|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/enrgy/archives/ |
Upload File : |
<html>
<head>
<title>Green Marketing in the Massachusetts Electric Retail Competition Pilot Program</title>
</head>
<body style="font-family: Arial" vlink="#808080">
<div align="center"><center>
<table border="0" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" width="98%" bgcolor="#000000">
<tr>
<td width="100%" valign="middle"><a name="top"></a><img src="../images/pmamagsm.gif" alt="PMA Online Magazine" border="0" align="right" WIDTH="229" HEIGHT="100"></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center></div><div align="center"><center>
<table border="0" cellpadding="8" width="98%">
<tr>
<td width="25%" valign="top" align="center"><!--webbot bot="ImageMap" rectangle="(14,297) (97,322) http://www.powermarketers.com/adrates.html" rectangle="(11,230) (95,257) http://www.powermarketers.com/pmajobs.htm" rectangle="(12,163) (96,189) http://www.powermarketers.com/main.htm##_parent" rectangle="(12,95) (96,121) http://www.powermarketers.com/power2.htm##_blank" rectangle="(11,29) (96,54) ../pmamag.htm" src="../images/magmenu.gif" alt="PMA OnLine Magazine Menu" border="0" align="center" startspan --><MAP NAME="FrontPageMap"><AREA SHAPE="RECT" COORDS="14, 297, 97, 322" HREF="http://www.powermarketers.com/adrates.html"><AREA SHAPE="RECT" COORDS="11, 230, 95, 257" HREF="http://www.powermarketers.com/pmajobs.htm"><AREA SHAPE="RECT" COORDS="12, 163, 96, 189" HREF="http://www.powermarketers.com/main.htm" TARGET="_parent"><AREA SHAPE="RECT" COORDS="12, 95, 96, 121" HREF="http://www.powermarketers.com/power2.htm" TARGET="_blank"><AREA SHAPE="RECT" COORDS="11, 29, 96, 54" HREF="../pmamag.htm"></MAP><a href="../_vti_bin/shtml.dll/archives/green-ma.htm/map"><img src="../images/magmenu.gif" alt="PMA OnLine Magazine Menu" border="0" align="center" ismap width="110" height="350" usemap="#FrontPageMap"></a><!--webbot bot="ImageMap" endspan i-checksum="318" --><p><a href="../searchpma.htm"><img src="../images/archives.gif" alt="Archives Search" border="0" align="center" WIDTH="70" HEIGHT="40"></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="green-ma.htm#top"><img src="../images/b-t-top.gif" alt="Back To Top" border="0" WIDTH="71" HEIGHT="35"></a></td>
<td width="75%" valign="top"><div align="center"><center><table BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="2" width="100%" ALIGN="Center">
<tr>
<td><a href="http://www.nrel.gov/research/ceaa/emaa/mecotib/cover.jpg"><img SRC="../images/covertn.jpg" WIDTH="120" HEIGHT="173" vspace="40" ALIGN="Right"></a> <h1>Green
Marketing in the Massachusetts Electric Retail Competition Pilot Program </h1>
<h5>NREL/SP-260-23507<br>
October 1997<br>
</h5>
<h3>Steven M. Rothstein, Environmental Futures, Inc.<br>
Jeffrey M. Fang, National Renewable Energy Laboratory <br>
<font face="Arial" size="2">(<em>originally published by PMA OnLine Magazine: 03/98</em>)</font></h3>
<p><img SRC="../images/logo1.gif" BORDER="0" ALIGN="Left" WIDTH="235" HEIGHT="63"><br clear="all">
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<table CELLPADDING="2">
<tr VALIGN="Top">
<td width="125" align="top"><font size="-1"><b>Topical Issues Brief-</b></font></td>
<td><font size="-1"><i>The Topical Issues Brief series is sponsored by DOE's Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office of Utility Technologies</i></font></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><font size="4">Notice </font></p>
<p><font size="-1"><i>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.</i></font> </p>
<p><font size="-1"><i>Printed in the United States of America</i></font> </p>
<p><font size="-1"><a name="order">Available to DOE and DOE contractors from:</a></font><br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<font size="-1"><p>Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) <br>
P.O. Box 62 <br>
Oak Ridge, TN 37831<br>
Prices are available by calling (423) 576-8401</font> <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="-1">Available from: </font><br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<font size="-1"><p>National Technical Information Service <br>
U.S. Department of Commerce <br>
5285 Port Royal Road <br>
Springfield, VA 22161 <br>
(703) 487-4650<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="-1">Information pertaining to the pricing codes can be found in the current
issue of the following publications which are generally available in most libraries:
Government Reports Announcements and Index (GRA and I); Scientific and Technical Abstract
Reports (STAR); and publication NTIS-PR-360 available from NTIS at the above address.<br>
</font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h3 class="H3"><a name="toc">Table of Contents</a> </h3>
<p><a href="green-ma.htm#abstract">Abstract</a> </p>
<p><a href="green-ma.htm#ack">Acknowledgments</a> </p>
<p><a href="green-ma.htm#I">I. Introduction</a> </p>
<p><a href="green-ma.htm#II">II. Green Options</a> </p>
<blockquote>
<a href="green-ma.htm#IIa"><p>Development of Green Options</a> <br>
<a href="green-ma.htm#IIb">Evaluation of Green Option Proposals</a> <br>
<a href="green-ma.htm#IIc">Prices of Green Options</a> <br>
<a href="green-ma.htm#IId">Green Verification Process</a> </p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="green-ma.htm#III">III. Green Marketing</a> </p>
<blockquote>
<a href="green-ma.htm#IIIa"><p>Working Assets Green Power, Inc.</a> <br>
<a href="green-ma.htm#IIIb">AllEnergy</a> <br>
<a href="green-ma.htm#IIIc">Enova Energy</a> <br>
<a href="green-ma.htm#IIId">Northfield Mountain Energy</a> </p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="green-ma.htm#IV">IV. Assessment</a> </p>
