electric 

Cooperative

Green Power Choice landfill gas 2006 2.0¢/kWh 

AL Alabama Power Company Renewable Energy 

Rate

biomass cofiring (wood) 2003/2000 6.0¢/kWh 

AL TVA: City of Athens Electric Department, 

Cullman Electric Coop, Cullman Power 

Board, Decator Utilities, Florence 

Utilities, Hartselle Utilities, Huntsville, 

Joe Wheeler EMC, Muscle Shoals 

Electric Board, Scottsboro Electric Power 

Board, Sheffield Utilities, Tuscumbia 

Electric Department

Green Power Switch landfill gas, PV, 

wind 

2000 2.67¢/kWh 

AK Golden Valley Electric Association Sustainable Natural 

Alternative Power 

(SNAP)

various local 

projects 

2005 Contribution 

AZ Arizona Public Service APS Solar Partners 

Program

central PV 1997 17.6¢/kWh 

AZ Salt River Project EarthWise Energy central PV, 

wind, landfill 

gas, small 

hydro, 

geothermal 

1998/2001 3.0¢/kWh 

AZ Tri-State Generation & Transmission: 

Columbus Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Renewable Resource 

Power Service

wind, hydro 2001 1.25¢/kWh 

AZ Tucson Electric GreenWatts landfill gas, PV 2000 10¢/kWh 

AZ UniSource Energy Services GreenWatts PV 2004 10¢/kWh 

CA Anaheim Public Utilities Green Power for the 

Schools

PV 2002 Contribution 

CA Anaheim Public Utilities Green Power for the 

Grid

wind, landfill gas 2002 1.5¢/kWh 

CA Burbank Water and Power Clean Green Support various 2001 1.0¢/kWh 

CA Los Angeles Department of Water and 

Power

Green Power for a 

Green LA

wind, landfill gas 1999 3.0¢/kWh 

CA PacifiCorp: Pacific Power Blue Sky Block wind 2000 1.95¢/kWh 

CA Palo Alto Utilities/3 Phases Energy 

Services

Palo Alto Green wind, PV 2003/2000 1.5¢/kWh 

CA Pasadena Water & Power Green Power wind 2003 2.5¢/kWh 

CA Roseville Electric Green Roseville wind, PV 2005 1.5¢/kWh 

CA Sacramento Municipal Utility District Greenergy wind, landfill 

gas, hydro, PV 

1997 1.0¢/kWh or 

$6/month 

CA Silicon Valley Power / 3 Phases Energy 

Services

Santa Clara Green 

Power

wind, PV 2004 1.5¢/kWh 

 33
State Utility Name Program Name Type Start Date Premium 

CO Colorado Springs Utilities Green Power wind 1999 3.0¢/kWh 

CO Holy Cross Energy Local Renewable 

Energy Pool

small hydro, PV 2002 2.33¢/kWh 

CO Holy Cross Energy Wind Power Pioneers wind 1998 1.5¢/kWh 

CO Platte River Power Authority: Estes Park, 

Fort Collins Utilities, Longmont Power & 

Communications, Loveland Water & 

Power

Wind Energy Premium wind 1999 1.0¢/kWh - 

2.5¢/kWh 

CO Tri-State Generation & Transmission: 

Chimney Rock Public Power District, 

Delta-Montrose Electric Association, 

Empire Electric Association, Inc., 

Gunnison County Electric Association, 

Inc., High West Energy, Inc., Highline 

Electric Association, K.C. Electric 

Association, Inc, La Plata Electric 

Association, Inc., Morgan County Rural 

Electric Association, Mountain Parks 

Electric, Inc., Mountain View Electric 

Association, Inc., Poudre Valley Rural 

Electric Association, Inc., San Isabel 

Electric Association, Inc., San Luis 

Valley Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., 

San Miguel Power Association, Inc., 

Sangre de Cristo Electric Association, 

Inc., Southeast Colorado Power 

Association, United Power, Inc., White 

River Electric Association, Inc., Y-W 

Electric Association, Inc. (20 of 44 coops 

offer program)

Renewable Resource 

Power Service

wind, hydro 1998 1.25¢/kWh 

CO Xcel Energy Renewable Energy 

Trust

PV 1993 Contribution 

CO Xcel Energy WindSource wind 1997 -0.67¢/kWh 

CO Yampa Valley Electric Association Wind Energy Program wind 1999 3.0¢/kWh 

DE Delaware Electric Cooperative Renewable Energy 

Rider

landfill gas 2006 0.2¢/kWh 

FL Alabama Electric Cooperative: Gulf 

Coast Electric Cooperative

Green Power Choice landfill gas 2006 2.0¢/kWh 

FL City of Tallahassee/Sterling Planet Green for You biomass, PV 2002 1.6¢/kWh 

FL City of Tallahassee/Sterling Planet Green for You PV only 2002 11.6¢/kWh 

FL Florida Power & Light / Green Mountain 

Energy

Sunshine Energy biomass, wind, 

PV 

2004 0.975¢/kWh 

FL Gainesville Regional Utilities GRUgreen Energy landfill gas, 

wind, PV 

2003 2.0¢/kWh 

FL Keys Energy Services / Sterling Planet GO GREEN: USA 

Green

wind, 

biomass,PV 

2004 1.60¢/kWh 

FL Keys Energy Services / Sterling Planet GO GREEN: Florida 

Ever Green

solar hot water, 

PV, biomass 

2004 2.75¢/kWh 

FL Tampa Electric Company (TECO) Tampa Electric's 

Renewable Energy 

Program

PV, biomass cofiring (wood) 2000 5.0¢/kWh 

FL Utilities Commission City of New Smyrna 

Beach

Green Fund local PV 

projects 

1999 Contribution 

 34
State Utility Name Program Name Type Start Date Premium 

GA Georgia Electric Membership 

Corporation (31 of 42 coops offer 

program): Altamaha, Amicalola, 

Canoochee, Carroll, Cobb, Coastal 

Electric, Coweta-Fayette, Diverse Power, 

Flint Energies, GreyStone Power, Grady, 

Habersham, Hart, Irwin, Jackson, 

Jefferson Energy, Little Ocmulgee, 

Mitchell, Ocmulgee, Planters, Rayle, 

Sawnee, Slash Pine, Snapping Shoals, 

Southern Rivers Energy, Sumter, Three 

Notch, Tri-County, Upson, Walton and 

Washington EMCs

Green Power EMC landfill gas, PV 

in schools 

2001 2.0¢/kWh3.3¢/kWh 

GA Georgia Power Green Energy landfill gas 2006 4.5¢/kWh 

GA TVA: Blue Ridge Mountain Electric 

Membership Corporation, North Georgia 

Electric Membership Corporation

Green Power Switch landfill gas, PV, 

wind 

2000 2.67¢/ kWh 

HI Hawaiian Electric Sun Power for Schools PV in schools 1997 Contribution 

HI Kauai Island Utility Cooperative Green Rate distributed 

renewable 

energy systems 

TBD TBD 

ID Avista Utilities Buck-A-Block wind 2002 0.33¢/kWh 

ID Idaho Power Green Power Program various 2001 0.98¢/kWh 

ID PacifiCorp: Utah Power Blue Sky wind 2003 1.95¢/kWh 

ID Vigilante Electric Cooperative Alternative Renewable 

Energy Program

wind 2003 1.1¢/kWh 

IL CCS/Soyland and Community Energy, 

Inc. (8 of 11 coops offer program): 

Adams Electric Co-op, Coles-Moultrie 

Electric, Eastern Illini Electric, 

McDonough Power, Menard, Rural 

Electric Convenience Co-op, Shelby 

Electric, Spoon River Electric Co-op

EcoEnergy wind 2005 3.0¢/kWh 

IL City of Naperville / Community Energy Renewable Energy 

Option

wind, small 

hydro, PV 

2005 2.5¢/kWh 

IL City of St. Charles/ComEd and 

Community Energy, Inc. 

