Happy to pay more for a perceived increase in quality of product ?

Voting with your wallet is laudable -- and perhaps even the 'moral' thing to do. Hats off to those who do.

I'd just like to point out that this voting might have fairly muted effects on (1) contemporaneous CO2e pumped out into the atmosphere and (2) the rate at which the composition of the installed stock of generating capacity is being shifted toward renewables as a result of this 'voting'

(1) Because it is our everyday electricity consumption -- how much, at what time of the year, at what time(s) of the day -- that determines how much CO2e is released from our own activities, i.e. how much we are personally responsible for.

If one wanted to be really pedantic, one could ask whether paying a premium to a 'green energy company' is a means to 'moral self-licensing'. Alternatively, you could view it as a credible signal to others: "Yes, I am *genuinely* concerned about CO2e -- so much so that I'm willing to pay this $XX premium."

(2) Because the power generation business is already topping out at the maximal rate of conversion to renewables (see EU policy on the matter, implemented in the UK via the Renewables Obligation).
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/renew_obs/renew_obs.aspx
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/RenewablObl/Pages/RenewablObl.aspx

---------

P.S.

Although I don't have any particular agenda here, I think the above underscores how important it is to configure our homes and our life routines -- at home *and* at work -- so as to minimise the direct and indirect CO2e associated with our personal choices and activities.

Green Building is perhaps the most impactful lever at our disposal.

P.P.S.

Tough love is true love?

Ok, so that's the credible signal out the window. So all that's left is moral self-licensing, I'm afraid...

Posted By: ikimikiBecause the power generation business is already topping out at the maximal rate of conversion to renewables (see EU policy on the matter, implemented in the UK via the Renewables Obligation).
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/renew_obs/renew_obs.aspx
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/RenewablObl/Pages/RenewablObl.aspx

I'm sorry, how do either of those support your claim of "topping out at the maximal rate of conversion to renewables"?

For example Germany installs way more PV annually than we do, so it would clearly be possible for us to increase our rate. Your scenario two is entirely unrealistic. You assume that a step change in demand is possible but then make the reasonable claim that a step change in supply is impossible. So is a step change in demand! Even if people start signing up to green tariffs at a faster rate, there is still time for companies to react.

Posted By: SeretOnly if your of the opinion that there's no qualitative difference between the two, which I don't agree with.

What do you mean by quality?

On the drivers of green energy companies' investment programmes:

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/4435-leading-green-energy-companies-say-uk-government-is-damaging-business-confidence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/26/wind-energy-fears-government-commitment

(i.e., not retail consumers' supplier choices; the wholesale market operates in the background, regardless of who we sign up with)

I don't completely buy the moral licensing thing in relation to choosing a green supplier - our switch to ecotricity went hand in hand with the programme of home improvements (mainly insulation) and lifestyle changes and motivated by the same concerns.

Ecotricity show you on your electricity bill (and gas bill) how much you used this quarter compared to same quarter in previous years, with the intention of applying a downward pressure. Anyone who actively seeks out a green supplier is surely aware that negawatts are the greenest of all.

Excerpts from this document: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05870.pdf

"The RO places an obligation on UK suppliers of electricity to source an increasing proportion of their electricity from renewable sources. They do this through purchasing a Renewable Obligation Certificate (ROC) issued to an accredited generator for renewable electricity. It is proof that a certain amount of electricity has been generated from a renewable source.

A renewable generator therefore has two sources of income. Income generated from the sale of electricity to the wholesale market - which does not distinguish between renewable and non-renewable energy - and income from the sale of ROCs. (page 2)"

[n.b. Retail customers or their supplier choices not mentioned here.]

"...Suppliers can meet their obligations under the RO in one of three ways:

<> presenting Ofgem with Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) to the full value of their obligation. They either generate it themselves or purchase it from the market.
<> using a buy-out clause which allows them to pay £38.69 per MWh for any shortfall. This is the level for 2011-12 and is set by Ofgem every year.2
<> using a combination of ROCs and buy-out.

At the end of an obligation period the buyout fund is recycled pro rata to all suppliers who presented ROCs. This return of funds is factored in by suppliers when they decide whether to buy ROCs or contribute to the buy-out fund. The result is the ROC price being higher than the buy-out price when there is a shortage of certificates. The December 2011 average price for 1 ROC was £45.67. ROCs are also tradable. The aim of this is to create a market value for electricity generation from renewable sources.

The Renewables Obligation: Annual Report 2009-10 was published in February 2011. This set out the figures for compliance by electricity suppliers as follows:

The actual number of ROCs submitted for compliance in 2009-10 increased by 12.6% to 21,337,205 from 18,948,878 in 2008-09. This meant that the percentage of the total UK obligations met by ROCs increased from 65% to 71%. These ROCs equate to a value of over £1.1billion (assuming a value of £52.36 per ROC). This year the rate of increase of renewable generation has surpassed the pace of the increasing target.

Roughly 29% of the obligation was met through buy-out payments. Suppliers paid a total of £325,947,559 into the buy-out and late payment funds across all three obligations. The price for buying out of the Renewables Obligation was £37.19 per ROC. The increasing percentage of the obligation met by the presentation of ROCs has resulted in the recycle value of a ROC falling to £15.17 in 2009-10 from £18.61 in 2008-09. The ROC ‘worth’ has also seen a modest decrease from £54.37 in 2008-09 to £52.36 in 2009-10 because of this decrease in recycle value. Based on this figure, the cost of CO2 saved under the scheme is £96.86 per tonne. (pp. 4-5)"

It would be interesting to find out how the industry has fared -- how much of the RO target gap it has managed to close -- subsequent to 2009-10....

Details for 2010-11 are presented here:
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/RenewablObl/Documents1/Renewables%20Obligation%20Annual%20Report%202010-11.pdf

In 2010-11 again 29% of the obligation was met through buy-out payments. Total buy-out paid = £335,012,068 (See Table 1, p. 14.) [Plenty of incentive to develop additional renewables generation? Conversion rate to renewables-based generation 'topped-out'?]

Apparently "Data for 2011-12 will be available in March 2013, when the Renewables Obligation Annual Report is published" (source: DECC Annual Report).