<blockquote>
<a href="green-ma.htm#IVa"><p>Generation Resource Mix</a> <br>
<a href="green-ma.htm#IVb">Other Components of the Green Option</a> <br>
<a href="green-ma.htm#IVc">Market Shares</a> <br>
<a href="green-ma.htm#IVd">Green Standards</a> <br>
<a href="green-ma.htm#IVe">Need for Consumer Education</a> <br>
<a href="green-ma.htm#IVf">Disclosure and Verification</a> <br>
<a href="green-ma.htm#IVg">Small-Business Customers</a> </p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="green-ma.htm#V">V. Conclusions and Observations</a> </p>
<p><a href="green-ma.htm#VI">VI. Notes</a> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h4 class="H4">Tables </h4>
<blockquote>
<b><p>Table 1</b> - <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/research/ceaa/emaa/mecotib/t1.html">Green
Options Menu in the MECo Pilot</a> <br>
<b>Table 2</b> - <a href="green-ma.htm#t2">Market Shares of Supplier Options</a> </p>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<h3 class="H3"><a name="abstract">Abstract</a> </h3>
<p>With electric industry restructuring initiatives being introduced on the state and
federal levels, retail access pilot programs serve an important function for examining
competitive market issues, as well as marketing strategies and customer reactions to
different power supply options. The experience gained through these pilots provides
important insights into future power market operations, including the market for green
power. </p>
<p>The Massachusetts Electric Company's (MECo's) <i>Choice: New England</i> pilot for
residential and small-business customers was a voluntary program developed primarily to
test the billing and metering logistics that distribution companies will need in the
competitive market. The pilot also offered a preview of program implementation and
marketing under customer choice. It was the first retail competition pilot to explicitly
include green power options in program design. </p>
<p>The MECo pilot's energy suppliers were selected through the issuance of a request for
proposals (RFP). Respondents were asked to submit bids in one or more of three energy
supply categories — <i>price, green,</i> and <i>other options</i>. These options were
developed by the pilot administrator through internal meetings, discussions with state
officials and other stakeholders, and a review of information from other similar pilots.
For the green option, the pilot administrator did not establish a green standard. Instead,
suppliers were allowed to submit offers that promoted environmental stewardship. </p>
<p>Eligible customers were drawn from four pilot cities: Lawrence, Lynn, Northampton, and
Worcester. MECo and the pilot program administrator conducted outreach to customers in all
four cities through a broad range of marketing and consumer education strategies. In
addition, suppliers conducted their own marketing efforts, including telemarketing,
literature distribution, and issuance of enrollment ballots to customers. They
differentiated themselves by offering varying energy prices, financial incentives, and
assorted services. For example, most of the selected green options offered customers a
degree of savings but were diverse in their generation profiles and other environmentally
friendly actions. These included a portfolio of renewable sources, primarily conventional
hydro; donations to Massachusetts environmental groups; rooftop photovoltaic system
installation; retirement of air emissions credits; energy efficiency information,
products, and services; and a raffle for an electric vehicle. </p>
<p>Customer response to the different green options varied depending on consumer values,
environmental benefits offered by suppliers, and supplier marketing strategies. Only 3% of
participating small-business customers selected a green option, whereas 31% of residential
participants selected a green option. Small-business customers seemed to rank cost savings
as the most compelling reason to participate in the pilot, whereas residential customers
were more willing to pursue options that conformed to their beliefs or preferences.
Residential customers selected a high percentage of power supply portfolios with more
renewable source content, including at least 20% renewables and no nuclear. Though it
represents only a fraction of the total retail-customer base, the pilot clearly
demonstrates that, in a competitive situation, there is interest in a variety of energy
supply options, including green options. The pilot results also suggest that supplier
marketing, pricing, customer education, and appropriate disclosure guidelines will be
instrumental in determining the future standing of green power offerings.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="green-ma.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h3 class="H3"><a name="ack" class="H3">Acknowledgements</a> </h3>
<p><i>Green Marketing in the Massachusetts Electric Company Retail Competition Pilot
Program</i> was prepared by Steven M. Rothstein, Environmental Futures, Inc., and Jeffrey
M. Fang, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). It was prepared for NREL, which
managed the project with funding provided by the Office of Utility Technologies of the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The authors would like to acknowledge Joe Galdo, DOE, for
the guidance and financial support he provided to this project. They also wish to thank
Shana Pyun, Michael Benjamin, and Jonathan Abe of Environmental Futures for their support
in preparing the document. They further acknowledge AllEnergy, Enova Energy, Northfield
Mountain Energy, and Working Assets Green Power, Inc., for providing background materials.