TBD wind, landfill gas 2003 Contribution 

IL Dairyland Power Cooperative: Jo-Carroll 

Energy/Elizabeth

Evergreen Renewable 

Energy Program

landfill gas, 

biogas, hydro, 

wind 

1997 1.5¢/kWh 

IN Hoosier Energy (5 of 17 coops offer 

program): Southeastern Indiana REMC, 

South Central Indiana REMC, Utilities 

District of Western Indiana REMC, 

Decatur County REMC, Daviess-Martin 

County REMC

EnviroWatts landfill gas 2001 2.0¢/kWh4.0¢/kWh 

IN Indianapolis Power & Light Green Power Option wind 1998 0.35¢/kWh 

IN PSI Energy/Cinergy Green Power Rider wind, PV, landfill 

gas, digester 

gas 

2001 Contribution 

IN Wabash Valley Power Association (7 of 

27 coops offer program): Boone REMC, 

Hendricks Power Cooperative, Kankakee 

Valley REMC, Miami-Cass REMC, 

Tipmont REMC, White County REMC, 

Northeastern REMC

EnviroWatts landfill gas 2000 0.9¢/kWh1.0¢/kWh 

IA Alliant Energy Second Nature landfill gas, wind 2001 2.0¢/kWh 

 35
State Utility Name Program Name Type Start Date Premium 

IA Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.: 

Access Energy Cooperative, Chariton 

Valley Electric Cooperative, Southern 

Iowa Electric Cooperative

varies by utility biomass, wind 2003 2.0¢/kWh3.5¢/kWh 

IA Basin Electric Power Cooperative: Lyon 

Rural, Harrison County, Nishnabotna 

Valley Cooperative, Northwest Rural 

Electric Cooperative, Western Iowa

Prairie Winds wind 2000 0.5¢/kWh 

IA Cedar Falls Utilities Harvest the Wind wind 2000 2.5¢/kWh 

IA Central Iowa Power Cooperatives (all 12 

coops/1 muni): Maquoketa Valley 

Electric Cooperative, Eastern Iowa REC, 

East-Central Iowa REC, Linn County 

REC, Pella, TIP Rural Electric 

Cooperative, Clarke Electric 

Cooperative, Midland Power 

Cooperative, Guthrie County REC, 

Farmers Electric Cooperative, Southwest 

Iowa REC, Consumer Energy, South 

Iowa Municipal Electric Cooperative 

Association

Wind Power wind 2006 1.5¢/kWh2.5¢/kWh 

IA Corn Belt Power Cooperatives (5 of 11 

coops offer program): Butler County 

REC, Franklin REC, Grundy County 

REC, Humboldt County REC, Sac 

County REC

Energy Wise 

Renewables

wind 2003 1.5¢/kWh 

IA Dairyland Power Cooperative: 

Allamakee-Clayton/Postville, Hawkeye 

Tri-County/Cresco, Heartland 

Power/Thompson & St. Ansgar

Evergreen Renewable 

Energy Program

hydro, wind, 

landfill gas, 

biogas 

1998 3.0¢/kWh 

IA Farmers Electric Cooperative Green Power Project biodiesel, wind 2004 Contribution 

IA Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities 

(84 of 137 munis offer program) Afton, 

Algona, Alta Vista, Aplington, Auburn, 

Bancroft, Bellevue, Bloomfield, Breda, 

Brooklyn, Buffalo, Burt, Callender, 

Carlisle, Cascade, Coggon, Coon 

Rapids, Corning, Corwith, Danville, 

Dayton, Durant, Dysart, Earlville, 

Eldridge, Ellsworth, Estherville, Fairbank, 

Farnhamville, Fontanelle, Forest City, 

Gowrie, Grafton, Grand Junction, 

Greenfield, Grundy Center, Guttenberg, 

Hopkinton, Hudson, Independence, 

Keosauqua, La Porte City, Lake Mills, 

Lake View, Laurens, Lenox, Livermore, 

Maquoketa, Marathon, McGregor, 

Milford, Montezuma, Mount Pleasant, 

Neola, New Hampton, Ogden, Orient, 

Osage, Panora, Pella, Pocahontas, 

Preston, Readlyn, Rockford, Sabula, 

Sergeant Bluff, Sibley, Spencer, 

Stanhope, State Center, Stratford, 

Strawberry Point, Stuart, Tipton, Villisca, 

Vinton, Webster City, West Bend, West 

Liberty, West Point, Westfield, 

Whittemore, Wilton, Winterset

Green City Energy wind, biomass, 

PV 

2003 Varies by utility 

IA MidAmerican Energy Renewable Advantage wind 2004 Contribution 

 36
State Utility Name Program Name Type Start Date Premium 

IA Missouri River Energy Services: Alton, 

Atlantic, Denison, Fontanelle, Hartley, 

Hawarden, Kimballton, Lake Park, 

Manilla, Orange City, Paullina, Primghar, 

Remsen, Rock Rapids, Sanborn, Shelby, 

Sioux Center, Woodbine

RiverWinds wind 2003 2.0¢/kWh2.5¢/kWh 

IA Muscatine Power and Water Solar Muscatine PV 2004 Contribution 

IA Waverly Light & Power Iowa Energy Tags wind 2001 2.0¢/kWh 

IA Waverly Light & Power Green Power Choice wind 2003 Contribution 

KY East Kentucky Power Cooperative: Blue 

Grass Energy, Clark, Cumberland, 

Fleming-Mason, Grayson, Inter-County 

Energy, Jackson, Licking Valley, Nolin, 

Owen Electric, Salt River, Shelby, South 

Kentucky

EnviroWatts landfill gas 2002 2.75¢/kWh 

KY TVA: Bowling Green Municipal Utilities, 

Franklin Electric Plant Board

Green Power Switch landfill gas, PV, 

wind 

2000 2.67¢/kWh 

MA Concord Municipal Light Plant (CMLP) Green Power hydro 2004 3.0¢/kWh 

MI Lansing Board of Water and Light GreenWise Electric 

Power

landfill gas, 

small hydro 

2001 3.0¢/kWh 

MI Traverse City Light and Power Green Rate wind 1996 2.0¢/kWh 

MI Upper Peninsula Power Company NatureWise wind, landfill gas 

and animal 

waste methane 

2004 4.0¢/kWh 

MI We Energies Energy for Tomorrow wind, landfill 

gas, hydro 

2000 2.04¢/kWh 

MN Alliant Energy Second Nature landfill gas, wind 2002 2.0¢/kWh 

MN Austin Utilities, Owatonna Public Utilities, 

Rochester Public Utilities

SolarChoice local PV 

systems 

2006 Contribution 

MN Basin Electric Power Cooperative: 

