Message-ID: <21497722.1075861005015.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 08:04:36 -0800 (PST)
From: stacey.bolton@enron.com
To: elliot.mainzer@enron.com, richard.ring@enron.com
Subject: FW: Generator based sourcing standards
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-From: Bolton, Stacey </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=SBOLTON>
X-To: Mainzer, Elliot </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Emainze>, Ring, Richard </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Rring>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Richard_Ring_Mar2002\Ring, Richard\EESIRenewableEnergy
X-Origin: Ring-R
X-FileName: rring (Non-Privileged).pst

We're coming down to the final wire on the Green-eT-RECs standard.  Below i=
s a synopsis of the outstanding issues.  I wanted to get your thought about=
 the following the options.  I agree with staff that choice #1 is ideal.  M=
y second choice is #3.  The issue is this: Each of the regions has slightly=
 different to dramatically different definitions for eligible resources for=
 a Green-e certified electricity product.  In order to have a national stan=
dard whereby a marketer can market the same product across the states, staf=
f has proposed certifying generators per region.  These generators would be=
 certified according to that region's standard.  The T-RECS could then be m=
arketed anywhere.  Some folks want to control not only the generators that =
are certified, but the products that are sold in their region.  Thus the op=
tion for the highest common denominator (choice #2).  I think we need to go=
 with the most administratively simple method that will promote the most li=
quidity.  Certifying generator or creating a separate T-RECs standard seem =
to be the easiest.

Let me know your thoughts.  I'd like to get back with Meredith today.  Also=
, these issues are pretty nebulous -- so call if you have ?s.

Stacey Bolton
Environmental Strategies
Enron Corp
713-853-9916 direct=20
713-303-2632 cell=20
stacey.bolton@enron.com <mailto:stacey.bolton@enron.com>
=20

 -----Original Message-----
From: =09"Meredith Wingate" <mwingate@resource-solutions.org>@ENRON =20
Sent:=09Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:34 PM
To:=09Anne Marie McShea; Barbara Atkinson \(LBNL\); Brenna Herpmann; Brent =
Beerley; Jeff Schmidt; Kevin Porter; Liz Robinson; Maureen Mulligan; Mark C=
rowdis; Matt Deluca; Peter Adels; Rich Travaglini; Roger Clark; Sam Swanson=
; Serpil Guran; Stacey Bolton; Maryanne Daniel
Cc:=09Dan Lieberman; Andrew Altman; Kirk Brown
Subject:=09Generator based sourcing standards


Folks,=20
As you know, at our last meeting, I promised to circulate the different  op=
tions we discussed on generator -based sourcing standards. =20
=20
The  problem we are trying to solve is this:  We'd like to develop a nation=
al  definition for "eligible" renewables  for certification of   T-RECs pro=
ducts under Green-e.  The problem is that if we did a  highest common denom=
inator standard, some renewables, namely biomass would be  excluded.  We fe=
el that this would be a somewhat arbitrary exclusion  because biomass has b=
een excluded from some regional standards because of  specific regional cir=
cumstances and that it would not be fair to penalize the  entire biomass in=
dustry by eliminating it from the T-RECs - Green-e  market.
=20
So  staff have proposed a generator based sourcing standard.  Eligibility w=
ould thus apply to renewable  generators, not marketers.  So if a generator=
 qualified, they would-be  able to market their T-RECs anywhere in the US. =
 The general feedback I got  from you was that people didn't like this idea=
 because (1) it wasn't clear for  the consumer what types of eligible are a=
llowed under Green-e cert. (e.g.  Georgia biomass excluded, but PA biomass =
allowed) and (2) effectively gave  marketers the ability to sell a type of =
power into a market that might not meet  the regional definition of eligibl=
e, (e.g. you could sell forestry-derived  biomass generated in New England =
into the PA market - the generator would  meet the new England definition f=
or eligible and therefore would be able to sell  that power anywhere.)
=20
We discussed a couple of different  options for handling this dilemma.  Her=
e are a few of the major pros an  cons.  =20
1.       Adopt a single  generator-based sourcing standard for electricity =
and T-RECs (this was the  proposal by staff)
 pros: it is consistent b/t  electricity and T-RECs products, and it allows=
 for regional definitions of  eligibility;=20
cons: not clear for the consumer what types  of eligible are allowed under =
Green-e cert.;  effectively gives  marketers the ability to sell a type of =
power into a market that might not  meet the regional definition of eligibl=
e
=20
2.       Don't change electricity  standards (keep definition of "eligible"=
 renewable as regional product standard)  but have a  T-RECs standard that =
is based on the highest common denominator  of all regional Green-e/Green p=
ricing standards. A highest common  denominator standard would include sola=
r, wind, digester gas, and possibly LIHI  hydro, geothermal landfill methan=
e with some NOx limits.  I say  "possibly" because these things aren't incl=
uded in green  pricing eligibility criteria but we think we might be able t=
o convince  stakeholders there to accept them.
Pros: Meets both regional definitions for  what is generated in a state and=
 what is marketed in a state
Cons: inconsistent  standard b/t electricity products and T-RECs products; =
eliminates  biomass and possibly other renewables from eligibility for  T-R=
ECs
=20
3.       Don't change electricity  standard but develop a new national defi=
nition for what T-RECs are "eligible"  (this would not necessarily be a hig=
hest common denominator standard, but more  of a "generally accepted renewa=
ble" standard)
Pros: Doesn't change electricity standard; makes it clear for consumers  wh=
at's in a Green-e certified product
Cons: potentially inconsistent standard b/t electricity products  and T-REC=
s products; could undermine regional standards if something is  approved as=
 eligible for T-RECs but it is not eligible for  electricity.
=20
4.       keep product standard  for both electricity and for T-RECs; requir=
e both electricity providers and  T-RECs providers to meet the regional  de=
finitions.
Pros: Meets both regional definitions for  what is generated in a state and=
 what is marketed in a state
Cons: requires T-RECs marketers to market  different products for different=
 regions- could prevent them from seeking  certification; inconsistent stan=
dard b/t electricity products and T-RECs  products
Please send me your  feedback on these different options. We did have an op=
tion 5, but upon  reflection, it appeared to me to be the same as one of th=
e other options.   if this isn't enough selection for you, feel free to add=
 you own option too!
=20
Thanks,
Meredith=20
=20
=20
Meredith Wingate
Center for Resource Solutions
Presidio Building  49
PO Box 29512
San Francisco, CA  94134
415-561-2100
_________________________
Information about CRS  programs is available at www.resource-solutions.org=
=20
Curious  about Green-e and green power? Check out www.green-e.org