Finally, the authors thank the following reviewers for their comments and suggestions: Joe
Galdo, DOE; Larry Goldstein, Kevin Porter, and Blair Swezey, NREL; Maureen Hall Gatti,
Massachusetts Electric Company; and Edward Holt, Ed Holt & Associates, Inc.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="green-ma.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h3 class="H3"><a name="I">I. Introduction</a> </h3>
<p>The Massachusetts Electric Company's (MECo's) ongoing pilot program, <i>Choice: New
England</i>, had two components, one for large high-technology companies, the other for
residential and small-business customers. The program had several objectives: (1) to allow
the utility to test logistical and administrative details of retail choice, including
metering and billing protocols for transitioning smoothly to competition on a statewide
level; (2) to offer cost savings to customers; and (3) to allow suppliers to
test aggregation, the capability to deliver power to end-use customers from various
suppliers, and the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) settlement process. In other words, the
pilot served as a learning experience for MECo, its customers, and other players in the
competitive marketplace, and created a means for customers to have a voice in the
restructuring process. </p>
<p>The residential and small-business part of the MECo pilot was the only one of the first
six retail competition pilot programs that explicitly included green options in its
program design. It allowed customer choice for up to 10,000 residential and small-business
customers, or up to 100 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) a year, split equally between
residential customers and small-business customers. Customers in four cities were eligible
to participate in the pilot program: Lawrence, Lynn, Northampton, and Worcester. The
program period was from January through December 1997. </p>
<p>Energy suppliers for the program were selected by an independent administrator,
Environmental Futures, Inc. (contracted by MECo), which issued a request for proposals
(RFP). Six suppliers were selected to participate in the pilot. They were AllEnergy, Enova
Energy, Northeast Utilities Wholesale (NUW), Northfield Mountain Energy (NME), Wheeled
Electric Power Company/ Cinergy (WEPCo/Cinergy), and Working Assets Green Power, Inc. Of
the six, AllEnergy, Enova, NME, and Working Assets offered green options. </p>
<p>This issues brief covers only the residential and small-business component of the pilot
and focuses on green marketing. [ <a href="green-ma.htm#fn1">1</a> ] It describes the design and
marketing of green options and addresses several aspects in the process such as generation
resource mix, other components of green options, market shares, green standards, need for
consumer education, need for information disclosure and verification, and targeting
commercial and industrial customers. It also presents conclusions and observations.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="green-ma.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h3 class="H3"><a name="II">II. Green Options</a> </h3>
<p>To offer consumers the broadest possible range of price and service choices, suppliers
were requested to submit proposals that might include three service options for both
residential and small-business customers: price, green, and other. The <i>price option</i>
offered customers the lowest energy price. Suppliers were required to offer a base price
and to indicate any additional charges or incentives affecting the price. The <i>green
option</i> provided customers with environmentally beneficial energy choices. The <i>other
option</i> offered value-added services, such as energy conservation services and
donations to charitable organizations. The primary intent of the <i>other option</i> was
to encourage innovation and broaden the spectrum of choices available to the customer.
Variable-pricing proposals were included under this category. The following describes the
development of the green options, evaluation of green option proposals, energy prices
associated with green options, and verification of green option claims. </p>
<h4 class="H4"><a name="IIa">Development of Green Options</a> </h4>
<p>Attempts to define "green" energy raise a host of questions, including
consideration of a green hierarchy, i.e., ranking of various energy sources and services
from the most to the least "green." Although renewable energy sources are
clearly regarded as preferable to nonrenewables, many questions about the relative
environmental benefits and market feasibility of different energy sources remain. For
example, small- and large-scale hydro projects and pumped hydro facilities are generally
not considered equal in terms of environmental impact. However, no uniform ranking system
has been developed to characterize the greenness of different types of hydro power. The
green energy concept is evolving rapidly as customers refine their opinions about green
energy sources and suppliers position themselves to compete in a deregulated and
environmentally aware market. </p>
<p>In the absence of a standard national green energy definition, the pilot administrator
chose not to define green energy for the purpose of the pilot. For the green option,
suppliers were invited to offer renewable energy sources, energy efficiency and
demand-side management (DSM) programs, emission reduction guarantees, and donations to
environmental/community groups, or other services geared toward protection of the
environment. This approach recognized the limited time frame of the pilot and encouraged
the broadest possible range of environmentally sensitive proposals, which would be
evaluated in terms of the merits of the generation profiles and services offered and
analyses of the validity of environmental claims. This approach also provided pilot
participants with the opportunity to evaluate the relative benefits of the profiles and
services offered by selected green suppliers. Rather than creating a green standard, the
pilot allowed suppliers, through their proposals, and consumers, through their choices, to
help refine the evolving definition of green options. </p>
<p>Suppliers proposing green options were required to indicate the generation profile,
i.e., the percentage breakdown of fuel sources (coal, nuclear, hydro, and renewables) and
the means for verifying these sources. The RFP also directed suppliers to describe how
fuel portfolios might change under various scenarios (e.g., peak demand periods or when
regular sources were undergoing maintenance) and what fuel sources would be used for
backup power supply. Except for contractual information, all generation portfolio material
and additional benefits information were to be made available to customers. </p>
<h4 class="H4"><a name="IIb">Evaluation of Green Option Proposals</a> </h4>
<p>Consistent with the conceptual descriptions of "green" presented in the RFP,
criteria for evaluating proposals for the green options category included compliance with
RFP requirements, validity of supplier information, environmental benefits, and prices. In
evaluating the "greenness" of competing proposals, a two-tiered hierarchy was
used. The generation portfolio was the first tier. Other environmentally friendly actions,
including DSM, donations, and emission reductions were the second tier. Given the short
time frame between issuance of the RFP and the beginning of the pilot (July
1996–January 1997), suppliers were unable to bring new renewable sources on line for
the pilot. Suppliers were thus limited to offering access to existing renewable sources,
either via direct, dedicated supply or through power purchase contracts. Proposals from
power generators offering direct access to renewable sources were evaluated more favorably
than proposals promising renewable power supply through contractual means. Power
marketers' claims regarding renewable power supply were verified by examining the
contractual terms. </p>
<p>Many green option proposals included one or more of the following: energy
efficiency and DSM initiatives, donations to environmental groups, and emission reduction
programs. Three of the seven chosen green options included minimal renewable source
content, but were selected on the strength of their other environmental services and
benefits. </p>
<p>There were eight proposals in the residential green category and four were selected.
Similarly, there were eight proposals in the small-business green category and three were
selected. Information on winning green suppliers is presented in <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/research/ceaa/emaa/mecotib/t1.html" name="t1"><b>Table 1</b></a>.