Minnesota Valley Electric Coop, Sioux 

Valley Southwestern

Prairie Winds wind 2002 0.5¢/kWh 

MN Central Minnesota Municipal Power 

Agency: Blue Earth, Delano, Glencoe, 

Granite Falls, Janesville, Kenyon, Lake 

Crystal, Madelia, Mt. Lake, New Ulm, 

Sleepy Eye, Springfield, Truman, and 

Windom

Green Energy Program wind, landfill gas 2000 1.5¢/kWh2.5¢/kWh 

MN Dairyland Power Cooperative: FreebornMower Cooperative / Albert Lea, 

People's / Rochester, Tri-County / 

Rushford

Evergreen Renewable

Energy Program

hydro, wind, 

landfill gas, 

biogas 

1998 1.5¢/kWh 

 37
State Utility Name Program Name Type Start Date Premium 

MN Great River Energy (all 28 coops offer 

program): Agralite, Arrowhead, BENCO 

Electric, Brown County Rural Electric, 

Connexus Energy, Co-op Light & Power, 

Crow Wing Power, Dakota Electric 

Association, East Central Electric 

Association, Federated Rural Electric, 

Goodhue County, Itasca Mantrap 

Cooperative, Kandiyohi Power 

Cooperative, Lake Country Power, Lake 

Region Electric Cooperative, McLeod 

Cooperative Power, Meeker Cooperative 

Light & Power, Mille Lacs Electric 

Cooperative, Minnesota Valley, Nobles 

Cooperative Electric, North Itasca, 

Redwood Electric Cooperative, 

Runestone Electric, South Central 

Electric Association, Stearns Electric, 

Steele-Waseca, Todd-Wadena, WrightHennepin Electric

Wellspring Renewable 

Wind Energy Program

wind 1998 1.55¢/kWh2.0¢/kWh 

MN Minnesota Power WindSense wind 2002 2.5¢/kWh 

MN Minnkota Power Cooperative: Beltrami, 

Clearwater Polk, North Star, PKM, Red 

Lake, Red River, Roseau, Wild Rice, 

Thief River Falls

Infinity Wind Energy wind 1999 0.5¢/kWh 

MN Missouri River Energy Services: Adrian, 

Alexandria, Barnesville, Benson, 

Breckenridge, Detroit Lakes, Elbow 

Lake, Henning, Jackson, Lakefield, Lake 

Park, Luverne, Madison, Moorhead, 

Ortonville, St. James, Sauk Centre, 

Staples, Wadena, Westbrook, 

Worthington

RiverWinds wind 2002 2.0¢/kWh2.5¢/kWh 

MN Moorhead Public Service Capture the Wind wind 1998 1.5¢/kWh 

MN Otter Tail Power Company TailWinds wind 2002 1.6¢/kWh 

MN Southern Minnesota Municipal Power 

Agency (all 18 munis offer program): 

Fairmont Public Utilities, Wells Public 

Utilities, Austin Utilities, Preston Public 

Utilities, Spring Valley Utilities, Blooming 

Prairie Public Utilities, Rochester Public 

Utilities, Owatonna Public Utilities, 

Waseca Utilities, St. Peter Municipal 

Utilities, Lake City Utilities, New Prague 

Utilities Commission, Redwood Falls 

Public Utilities, Litchfield Public Utilities, 

Princeton Public Utilities, North Branch 

Water and Light, Mora Municipal Utilities, 

Grand Marais Public Utilities

SMMPA Wind Power wind 2000 1.0¢/kWh 

MN Xcel Energy WindSource wind 2003 2.0¢/kWh 

MS TVA: City of Oxford, North East 

Mississippi Electric Power Asssociation, 

Starkville Electric System

Green Power Switch landfill gas, PV, 

wind 

2000 2.67¢/kWh 

 38
State Utility Name Program Name Type Start Date Premium 

MO Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.: 

Black River Electric Cooperative, Boone 

Electric Cooperative, Callaway Electric 

Cooperative, Co-Mo Electric 

Cooperative, Crawford Electric 

Cooperative, Cuivre River Electric 

Cooperative, Howell-Oregon Electric 

Cooperative, Intercounty Electric 

Cooperative, Laclede Electric 

Cooperative, Lewis County Rural Electric 

Cooperative, Macon Electric 

Cooperative, White River Valley Electric 

Cooperative

varies by utility biomass, wind 2003 2.0¢/kWh3.5¢/kWh 

MO City Utilities of Springfield WindCurrent wind 2000 5.0¢/kWh 

MT Basin Electric Power Cooperative: Lower 

Yellowstone

Prairie Winds wind 2000 0.5¢/kWh 

MT Northwestern Energy E+ Green wind, PV 2003 2.0¢/kWh 

MT Park Electric Cooperative Green Power Program various 

renewables 

2002 1.02¢/kWh 

MT Southern Montana Electric Generation 

and Transmission Cooperative (5 coops 

offer program): Fergus Electric, 

Yellowstone Valley, Bear Tooth Electric, 

Mid Yellowstone, and Tongue River

Environmentally 

Preferred Power

wind, hydro 2002 1.05¢/kWh 

MT Tri-State Generation & Transmission: Big 

Horn Rural Electric Company

Renewable Resource 

Power Service

wind, hydro 2001 1.25¢/kWh 

MT Vigilante Electric Cooperative Alternative Renewable 

Energy Program

wind 2003 1.1¢/kWh 

NE Lincoln Electric System LES Renewable 

Energy Program

wind 1998 4.3¢/kWh 

NE Omaha Public Power District Green Power Program landfill gas, wind 2002 3.0¢/kWh 

NE Tri-State Generation & Transmission: 

Chimney Rock Public Power District, 

High West Energy, Inc., Highline Electric 

Association, Midwest Electric 

Cooperative Corporation, Niobrara 

Electric Association, Inc., Northwest 

Rural Public Power District, Panhandle 

Rural Electric Membership, Roosevelt 

Public Power District, Wheat Belt Public 

Power District

Renewable Resource 

Power Service

wind, hydro 2001 1.25¢/kWh 

NM El Paso Electric Renewable Energy 

Tariff

wind 2003 3.19¢/kWh 

NM Los Alamos Department of Public 

Utilities

Green Power wind 2005 1.8¢/kWh 

NM Public Service of New Mexico PNM Sky Blue wind 2003 1.8¢/kWh 

 39
State Utility Name Program Name Type Start Date Premium 

NM Tri-State Generation & Transmission: 