</p>
<p>Factors that distinguished the winning green proposals included competitive pricing;
well-defined, comprehensive services; and valid generation profiles containing
sufficiently high renewable-source content. Several proposals for the green option
included a combination of these benefits, so the scope of services offered and
substantiation of environmental benefits became particularly important evaluation
criteria. </p>
<p>The primary reasons for rejecting green option proposals were high energy prices,
operational limitations, and questionable nature of environmental claims. Because of the
relatively short span between RFP issuance and the beginning of the pilot, two bidders
offering new sources of renewable power were unable to guarantee that power could be
brought reliably on line to the NEPOOL system in time for the January start date. These
proposals were rejected. </p>
<h4 class="H4"><a name="IIc">Prices of Green Options</a></h4>
<p>Not all proposed green options included prices that would allow customers to save money
through participation in the pilot. Because creating customer cost savings was one of
MECo's fundamental goals in this pilot, and because the bids submitted in other options
are quite price-competitive, green proposals that did not provide the potential for cost
savings in terms of their base-price offering were rejected. [ <a href="green-ma.htm#fn2">2</a>
] All of the selected options (price, green, and other) offered cost savings for the
average customer when compared to existing MECo rates. </p>
<p>Base prices for the generation portion of the bill offered by the selected suppliers in
the residential-green and small-business-green categories ranged from $0.0250/kWh to
$0.0341/kWh, or $0.0200/kWh to $0.0341/kWh on an all-costs comparative basis (see <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/research/ceaa/emaa/mecotib/t1.html">Table 1</a>). On average,
base prices of green options presented to customers in the pilot program were $0.0301/kWh,
as compared to $0.0280/kWh for other options and $0.0256/kWh for price options. </p>
<p>Although green option prices generally promised less savings than<i> </i>bids for the
price and other options, two winning suppliers offered prices under the green option that
would have been competitive in the price option category, on either the base-price or the
comparative-price basis. Based on the limited scope of the pilot and its underlying goals,
suppliers clearly recognized that price was an important component in designing a
successful proposal and in attracting pilot participants. For this and other reasons
(e.g., lack of supplier financial information), it is unclear whether supplier costs for
the two low-priced green options were comparable to the costs of price and other options,
or if artificially low prices were offered for the purpose of this pilot. However, it is
worth noting that NME relies exclusively (100%) on existing hydro resources, the cost of
which is generally lower than other generation sources. </p>
<h4 class="H4"><a name="IId">Green Verification Process</a></h4>
<p>In developing a green verification process, the pilot program administrator was
primarily interested in maintaining the integrity of the proposals submitted. Because of
the use of an independent pilot administrator and an RFP screening process, the structure
of the MECo pilot was better suited to holding marketers accountable for their green
claims. </p>
<p>Suppliers offering benefits and services under green options were required to confirm
the status of their programs in writing on a quarterly basis to verify that all of the
benefits/donations occurred as promised. As mentioned above, these benefits ranged from
donations to environmental groups to DSM efforts, including a raffle for an electric
vehicle and the installation of photovoltaic (PV) panels in pilot cities. In the absence
of a national standard for green power, verification of renewable source content was to be
provided with a written statement of dedicated capacity and backup capacity, including
reference to unit entitlements and/or power purchase contract terms and conditions. </p>
<p>The inclusion of hydro power as a renewable power source prompted investigation of
specific information regarding the type of dedicated hydro sources, e.g., small-scale
hydro, large hydro facilities, and pumped-storage hydro. NME claimed 100% hydro as the
generation profile for their residential and small-business green options, using various
hydroelectric plants within the Northeast Utilities System. A condition for accepting
these green options into the pilot was NME's verification specifying that no
pumped-storage hydro plants would be dedicated to NME customers in this pilot program.
Through conversations with NME officials and through the verification updates, the pilot
administrator was able to confirm that the hydro facilities used were not pumped-storage
hydro facilities. </p>
<p>Consistent with the pilot's intent to ensure that all green claims for the pilot were
reviewed and verified, the pilot administrator reviewed contract language to verify the
claim that "no coal, nuclear, nor Hydro-Quebec" generation would be used in
providing power to pilot customers before accepting Working Assets' green power into the
pilot as a green option.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="green-ma.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h3 class="H3"><a name="III">III. Green Marketing</a></h3>
<p>The MECo pilot featured two distinct components in its marketing<b>/</b>outreach
campaign. The first was a general promotional effort implemented by MECo and the pilot
administrator. The second was the focused enrollment effort by the utility, the
administrator, and the six participating power suppliers. The following discussion
highlights the marketing of green options in the supplier marketing stage. [ <a href="green-ma.htm#fn3">3</a> ] </p>
<p>The broad outline of "green" provided in the RFP resulted in a wide range of
service offerings and marketing efforts by the four selected green option suppliers (see <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/research/ceaa/emaa/mecotib/t1.html">Table 1</a>). The selected
green options were distinguished from the other options by their valid, environmentally
sensitive generation profiles or distinctive services, including energy efficiency
programs, retirement of emission credits, and donations to environmental groups and
projects. The "green" price range, generation profiles, and services varied
considerably among suppliers. Comparative residential and small-business prices offered by
Enova Energy and NME were among the most competitive in the pilot. NUW and Working Assets
highlighted their generation profiles. In contrast, Enova and AllEnergy stressed the
environmental services of their offers such as retirement of emission credits,
installation of PV panels in community buildings, and donations to environmental projects.
</p>
<h4 class="H4"><a name="IIIa">Working Assets Green Power, Inc.</a></h4>
<p>With 33%–55% of the power in its generation profile from renewables (35%–50%
natural gas, 0%–5% oil) and a commitment to donating 1% of its revenues from the
pilot to Massachusetts environmental groups, Working Assets offered a unique definition of
green. Its base price and comparative prices of $0.0335 and $0.0298 were higher than most
of the other competitive green option prices (see <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/research/ceaa/emaa/mecotib/t1.html">Table 1</a>), which created
a need for aggressive marketing efforts. The lower comparative price was due to the
inclusion of the $25 bonus gift certificate for energy efficiency products after six
months. Working Assets offered only a residential green option, whereas other green option
suppliers offered both residential and small-business green options. </p>
<p>Through the MECo ballot, telemarketing, and direct-mail pieces, Working Assets marketed
itself as a "nuclear-free, coal-free, and Hydro-Quebec-free" power source. This
marketing theme aimed to capitalize on the public's concern regarding the potential
environmental impacts of nuclear power and coal-fired generation, as well as the
controversy surrounding the impacts of large-scale hydro development by Hydro-Quebec. It
was also not inconsistent with the criteria adopted for this pilot. However, because no
new renewable generation was involved and no net improvement to the environment in the
short run was claimed, some had criticized Working Assets as marketing social
responsibility without substance. [ <a href="green-ma.htm#fn4">4</a> ] </p>
<p>Working Assets was the only pilot program supplier with an existing, albeit small,
customer base, gained through its services as a long-distance phone service provider.
Working Assets targeted its existing long-distance customers in marketing its green option
and gave enrolled customers free ice cream or long-distance services. (Non-Working Assets
long-distance customers were encouraged to sign up for this service as well.) [ <a href="green-ma.htm#fn5">5</a> ] </p>
<p>Working Assets found success by concentrating telemarketing, direct mail, and other
marketing efforts in the city of Northampton. This community is the most rural of the four
pilot cities with a density of 850 people per square mile. It also has the largest
percentage of registered voters (51%), the largest percentage of residents having a
bachelor's degree or higher (28.8%), and the highest median annual household income, at
$31,097. While the other pilot cities have developed primarily from urban manufacturing
and commercial centers, the city of Northampton is known for its surrounding natural and
educational resources, institutional base (three hospitals and Smith College), and local
commercial sector. The city is also known for its strong municipal programs in education,
public safety, recreation, and energy conservation. [ <a href="green-ma.htm#fn6">6</a> ] </p>
<h4 class="H4"><a name="IIIb">AllEnergy</a></h4>
<p>AllEnergy's green option used a three-tiered pricing approach, allowing residential and
small-business customers to support different levels of environmental services according
to the energy price paid. For a price premium of either $0.002 or $0.004 per kWh,
AllEnergy offered a greater per-customer commitment to retiring sulfur dioxide emissions
credits and installing PV panels in pilot cities. The incremental environmental benefits
were larger for small-business customers because of the higher per-customer average energy
usage. Relative to NME and Working Assets, which offered portfolios with substantial
renewables content, AllEnergy's generation profile contained only 6% renewable sources.
AllEnergy's lowest price also exceeded the most competitive residential green offer (NME's
$0.0200 comparative price) by more than $0.010 per kWh, or about 50%, and exceeded
the most competitive small-business green prices by approximately 40%. In addition,
although it appears that AllEnergy based its green option design on the recent trend in
utility green pricing programs that allow various options to suit customers' preferences
and ability to pay for different levels of green or renewable energy content, it is a
relatively complex design compared with other green or price options. </p>
<p>Based in Waltham, Massachusetts, AllEnergy emphasized its local roots and commitment to
the local environment in promoting its green and other options. A detailed brochure mailed
selectively to potential pilot participants described a "Locally Committed ...
Nationally Recognized ... Environmentally Responsible" company. Like Working Assets,
AllEnergy focused its green marketing efforts in Northampton. AllEnergy also marketed at
mini-expos during the enrollment period. </p>
<h4 class="H4"><a name="IIIc">Enova Energy</a></h4>
<p>Like AllEnergy, Enova's generation profile for its green option included a low level of
renewable-source content (approximately 8%). However, Enova's residential and
small-business green prices were very competitive—at a comparative level of $0.0221
and $0.0230 per kWh, they were marginally higher than NME's comparative green prices, and
among the most competitive prices in the pilot. </p>
<p>Enova distinguished itself by providing additional services. It provided customers with
an array of environmental literature, such as conservation tips, a home environmental
survey, a "Conserving Our World" calendar; an "Earth Saver" kit
containing a reusable grocery bag, light switch decals, a refrigerator thermometer, and
other items; and a camera allowing customers to document their environmental initiatives
and qualify for additional rewards and services. Small-business customers were offered
promotional services, and received a "A Clean Environment is My Business" decal.
Enova also offered to match donations to local environmental projects, as much as $12 per
customer for the duration of the pilot with a maximum of $20,000. Finally, Enova enticed
residential and small-business green option customers with a raffle for an electric
vehicle. </p>
<p>Enova used newspaper ads and direct mail to promote its green option. An ad displaying
a smiling planet Earth and exhorting customers to "Choose Green" appeared in
local papers. Based on authorized mailing information provided by MECo, Enova distributed
an "Energy Matters" brochure to a limited group of potential customers. In
addition to information about the MECo pilot, the brochure featured an announcement about
Enova's recently opened local office and a directory of environmental information sources.
Enova also mailed price/green options ballots, a brief question-and-answer document, and
form letters to targeted potential residential and small-business customers. </p>
<h4 class="H4"><a name="IIId">Northfield Mountain Energy</a></h4>
<p>NME provided consumers with "3 great reasons to choose" their option:
(1) Save Money, (2) Conserve Energy, and (3) Protect Your Environment.
Because of its locally recognized brand name, NME's marketing approach stressed its local
roots and offered a diversity of benefits with the option. The base price offered to
residential customers was a competitive $0.0260/kWh, and its generation portfolio was 100%
hydro power. NME's option included additional environmentally oriented benefits to
residential customers such as a free home energy survey to help identify conservation
measures; an energy efficiency home products catalog; and free energy-saving
products, including a showerhead, faucet flip aerator, and a refrigerator vacuum brush.