Central New Mexico Electric 

Cooperative, Inc., Chimney Rock Public 

Power District, Columbus Electric 

Cooperative, Inc., Continental Divide 

Electric Cooperative, Inc., Jemez 

Mountains Electric Cooperative, Inc., Kit 

Carson Electric Cooperative, Inc., MoraSan Miguel Electric Cooperative, 

Northern Rio Arriba Electric Cooperative, 

Otero County Electric Cooperative, Inc., 

Sierra Electric Cooperative, Inc., Socorro 

Electric Cooperative, Inc., Southwestern 

Electric Cooperative, Inc., Springer 

Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Renewable Resource 

Power Service

wind, hydro 2001 1.25¢/kWh 

NM Xcel Energy WindSource wind 1999 3.0¢/kWh 

NC Dominion North Carolina Power NC GreenPower biomass, hydro, 

landfill gas, PV, 

wind 

2003 2.5¢-4.0¢/kWh 

NC Duke Energy NC GreenPower biomass, hydro, 

landfill gas, PV, 

wind 

2003 2.5¢-4.0¢/kWh 

NC ElectriCities: Town of Apex, Town of 

Cornelius, Fayetteville PWC,Town of 

Granite Falls, City of High Point, City of 

Kinston, City of Laurinburg, City of 

Lexington, City of Monroe, City of New 

Bern, City of Newton, City of Shelby, City 

of Statesville, City of Washington

NC GreenPower biomass, hydro, 

landfill gas, PV, 

wind 

2003 2.5¢-4.0¢/kWh 

NC NC Electric Cooperatives (19 of 27 

coops offer program): Albemarle EMC, 

Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corp., 

Brunswick Electric Membership Corp., 

Carteret Craven Electric Coop., Central 

Electric Membership Corporation, 

Edgecombe-Martin County Electric 

Membership Corp., EnergyUnited, Four 

County Electric Membership Corp., 

Haywood Electric Membership Corp., 

Jones-Onslow Electric Membership 

Corp., Lumbee River Electric 

Membership Corporation, Pee Dee 

Electric Membership Corp., Piedmont 

Electric Membership Corp., Randolph 

Electric Membership Corp., Roanoke 

Electric Membership Corp., Rutherford 

Electric Membership Corporation, TriCounty Electric Membership Corp., 

Union Power Cooperative, Wake Electric 

Membership Corp.

NC GreenPower biomass, hydro, 

landfill gas, PV, 

wind 

2003 2.5¢-4.0¢/kWh 

NC Progress Energy / CP&L NC GreenPower biomass, hydro, 

landfill gas, PV, 

wind 

2003 2.5¢-4.0¢/kWh 

NC TVA: Mountain Electric Cooperative Green Power Switch landfill gas, PV, 

wind 

2000 2.67¢/kWh 

ND Basin Electric Power Cooperative: Oliver 

Mercer Electric Coop, Mor-gran-sou 

Electric Coop, KEM Electric Coop, North 

Central Electric Coop, Verendrye, 

Capital , Northern Plains, Dakota Valley, 

Burke Divide, Montrail Williams, 

McKenzie Electric Coop, West Plains, 

PrairieWinds wind 2000 0.5¢/kWh 

 40
State Utility Name Program Name Type Start Date Premium 

Slope Electric Coop

ND Minnkota Power Cooperative: Cass 

County Electric, Cavalier Rural Electric, 

Northern Municipal Power Agency (12 

municipals)

Infinity Wind Energy wind 1999 0.5¢/kWh 

ND Missouri River Energy Services: City of 

Lakota

RiverWinds wind 2002 2.0¢/kWh2.5¢/kWh 

OH American Municipal Power-Ohio / Green 

Mountain Energy: City of Bowling Green, 

Cuyahoga Falls, Wyandotte

Nature's Energy small hydro, 

landfill gas, wind

2003 1.3¢/kWh1.5¢/kWh 

OH Buckeye Power EnviroWatts landfill gas 2006 2.0¢/kWh 

OK Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.: 

Central Rural Electric Cooperative

varies by utility biomass, wind 2003 2.0¢/kWh3.5¢/kWh 

OK OG&E Electric Services OG&E Wind Power wind 2003 -0.246¢/kWh 

OK Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority: 

Tonkawa, Altus, Frederick, Okeene, 

Prague Municipal Utilities and Edmond 

Electric

Pure & Simple wind 2004 1.8¢/kWh 

(-0.45¢/kWh 

Edmond) 

OK Western Farmers Electric Cooperative 

(19 of 19 coops offer program): Alfalfa 

Electric Cooperative, Caddo Electric 

Cooperative, Canadian Valley Electric 

Cooperative, Choctaw Electri 

Cooperative, Cimmaron Electric 

Cooperative, Cotton Electric 

Cooperative, East Central Oklahoma 

Electric Cooperative, Harmon Electric 

Cooperative, Kay Electric Cooperative, 

Kiamichi Electric Cooperative, Kiwash 

Electric Cooperative, Northfork Electric 

Cooperative, Northwestern Electric 

Cooperative, Oklahoma Electric 

Cooperative, People's Electric 

Cooperative, Red River Valley Rural 

Electric Cooperative, Rural Electric 

Cooperative, Southeastern Electric 

Cooperative, Southwest Rural Electric 

Cooperative

WindWorks wind 2004 0.5¢/kWh 

OR City of Ashland/Bonneville 

Environmental Foundation

Renewable Pioneers PV, wind 2003 2.0¢/kWh 

OR Columbia River PUD Choice Energy wind 2005 1.5¢/kWh 

OR Emerald People's Utility District/Green 

Mountain Energy

Choose Renewable 

Electricity

wind, 

geothermal 

2003 1.2¢/kWh 

OR Eugene Water & Electric Board EWEB Wind Power wind 1999 0.91¢/kWh 

OR Idaho Power Green Power Program various 2001 0.98¢/kWh 

OR Midstate Electric Cooperative EnvironmentallyPreferred Powerwind 1999 2.5¢/kWh 

OR Oregon Trail Electric Cooperative Green Power wind 2002 1.5¢/kWh 

OR PacifiCorp: Pacific Power Blue Sky QS 

(Commercial Only)

wind 2004 Sliding scale 

depending on 

size 

 41
State Utility Name Program Name Type Start Date Premium 

OR PacifiCorp: Pacific Power Blue Sky Block wind 2000 1.95¢/kWh 

OR PacifiCorp: Pacific Power / 3 Phases 

Energy Services

Blue Sky Usage wind, biomass, 

PV 

2002 0.78¢/kWh 

OR PacifiCorp: Pacific Power / 3 Phases 

Energy Services 

Blue Sky Habitat wind, biomass, 

PV 

2002 0.78¢/kWh + 

$2.50/mo. 

donation 

OR Pacific Northwest Generating 

Cooperative: Central Electric 

Cooperative, Clearwater Power, 

Consumers Power, Douglas Electric 

Cooperative, Umatilla Electric 

Cooperative (5 of 16 coops offer 

program)

Green Power landfill gas 1998 1.8¢/kWh2.0¢/kWh 

OR Portland General Electric / Green 

Mountain Energy

Green Source existing 

geothermal, 

hydro, new wind

2002 0.8¢/kWh 

OR Portland General Electric / Green 

Mountain Energy 

Healthy Habitat existing 

geothermal, 

hydro, new wind

2002 0.8¢/kWh + 

$2.50/mo. 