Including the value of the additional services provided, the comparative price for the
average NME residential customer was $0.0200 per kWh, making it the lowest comparative
price green option and second lowest comparative price offered to residential customers in
the entire pilot. </p>
<p>In addition to the lowest green option base prices offered to small-business customers
with G1 and G2 rate schedules, [ <a href="green-ma.htm#fn7">7</a> ] $0.0275 and $0.0255 per
kWh, respectively, the NME small-business green option offered possible additional savings
of $0.0025 per kWh. The option included a free lighting audit and energy-saving guidebook,
complemented by a lighting retrofit kit offering energy efficiency lighting at competitive
prices. The small businesses were also offered community recognition in the form of
free advertising and a plaque publicizing their environmentally conscious electricity
selection. </p>
<p>Rounding out the benefits offered under its green options, NME committed to donating a
portion of its revenue to local environmental projects and to retiring sulfur dioxide (SO<sub>2</sub>)
allowances on behalf of the American Lung Association for both residential and
small-business customers. </p>
<p>NME sent its marketing brochure to interested pilot customers, placed print
advertisements in local newspapers presenting the three great reasons to choose NME, and
marketed its green options at area trade shows.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="green-ma.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h3 class="H3"><a name="IV">IV. Assessment</a></h3>
<p>Given the above descriptions, several aspects of green options and green marketing
deserve further discussion. They involve generation resource mix, other components of
green options, market shares, green standards, the need for consumer education and
information disclosure and verification, and commercial and industrial customers. </p>
<h4 class="H4"><a name="IVa">Generation Resource Mix</a></h4>
<p>Because of the design of the pilot program, the generation resource mixes of the green
option suppliers were shown clearly in the literature provided to the participants.
However, resource mix information was not provided for the "price" and
"other" options. As shown in <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/research/ceaa/emaa/mecotib/t1.html">Table 1</a>, the share of
renewable energy ranged from as low as 8% to 100%. NME and Working Assets had higher
renewable energy content at 100% and 35%–55%, respectively. Renewable energy was
primarily existing hydro resources. Except for potential installation of PV panels in
community buildings from the AllEnergy green option, there was no addition of new
renewable generation. To a large extent, this was due to the short timeframe between the
RFP and the start of the pilot; there was simply not sufficient time to develop new
renewable generation and bring it on line to supply customers who might sign up for the
option. As mentioned above, two proposals involving new renewable generation were not
accepted into the pilot for this reason. Fossil fuels such as coal, gas, and oil, and
nuclear fuel, were also included in the resource portfolios. Nuclear energy accounted for
57% for Enova Energy and 14% for AllEnergy. Enova, AllEnergy, and Working Assets had about
one-third of their generation resources in fossil-fueled power plants. </p>
<h4 class="H4"><a name="IVb">Other Components of the Green Option</a></h4>
<p>In addition to renewable energy, the green options offered by suppliers in the
generation resource mix included energy efficiency information, products, and services;
retirement of SO<sub>2</sub> emission credits; installation of PV panels on community
buildings; donations to environmental organizations, projects, and community groups; and
other inducements such as a raffle for an electric vehicle. Although these components were
environmentally friendly in some sense, except for the installation of PV panels at
community buildings, there were no net additions to new renewables generation in the short
term. Similarly, except for the installation of PV panels, there were no net improvements
to the environment through the substitution of new renewable generation for existing power
plants with high emission rates. Customers had mixed reactions to these other benefits or
actions. Although attractive to some consumers, such benefits alone without the inclusion
of a green portfolio may have resulted in some increased consumer skepticism regarding the
actual environmental benefit of the specific option. </p>
<h4 class="H4"><a name="IVc">Market Shares</a></h4>
<p>Overall, 31% of residential participants selected green options, whereas only 3% of
small-business participants chose green options. These results should be viewed with the
following qualifications in mind. First, although the small-business portion of the pilot
was fully subscribed, the residential customer portion was only 60% subscribed in terms of
allocated loads. This latter result shows that the residential interest, trust, or
awareness in the pilot may be limited and that those who did sign up may have been more
motivated by green options. Second, because cost savings was the primary concern of
businesses, a clear majority of small-business participants went with the most
advantageous price options. In the residential sector, cost savings was still the most
important consideration, but concern about the environment became more prominent. As shown
in <a href="green-ma.htm#t2"><b>Table 2</b></a>, the largest three shares in the small-business sector
are all price options: NUW—price, 70%; WEPCO/Cinergy—price, 17%;
Enova—price, 9%. The NME green option is fourth with approximately 3%. Similarly, in
the residential sector, price options occupy the number 1 and 2 spots: Enova—price,
43%; NUW—price, 21%. Working Assets green option and NME green option are number
3 and number 4 in market shares, at 16% and 10%, respectively. Third, as mentioned
above, Working Assets successfully targeted the residential customers in Northampton.