donation 

OR Portland General Electric Company Clean Wind for Medium 

to Large Commercial & 

Industrial Accounts

wind 2003 1.7¢/kWh 

OR Portland General Electric Company Clean Wind Power wind 2002 1.75¢/kWh 

SC Santee Cooper: Aiken Electric 

Cooperative, Berkeley Electric 

Cooperative, Blue Ridge Electric, 

Coastal Electric Cooperative, Edisto 

Electric Cooperative, Fairfield Electric 

Cooperative, Horry Electric Cooperative, 

Laurens Electric Cooperative, Lynches 

River Electric Cooperative, Marlboro 

Electric Cooperative, Mid-Carolina 

Electric Cooperative, Palmetto Electric 

Cooperative, Pee Dee Electric 

Cooperative, Santee Electric 

Cooperative, Tri-County Electric 

Cooperative, York Electric Cooperative

Green Power Program landfill gas 2001 3.0¢/kWh 

SD Basin Electric Power Cooperative: Bon 

Homme-Yankton Electric Assn., Central 

Electric Cooperative Association, 

Charles Mix Electric Association, City of 

Elk Point, Clay-Union Electric 

Corporation, Codington-Clark Electric 

Cooperative, Dakota Energy 

Cooperative, Douglas Electric 

Cooperative, FEM Electric Association, 

H-D Electric Cooperative, Kingsbury 

Electric Cooperative, Lyon-Lincoln 

Electric Cooperative, McCook Electric 

Cooperative, Northern Electric 

Cooperative, Oahe Electric Cooperative, 

Renville-Sibley Coop. Power Assn., 

Sioux Valley Southwestern Electric 

Coop, Southeastern Electric Coop, 

Union County Electric Cooperative, 

Whetstone Valley Electric Cooperative, 

Black Hills Electric Coop, LaCreek 

Electric Coop, West River Power 

Association, Butte Electric Coop, Cherry 

Todd Electric Coop, Moreau Grand, 

Grand Electric Cooperative, Rosebud

Prairie Winds wind 2000 0.5¢/kWh 

 42
State Utility Name Program Name Type Start Date Premium 

SD Missouri River Energy Services: City of 

Vermillion

RiverWinds wind 2002 2.0¢/kWh2.5¢/kWh 

SD Tri-State Generation & Transmission: 

Niobrara Electric Association, Inc. 

Renewable Resource 

Power Service

wind, hydro 2001 1.25¢/kWh 

TN TVA: Alcoa Electric Department, 

Appalachian Electric Cooperative, 

Athens Utility Board, Bristol Tennessee 

Electric System, Caney Fork Electric 

Cooperative, City of Maryville Electric 

Department, Clarksville Department of 

Electricity, Cleveland Utilities, Clinton 

Utilities Board, Cookeville Electric 

Department, Cumberland Electric 

Membership Corporation, Dickson 

Electric Department, Duck River Electric 

Membership Corporation, Elizabethton 

Electric System, EPB (Chattanooga), 

Erwin Utilities, Fayetteville Public 

Utilities, Gibson Electric Membership 

Corporation, Greeneville Light and 

Power System, Harriman Utility Board, 

Johnson City Power Board, Jackson 

Energy Authority, Knoxville Utilities 

Board, Lafollette Utilities Board, 

Lawrenceburg Power System, Lenoir 

City Utilities Board, Loudon Utilities, 

McMinnville Electric System, Memphis 

Light, Gas & Water, Meriwhether Lewis 

Electric Cooperative, Middle Tennessee 

Electric Membership Corporation, 

Morristown Power System, Mountain 

Electric Cooperative, Murfreesboro 

Electric Department, Nashville Electric 

Service, Newport Utilities, Oak Ridge 

Electric Department, Paris Board of 

Public Utilities, Plateau Electric 

Cooperative, Powell Valley Electric 

Cooperative, Pulaski Electric System, 

Sequachee Valley Electric Cooperative, 

Sevier County Electric System, 

Springfield Department of Electricity, 

Sweetwater Utilities Board, Tullahoma 

Utilities Board, Upper Cumberland 

Electric Membership Corporation, 

Volunteer Energy Cooperative

Green Power Switch landfill gas, PV, 

wind 

2000 2.67¢/kWh 

TX Austin Energy (City of Austin) GreenChoice wind, landfill gas 2000/1997 -0.134¢/kWh 

TX City Public Service of San Antonio Windtricity wind 2000 3.0¢/kWh 

TX El Paso Electric Company Renewable Energy 

Tariff

wind 2001 1.92¢/kWh 

UT City of St. George Clean Green Power wind, small 

hydro 

2005 2.95¢/kWh 

UT Deseret Power GreenWay various 2004 1.95¢/kWh 

UT Pacificorp: Utah Power Blue Sky wind 2000 1.95¢/kWh 

UT Tri-State Generation & Transmission: 

Empire Electric Association, Inc.

Renewable Resource 

Power Service

wind, hydro 2001 1.25¢/kWh 

VT Central Vermont Public Service CVPS Cow Power biogas 2004 4.0¢/kWh 

VT Green Mountain Power CoolHome / 

CoolBusiness

wind, biomass 2002 Contribution 

 43
State Utility Name Program Name Type Start Date Premium 

VT Green Mountain Power Greener Mountain 

Power

various 

renewables 

2006 4.097¢/kkWh 

WA Avista Utilities Buck-A-Block wind 2002 0.33¢/kWh 

WA Benton County Public Utility District Green Power Program landfill gas, 

wind, hydro 

1999 Contribution 

WA Chelan County PUD Sustainable Natural 

Alternative Power 

(SNAP)

PV, wind, micro 

hydro 

2001 Contribution 

WA Clallam County PUD Clallam County PUD 

Green Power Program

landfill gas 2001 0.69¢/kWh 

WA Clark Public Utilities Green Lights PV, wind 2002 1.5¢/kWh 

WA Cowlitz PUD Renewable Resource 

Energy

wind, PV 2002 2.0¢/kWh 

WA Grant County PUD Alternative Energy 

Resources Program

wind 2002 2.0¢/kWh 

WA Grays Harbor PUD Green Power wind 2002 3.0¢/kWh 

WA Lewis County PUD Green Power Energy 

Rate

wind 2003 2.0¢/kWh 

WA Mason County PUD No. 3 Mason Evergreen 

Power

wind 2003 1.0¢/kWh 

WA Orcas Power & Light Go Green wind, hydro 1999 3.5¢/kWh 

WA Pacific County PUD Green Power landfill gas 2002 1.05¢/kWh 

WA Pacificorp: Pacific Power Blue Sky wind 2000 1.95¢/kWh 

WA Peninsula Light Green by Choice wind, hydro, 

biogas 

2002 2.0¢/kWh 

WA Puget Sound Energy Green Power Plan wind, PV, 

biogas 

2002 2.0¢/kWh 

WA Seattle City Light Seattle Green Power PV, biogas 2002 Contribution 

WA Seattle City Light Green Up wind 2005 1.5¢/kWh 

WA Snohomish County Public Utility District Planet Power wind 2002 2.0¢/kWh 

WA Tacoma Power EverGreen Options wind 2000 1.2¢/kWh 

WI Alliant Energy Second Nature wind, landfill gas 2000 2.0¢/kWh 

WI Dairyland Power Cooperative: Barron 

Electric, Bayfield/ Iron River, Chippewa / 

Cornell Valley, Clark / Greenwood, Dunn 

/ Menomonie, Eau Claire / Fall Creek, 

Jackson / Black River Falls, Jump River / 

Ladysmith, Oakdale, Pierce-Pepin / 

Ellsworth, Polk-Burnett / Centuria, Price / 

Phillips, Richland, Riverland / Arcadia, 

St. Croix / Baldwin, Scenic Rivers / 

Lancaster, Taylor / Medford, Vernon / 

Westby

Evergreen Renewable 

Energy Program

hydro, wind, 

landfill gas, 

biogas 

1998 1.5¢/kWh 

WI Great River Energy: Head of the Lakes Wellspring Renewable 

Wind Energy Program

wind 1997 1.45¢/kWh2.0¢/kWh 

WI Madison Gas & Electric Wind Power Program wind 1999 3.3¢/kWh 

WI We Energies Energy for Tomorrow landfill gas, PV, 

hydro, wind 

1996 1.37¢/kWh 

 44
State Utility Name Program Name Type Start Date Premium 

WI Wisconsin Public Power Inc. (34 of 37 

munis offer program): Algoma, 

Cedarburg, Florence, Kaukauna, 

Muscoda, Stoughton, Reedsburg, 

Oconomowoc, Waterloo, Whitehall, 

Columbus, Hartford, Lake Mills, New 

Holstein, Richland Center, Boscobel, 

Cuba City, Hustisford, Sturgeon Bay, 

Waunakee, Lodi, New London, 

Plymouth, River Falls, Sun Prairie, 

Waupun, Eagle River, Jefferson, 

Menasha, New Richmond, Prairie du 

Sac, Slinger, Two Rivers, Westby

Renewable Energy 

Program

small hydro, 

wind, biogas 

2001 2.0¢/kWh 

WI Wisconsin Public Service Solar Wise for Schools PV in schools 1996 Contribution 

WI Wisconsin Public Service NatureWise wind, landfill 

gas, biogas 

2002 1.86¢/kWh 

WY Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power 

Company/Bonneville Environmental 

Foundation

Renewable Premium 

Program

99% new wind, 

1% new solar 

2006 3.5¢/kWh 

WY Lower Valley Energy Green Power wind 2003 1.67¢/kWh 

WY Pacificorp: Pacific Power Blue Sky wind 2000 1.95¢/kWh 

WY Tri-State Generation & Transmission: Big 

Horn Rural Electric Company, Carbon 

Power & Light, Inc., Garland Light & 

Power Company, High Plains Power, 

Inc., High West Energy, Inc., Niobrara 

Electric Association, Inc., Wheatland 

Rural Electric Association, Inc., Wyrulec 

Company

Renewable Resource 

Power Service

wind, hydro 2001 1.25¢/kWh 

WY Yampa Valley Electric Association Wind Energy Program wind 1999 3.0¢/kWh 

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.

Notes: Utility green pricing programs may only be available to customers located in the utility's service territory. 

 45
Appendix F 

Table F-1: Utilities That Have Lowered Their Base Green Power Premium 

Utility Year of 

Change 

Initial 

Premium

¢/kWh 

Revised 

Premium

¢/kWh 

Reason Stated 

Loveland Water and 

Power 2006 2.50 1.50 Switched to regional RECs product. 

Madison Gas and 

Electric 2006 3.33 2.68 Higher cost of natural gas generation. 

Mason County PUD 

#3 2006 2.00 1.00 Lower wind energy and transmissions costs. 

Minnkota Power 

Cooperative 2006 1.50 0.50 Higher costs of conventional generation sources. 

Otter Tail Power 2006 2.60 1.60 

Lower-cost source of wind energy; an 

increase in the embedded generation 

cost to which the renewable energy 

cost is compared; and reduced 

marketing and promotion costs for the 

program. 

We Energies 2006 2.04 1.37 Higher fossil fuel prices. 

Wisconsin Public 

Service 2006 1.86 1.00 Lower renewable energy purchase costs and administrative costs. 

Basin Electric Power 

Cooperative 2005 2.50 0.50 

Greatly expanded wind energy supply 

lowered costs; switched to “green tag” 

product. 

Lower Valley Energy 2005 1.67 1.17 Eliminated administrative margin. 

Wisconsin Public 

Service 2005 2.65 1.86 Lower renewable energy purchase costs and administrative costs. 

Avista Utilities 2004 1.80 0.33 Lower renewable energy purchase 

costs. 

Fort Collins Utilities 2004 2.50 1.00 RECs purchase from new wind energy 

project. 

Portland General 

Electric 2004 3.50 1.75 Lower cost of wind power. 

TECO 2004 10.00 5.00 Greater use of lower-cost renewable 

resources. 

PacifiCorp 2003 2.95 1.95 Lower renewable energy costs and 

greater customer participation. 

Basin Electric Power 

Cooperative 2002 3.00 2.50 Wind power development costs less than originally estimated. 

PacifiCorp 2001 4.95 2.95 

Reductions in the forecast cost for new 

wind energy and increases in the 

forecast for market alternatives. 

 46
Appendix G 

Table G-1: Retail Green Power Product Offerings in Competitive 

Electricity Markets, November 2006 

State Company Product Name Residential 

Price 

Premium1

Resource Mix2 Certification 

CT CL&P/United Illuminating 

Sterling Planet (CT Clean 

Energy Options Program)

Sterling Select 50% 

or 100% of usage

1.15¢/kWh 33% new wind, 

33% small hydro, 

34% landfill gas 

— 

DC PEPCO Energy Services (3) Green Electricity 

10%, 51% or 100% 

of usage

3.38¢/kWh 

(for 100% 

usage) 

landfill gas — 

DC PEPCO Energy Services (3) NewWind Energy 

51% or 100% of 

usage

4.08¢kWh 

(for 100% 

usage) 

new wind — 

DC Washington Gas Energy 

Services / Community Energy 

(3)

1 year fixed price 

electricity with 5% 

wind 

2.3¢/kWh 5% new wind — 

ME Maine Renewable 

Energy/Maine Interfaith Power 

& Light (4)

Maine Clean Power 2.62¢/kWh 100% low impact 

hydro 

— 

ME Maine Renewable 

Energy/Maine Interfaith Power 

& Light (4)

Maine Clean Power 

Plus

3.12¢/kWh 80% low impact 

hydro, 20% wind — 

MD PEPCO Energy Services (5) Green Electricity 1.3¢/kWh 

(for 100% 

RE) 

landfill gas 

10%, 51% or 100% 

of usage — 

PEPCO Energy Services (5) Wind Electricity 51% 

MD 2.53¢/kWh 

(for 100% 

wind) 

or 100% of usage new wind — 

MD Washington Gas Energy 1 Year Price 0.12¢/kWh 5% wind — 

Services/ Community Energy Protection with 5% 

wind

MA Cape Light Compact (6) Cape Light Compact 2.5¢/kWh 

(for 100% 

usage) 

75% small hydro, 

24% new wind or 

landfill gas, 1% 

new solar 

— 

Green 50% or 100%

Massachusetts Clear Sky Home 7.2¢/kWh 100% biomass — 

MA Electric/Nantucket Electric/ 

Clear Sky Power

Massachusetts New Wind Energy 2.0¢/kWh 

(for 100% 

usage) 

70% small hydro, 

30% new wind 

Green-e 

MA Electric/Nantucket and Water 50% or 

Electric/Community Energy 100% of usage

MA Massachusetts New England 2.4¢/kWh 

(for 100% 

usage) 