Because Working Assets did not offer a green option for small-business customers, the
results would tend to bias toward the residential participation rate. Finally, a related
aspect is that the green options for the small- business customers were not as intensively
marketed as those for the residential customers. </p>
<p>The relative popularity of the Working Assets green option, the one with the most
expensive residential green offerings, is a notable exception to the customer preference
for low price. It also suggests that consumers are willing to pay a price premium for
power they believe to be environmentally friendly. The AllEnergy green option, with its
high comparative price and its relatively complex three-tiered options, was able to
achieve only a 1% market share, compared to Working Assets' 16%. </p>
<h4 class="H4"><a name="IVd">Green Standards</a></h4>
<p>As noted above, the design of the MECo pilot did not set a green standard. This is
related to the definition of the term "green," which is being debated in
Massachusetts and across the United States. For example, recent legislation proposed by
the Massachusetts Joint Special Committee on Electric Industry Restructuring offered a
standard for green power. In Section 8. B. (I). the legislation states "no generation
company or supplier may advertise their power as "green" power, or any other
term connoting an environmentally beneficial portfolio, unless such portfolio includes
energy from renewable source in the amount of at least 20% and does not include nuclear
power." [ <a href="green-ma.htm#fn8">8</a> ] Based on such a standard, 87%
of the customers in the MECo pilot selecting a green option selected an option that would
qualify as green. It appears that Working Assets' marketing played a significant role in
this outcome. One customer indicated that a primary reason for selecting the firm was its
proven history of commitment to the environment (through Working Assets Long
Distance) and its developing commitment to renewable power. In addition, although no
renewable standard was set in the pilot, customer selections of service providers show a
strong leaning toward firms with relatively high renewables content in their generation
portfolios, such as NME (100% high hydro) and Working Assets (30%–45% hydro and
3%–10% other renewables). </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div align="center"><center><table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" BORDERCOLOR="#000000" CELLPADDING="8" WIDTH="100%">
<caption><b><a name="t2">Table 2:</a> Market Shares of Supplier Options (%)</b></caption>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="36%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">Supplier Options</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">Residential Customers</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">Small Businesses</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="36%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">Enova - Price</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">43</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="36%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">NUW - Price</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">21</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">70</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="36%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">Working Assets - Green</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">16</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">(a)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="36%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">NME - Green</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">10</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="36%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">WEPCO/Cinergy - Price</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">3</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">17</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="36%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">Enova - Green</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">3</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="36%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">AllEnergy - Other</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">3</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="36%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">AllEnergy - Green</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">1</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="36%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">WEPCO/Cinergy-Other</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</td>
<td WIDTH="32%" VALIGN="TOP"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</td>
</tr>
</table>
</center></div><p align="center">(a) Working Assets did not offer a green option for small
business customers. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h4 class="H4"><a name="IVe">Need for Consumer Education</a></h4>
<p>The concepts of competition in the electric industry and the unbundling of bills can
cause initial confusion to customers who have been purchasing bundled electricity from a
regulated utility. A substantial portion of customers had never considered the
environmental impact associated with the generation of electricity until presented with
the choice of their electricity supplier. Many of the customers who called the customer
service line often asked the question: "Why would anyone select anything but the
lowest price?" In addition, many callers did not understand the benefits offered by
green options. They did not know the environmental consequences of electricity generation
and had little familiarity with renewable energy. On the other hand, some customers asked
more specific questions regarding the sources of generation or the companies'
environmental records. The environmentally aware customers were concerned with the quality
of the green options. They wanted to know how the green portfolio would be verified, and
also wanted their provider of renewable energy to have a consistent and complementary
environmental record. In short, many consumers were environmentally unaware regarding
power supply options, whereas some were environmentally educated. Thus, there is a need
for consumer education to inform those who are not familiar with the nature of electric
industry deregulation and the environmental benefits of renewable energy. </p>
<h4 class="H4"><a name="IVf">Disclosure and Verification </a></h4>
<p>In the MECo pilot, a booklet containing comparative information concerning the various
offers and a card for participants to mark their choice of suppliers ("the
ballot") were made available to eligible customers. [ <a href="green-ma.htm#fn9">9</a> ]
The generation resource portfolios of suppliers offering green options were clearly shown,
and the comparative prices of each option were computed by adding the values of all other
incentives, bonuses, or penalties to the base prices. This made comparison easy. The
ballot was extremely useful in satisfying the customers' need for information and
providing answers to many of the often-asked questions. In other pilots and in full retail
competition, it will be necessary to have similar tools for disclosing such relevant
information to facilitate customer decision making. In addition, the information disclosed
should be accurate and timely. Thus, there is also a need to somehow verify the accuracy
of the information provided by the suppliers. </p>
<h4 class="H4"><a name="IVg">Small-Business Customers</a></h4>
<p>As noted above, most small-business customers participating in the pilot program went
with the price option. Even those who went with green options selected NME, the utility
with the least expensive green option and the option with the lowest comparative price for
G2 customers. This suggests that, for small-business customers, the price factor will
still play a role in customer selection of green options. Nevertheless, some of these
customers felt strongly about selecting a green option. For example, Andrew Chambers,
owner of the Pizza Factory in Northampton, selected NME. He described himself as "an
old nuclear protester" and indicated that the pilot was a chance to get "a
little bit of choice about where my electricity is generated." Despite paying more
than he would with some other options, Mr. Chambers said, "You aren't talking
about more than 20 dollars a month either way. For me it was a chance to make a
statement." [ <a href="green-ma.htm#fn10">10</a> ]</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="green-ma.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h3 class="H3"><a name="V">V. Conclusions and Observations</a></h3>
<p>The MECo retail access pilot program demonstrated that the pending restructuring of the
U.S. electric power industry will transform the electric market through a more dynamic
interaction of consumer demands and supplier marketing. It has shown that, with foresight,
customers can be provided with relevant information for making apples-to-apples
comparisons among different service options offered by multiple providers. </p>
<p>As the first retail competition pilot program to involve green marketing explicitly in