75% small hydro, 

25% new 

biomass, wind, 

and solar 

— 

Electric/Nantucket GreenStart 50% or 

Electric/Mass Energy 100% of usage

Consumers Alliance

MA Massachusetts MA Clean Choice 5.0¢/kWh 33% new wind, 

33% new landfill 

gas; 33% small 

hydro 

Environmental 

Resources 

Trust 

Electric/Nantucket 

Electric/Sterling Planet

 47
Resource Mix2 State Company Product Name Residential Certification 

Price 

Premium1

MI Consumers Energy Green Generation 1.67¢/kWh 68% new wind, 

32% landfill gas 

Green-e 

NJ PSE&G/JCP&L/Atlantic City NJ Clean Power 1.3¢/kWh 50% wind, 49% 

low impact hydro, 

1% solar 

— 

Electric/Rockland Choice – Community 

Electric/Community Energy Energy

NJ PSE&G/JCP&L/Atlantic City NJ Clean Power 1.3¢/kWh 50% wind, 50% 

small hydro 

— 

Electric/Rockland Choice – Green 

Electric/Green Mountain Mountain Energy

Energy

NJ PSE&G/JCP&L/Atlantic City NJ Clean Power 2.9¢/kWh 50% wind, 50% 

low impact hydro 

— 

Electric/Rockland Choice – Wind and 

Electric/Jersey-Atlantic Wind Water

NJ PSE&G/JCP&L/Atlantic City NJ Clean Power 5.5¢/kWh 100-kWh blocks of 

new wind 

— 

Electric/Rockland Choice - Wind 

Electric/Jersey-Atlantic Wind

NJ PSE&G/JCP&L/Atlantic City NJ Clean Power 1.2¢/kWh 33% wind, 33% 

small hydro, 34% 

landfill gas 

Environmental 

Resources 

Trust 

Electric/Rockland Choice – Sterling 

Electric/Sterling Planet Select

NY ConEdison Solutions (7) Green Power 1.0¢/kWh 35% new wind, 

65% small hydro 

Green-e 

NY Con Edison /Sterling Planet NY Clean Choice 2.5¢/kWh 40% new wind, 

30% small hydro, 

30% bioenergy 

Environmental 

Resources 

Trust 

NY ECONnergy Keep It Clean 3¢/kWh 100% wind — 

NY Energy Cooperative of New Renewable 0.75¢/kWh 25% new wind, 

75% landfill gas 

— 

York (8) Electricity

NY Long Island Power Authority / New Wind Energy 2.5¢/kWh new wind — 

Community Energy

NY Long Island Power Authority / New Wind 1.3¢/kWh 60% new wind, 

40% small hydro 

— 

Community Energy Energy/Small Hydro

NY Long Island Power Authority / New York Clean 1.0¢/kWh 55% small hydro, 

35% biomass, 

10% new wind 

Environmental 

Resources 

Trust 

Sterling Planet

NY Long Island Power Authority / Sterling Green 1.5¢/kWh 40% new wind, 

30% small hydro, 

30% bioenergy 

Environmental 

Resources 

Trust 

Sterling Planet

NY NYSEG/Community Energy Catch the Wind/New 2.5¢/kWh new wind — 

Wind Energy

NY Niagara Mohawk / Community 60% New Wind 1.3¢/kWh 60% new wind, 

40% hydro 

— 

Energy Energy and 40% 

Small Hydro

NY Niagara Mohawk / Community NewWind Energy 2.5¢/kWh 100% new wind — 

Energy

NY Niagara Mohawk / EnviroGen Think Green! 1.0¢/kWh 75% landfill gas, 

25% low impact 

hydro 

— 

 48
Resource Mix2 State Company Product Name Residential Certification 

Price 

Premium1

NY Niagara Mohawk/ Sterling Sterling Green 1.5¢/kWh 50% wind, 50% 

small hydro 

Environmental 

Resources 

Trust 

Planet

NY Niagara Mohawk/Green Green Mountain 1.5¢/kWh 50% small hydro, 

50% wind 

Green-e 

Mountain Energy Energy Electricity

NY Rochester Gas & Catch the 2.5¢/kWh 100-kWh blocks of 

new wind 

— 

Electric/Community Energy Wind/NewWind 

Energy

NY Suburban Energy Services Sterling Green 1.5¢/kWh 40% new wind, 

30% small hydro, 

30% bioenergy 

Environmental 

Resources 

Trust 

/Sterling Planet Renewable 

Electricity

PA Energy Cooperative of EcoChoice 100 10.5¢/kWh 89% landfill gas, 

10% hydro, 35% 

biomass 

Green-e 

Pennsylvania (9)

PA PECO Energy/Community PECO Wind 2.54¢/kWh 100-kWh of new 

wind 

— 

Energy (9)

PA PEPCO Energy Services (9) Green Electricity 5.2¢/kWh 

(for 100% 

usage) 

landfill gas — 

10%, 51% or 100% 

of usage

PA PEPCO Energy Services (9) Wind 51% or 100% 5.9¢/kWh 

(for 100% 

usage) 

new wind — 

of usage

RI Narragansett Electric/ Clear Clear Sky Home 7.2¢/kWh 100% new 

bioenergy 

— 

Sky Power

RI Narragansett Electric / 40% NewWind /60% 1.5¢/kWh 60% small hydro, 

40% new wind 

— 

Community Energy, Inc. Small Hydro

RI Narragansett Electric / 50% NewWind /50% 2.0¢/kWh 50% small hydro, 

50% new wind 

— 

Community Energy, Inc. Small Hydro 

RI Narragansett Electric / New England 1.5¢/kWh 70% small hydro, 

17% biomass, 

13% wind and 

solar 

— 

People's Power & Light GreenStart RI 50% 

or 100% of usage

RI Narragansett Electric / Sterling Sterling Supreme 1.98¢/kWh 40% small hydro, 

25% biomass, 

25% new solar, 

10% wind 

Environmental 

Resources 

Trust 

Planet 100%

TX First Choice Power Simply Better -0.7¢/kWh 100% renewables 

Renewable

TX Gexa Energy (10) Gexa Green -0.2¢/kWh 100% renewable — 

TX Green Mountain Energy Pollution Free -0.26¢/kWh Wind and hydro — 

Company (10)

TX Green Mountain Energy Pollution Free: -0.55¢/kWh wind and hydro — 

Company (10) Reliable Rate 

TX Reliant Energy (10) Renewable Plan 1.0¢/kWh 100% wind — 

TX TXU Energy TXU Energy 100% 1.0¢/kWh 100% wind — 

EarthWise

 49
Resource Mix2 State Company Product Name Residential Certification 

Price 

Premium1

TX TXU Energy TXU Energy -0.02¢/kWh 10% wind — 

EarthWise 18 

VA PEPCO Energy Services (11) Green Electricity 3.6¢/kWh 

(for 100% 

usage) 

landfill gas — 

10%, 51% or 100% 

of usage

VA PEPCO Energy Services (11) NewWind Energy 4.3¢/kWh 

(for 100% 

wind) 

new wind — 

51% or 100% of 

usage

1

 Prices updated as of November 2006 and may also apply to small commercial customers. Prices may differ for large 

commercial/industrial customers and may vary by service territory. 

2

 New is defined as operating or repowered after January 1, 1997 based on the Green-e standard. 

3

 Offered in PEPCO service territory. Product prices are for new customers based on annual average costs for customers in 

PEPCO's service territory (8.0¢/kWh), 11/1/06. http://www.dcpsc.org/hottopics/Electric_Rate_Comparisons_2.shtm 4

 Price premium is for Central Maine Power service territory based on standard offer of 8.38¢/kWh. 

http://www.state.me.us/mpuc/industries/electricity/standard_offer/current_sorates_cmp.html 5

 Product offered in Baltimore Gas and Electric and PEPCO service territories. Price is for PEPCO service territory based on price to 

compare of 10.08¢/kWh. http://www.pepco.com/home/choice/md/compare/ 6

 Price premium is based on a comparison to the NSTAR standard offer of 10.45¢/kWh. 

http://www.capelightcompact.org/doc.ccml?10,801,675510,cap675510,,,Doc,page.html 7

 Price premium is based on a comparison to ConEdison Solutions' standard electricity product in the ConEdison service territory. 8

 Offered in Niagara Mohawk and NYSEG service territories. 

9

 Product prices are for PECO service territory (price to compare of 6.7¢/kWh). 

http://www.oca.state.pa.us/Industry/Electric/elecomp/pecor.pdf. 10 Product prices reflect difference in average price for 1000 kWh based on price to beat of 15.0¢/kWh for TXU service territory 

(specifically Dallas, Texas). Prices derived from http://www.powertochoose.org/. 11 Products are available in Dominion Virginia Power service territory (price to compare of 6.078¢/kWh) 

http://www.yesvachoice.com/howtochoose/pricetocompare.pdf

 50
Appendix H 

Table H-1: Renewable Energy Certificate Retail Products, November 2006 

Certificate Product Name Renewable Location of Residential Price Certification 

Marketer Resources Renewable Premiums* 

Resources 

3 Phases Energy Green Certificates 100% new wind Nationwide 2.0¢/kWh Green-e 

Services

Bonneville Brighter Future 90% new wind, 

10% new solar 

West 2.4¢/kWh Green-e 

Environmental Green Tags

Foundation

Bonneville Cooler Future 99% new wind, 

1% new solar 

Nationwide 2.0¢/kWh Green-e 

Environmental Green Tags

Foundation

Carbonfund.org MyGreenFuture 99% new wind, 

1% new solar 

Nationwide 0.5¢/kWh Green-e 

Carbonfund.org Carbon Offsets wind, solar, 

biomass, 

efficiency, 

reforestation 

Nationwide $5.50/ton CO2 

(donation) 

Environmental 

Resource 

Trust** 

Clean Energy National New Clean 24% wind, 25% 

biomass, 50% 

landfill gas, 1% 

solar 

Nationwide 0.5¢/kWh0.75¢/kWh Environmental 

Resources 

Trust 

Partnership/Sterling Energy Mix

Planet

Clean Energy National New Wind 100% new wind Nationwide 0.96¢/kWh — 

Partnership/Sterling 

Planet

Clean and Green Clean and Green 100% new wind Nationwide 3.0¢/kWh Green-e 

Membership

Community Energy New Wind Energy 100% new wind Colorado, 

Illinois, New 

York, 

Pennsylvania, 

West Virginia 

2.0¢/kWh - 

2.5¢/kWh 

Green-e 

Conservation ClimateSAVE 95% new 

wind/hydro, 5% 

new solar 

Kansas, New 

England 

(wind/hydro), 

New York 

(solar) 

1.65¢/kWh - 

1.75¢/kWh 

Green-e 

Services Group

Green Mountain Green Mountain 100% wind Nationwide 1.99¢/kWh — 

Energy Energy 

(Pennsylvania)

 51
Certificate Product Name Renewable Location of Residential Price Certification 

Marketer Resources Renewable Premiums* 

Resources 

Maine Interfaith Green Tags 99% new wind, 

1% new solar 

Nationwide 2.0¢/kWh — 

Power & Light/BEF (supplied by BEF)

Mass Energy New England Wind 100% new wind New England ~5.0¢/kWh 

(donation) 

— 

Consumers Fund

Alliance

NativeEnergy CoolDriver New wind and 

biogas 

Nationwide ~1.2¢/kWh, $12 

per ton CO2 

avoided 

*** 

NativeEnergy CoolWatts 100% new wind Nationwide 0.8¢/kWh Green-e 

NativeEnergy WindBuilders 100% new wind South ~1.2¢/kWh, 

Dakota, North 

Dakota 

*** 

$12 per ton of 

CO2 avoided 

NativeEnergy Remooable Energy 100% new biogas Pennsylvania 0.8¢/kWh1.0¢/kWh *** 

Renewable Choice American Wind 100% new wind Nationwide 2.5¢/kWh Green-e 

Energy

Renewable PVUSA Solar Green 100% solar California 3.3¢/kWh Green-e 

Ventures Certificates

SKY energy, Inc. Wind-e Renewable 100% new wind Nationwide 2.4¢/kWh Green-e 

Energy

Sterling Planet Sterling Green 100% new wind, 

hydro, 

geothermal, 

methane, or 

bioenergy 

Nationwide 1.5¢/kWh — 

Energy

Sterling Planet Sterling Solar 100% new solar Nationwide 7.5¢/kWh — 

TerraPass Inc. TerraPass Various (including 

efficiency and 

CO2 offsets) 

Nationwide ~$10/ton CO2 — 

Waverly Light &

Power

Iowa Energy Tags 100% wind Iowa 2.0¢/kWh — 

WindCurrent Chesapeake 100% new wind Mid-Atlantic 

States 

2.5¢/kWh Green-e 

Windcurrent

Footnote: 

* Product prices are updated as of July 2006. Premium may also apply to small commercial customers. Large users are 

typically able to negotiate price premiums. 

** Product is sourced from Green-e and ERT-certified RECs. ERT also certifies the entire product portfolio. 

*** The Climate Neutral Network certifies the methodology used to calculate the CO2 emissions offset. 

NA = Not applicable. 

 52
F1147-E(12/2004) 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

November 2006 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Report 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Green Power Marketing in the United States: A Status Report 

(Ninth Edition) 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/TP-640-40904 

5e. TASK NUMBER

ASG6.1003 

6. AUTHOR(S)

Lori Bird and Blair Swezey 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/TP-620-40904 

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

Voluntary consumer decisions to purchase electricity supplied by renewable energy sources represent a powerful 

market support mechanism for renewable energy development. Beginning in the early 1990s, a small number of U.S. 

utilities began offering “green power” options to their customers. Since then, these products have become more 

prevalent, both from traditional utilities and from marketers operating in states that have introduced competition into 

their retail electricity markets. Today, more than half of all U.S. consumers have an option to purchase some type of 

green power product from a retail electricity provider. Currently, more than 600 utilities, or about 20% of utilities 

nationally, offer green power programs to customers. These programs allow customers to purchase some portion of 

their power supply as renewable energy—almost always at a higher price—or to contribute funds for the utility to 

invest in renewable energy development. The term “green pricing” is typically used to refer to these utility programs 

offered in regulated or noncompetitive electricity markets. This report documents green power marketing activities 

and trends in the United States. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Green power; green power marketing; green tags; voluntary markets; renewable energy markets; utilities; electricity 

customers; energy industry trends; renewable energy certificates; RECs; green power products; consumer response; 

utility green pricing programs; Lori Bird; Blair Swezey 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18