its program design, the MECo pilot also proved that a significant segment of electric
customers place a value on environmental stewardship and, when given an option, will sign
up for and even pay comparatively more for energy services derived from environmentally
friendly sources. </p>
<p>Despite the limited scope and controlled structure of the pilot, some important
insights were gained with respect to education, targeted marketing, information
disclosure, verification of supplier claims, green power, and targeting of larger
commercial and industrial customers.<ul>
<li><i>Consumer education is necessary to enable customers to make informed choices.</i> </li>
</ul>
<p>Under retail competition, all customers will be able to choose their electricity
suppliers. To enable customers to make educated choices and realize the benefits of
electric deregulation, they need to be educated on the nature of deregulation; its
implications for individual consumers; how cost savings will be realized; who the
suppliers are and what they are offering; as well as many other details. The education
effort should also provide all customers with information on environmental impacts
associated with electricity. Further, because many consumers lack an understanding of
renewable energy, information on renewables would also be useful. In short, a smooth
transition to a competitive electric market depends greatly on consumer education. Without
effective educational efforts, many consumers will not understand the benefits of
deregulation and will be reluctant to exercise their choice of service providers.<ul>
<li><i>Targeted marketing can increase customer participation.</i> </li>
</ul>
<p>Both MECo and the pilot program administrator conducted extensive marketing campaigns
to promote general awareness of the pilot program. </p>
<p>In addition, service providers conducted intensive marketing efforts. Although the
small-business portion of the pilot reached full enrollment, the residential portion was
not fully subscribed. This suggests that greater marketing and education efforts need to
be targeted toward residential customers. In part, as a result of targeted marketing by
Working Assets and other suppliers, there was a higher level of consumer participation,
specifically in the green options, among residents of Northampton, the wealthiest and most
educated of the four pilot communities. This suggests that targeting education and
marketing efforts at particular demographic groups or communities can increase pilot
program participation. It also supports the notion that green customers and customers
willing to choose an alternate supplier will come from wealthier, well-educated
communities. These results suggest that a broad consumer education initiative is likely
required if customer participation is to reach significant levels.<ul>
<li><i>Information disclosure will help customers make decisions.</i> </li>
</ul>
<p>Customer reaction to the pilot suggested that the MECo ballot, with its menu of
options, was a useful consumer education and information disclosure tool. It provided
basic, unbiased, and comparative information on each of the options. It allowed customers
to make apples-to-apples comparisons among the various options offered by suppliers. As a
result, customers in the MECo pilot had a good understanding of the choices they had to
make. </p>
<p>When full retail competition is implemented, however, it may not be possible to prepare
such a ballot. For this reason, a standard disclosure mechanism should be developed. As
suggested by participating customers, disclosed information should include not only the
generation resource portfolios and base and comparative prices, but also other
environmental information, such as emission levels of different types of power plants and
detailed generation profiles for all options, as well as important contract terms. <ul>
<li><i>Verification of the disclosed information should be ongoing to ensure that it is
accurate and true.</i> </li>
</ul>
<p>Information disclosure is only valuable to the marketplace if it is accurate and
verifiable. Questions from pilot customers indicated that some consumers are interested in
how information provided by service providers can be tracked and verified. The limited
nature of the pilot program allowed the pilot program administrator to verify the claims
of service providers concerning generation portfolio and donations and to track them
through contracts or receipts. However, in a larger retail market or under full retail
competition, an approach that relies on paper trails may be inefficient and inaccurate.
Whatever tracking methods are implemented, it is important to recognize that consumers are
interested in this information and will want assurance that the verification procedures
are accurate and credible. <ul>
<li><i>The green power concept appeals to a diversity of customer interests.</i> </li>
</ul>
<p>The MECo pilot did not define green power per se, but instead allowed service providers
flexibility in the design of green power options. One result of this open-definition
approach is that, although many think of green power as having significant renewable
energy content, suppliers offered a number of non-renewables-based alternatives in their
green service options, such as energy efficiency programs, retirement of emission credits,
and donations to environmental groups. For energy efficiency programs, a kWh conserved
provides the same emissions reduction benefit as a kWh generated by renewables. Energy
efficiency services and programs not only reduce the need for electricity produced by
fossil fuels but also save end users money on their electric bills. Retirement of emission
credits will also reduce the total amount of emissions from power plants, and donations to
environmental groups can advance many different environmental causes. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, questions arose concerning the open-definition approach to green power.
Some questioned the substance of some of the green-marketing approaches and themes. Others
stressed the fact that no new renewable generation resulted from the green-power
offerings. Where green power is broadly defined to include options other than renewable
energy, the potential benefits of green marketing for renewables will not be as great as
would be expected with a renewables-only definition. However, the diversity of green
options offered by a broader definition may attract and serve to educate a larger market
segment inclusive of not only stereotypical green customers, but also customers who might
be interested in other environmentally friendly actions such as energy efficiency
measures. Consequently, the broader definition of green may better serve to heighten
environmental awareness and increase the diversity of customers interested in the green
options with significant renewable content and energy conservation programs. </p>
<p>The MECO pilot demonstrated that the concept of green power appeals to a diversity of
customer interests. Each green choice made in the pilot program contributed in some
fashion to promoting environmental stewardship in either power generation or consumption. <ul>
<li><i>Larger commercial and industrial customers should be targeted to increase the demand
for green power.</i> </li>
</ul>
<p>Although some level of residential participation in the future green market appears
ensured, individual residential customers consume a relatively small amount of
electricity. Efforts to educate and market green power to residential customers need to be
complemented by initiatives and options that attract larger commercial and industrial
customers.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="green-ma.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h3 class="H3"><a name="VI">VI. Notes</a></h3>
<p><a name="fn1">1.</a> For a detailed description of the residential and small-business
pilot, see Environmental Futures, Inc.'s, <i>The Massachusetts Electric Company Choice,
New England Pilot: A Focus on Green Marketing</i>, prepared for NREL, August 1997.
Available at <a href="http://www.eren.doe.gov/greenpower/meco">http://www.eren.doe.gov/greenpower/</a>.
For descriptions of the other part of the MECo pilot program involving large
high-technology companies, see Edison Electric Institute's <i>Retail Pilot Programs: the
First Six</i>, Washington, D.C. 1997, Chapter 5, pp. 61-75. This latter source also
provides details of the residential and small-business pilot that are not focused on in
this brief or the Environmental Futures, Inc.'s report noted above. </p>
<p><a name="fn2">2.</a> Questions have been raised as to whether this criterion is in
conflict with the common notion that consumers are willing to pay a price premium for
renewable power, as exemplified by the many green-pricing programs being implemented by
utilities. In other words, some customers may still be willing to pay the price premium
even if it is higher than their existing rates if they can be sure that they are
contributing to the development of new renewables generation. However, for the purpose of
the MECo pilot, the utility wanted to ensure that there was potential customer cost
savings involved. That was the reason for adopting the criterion. </p>
<p><a name="fn3">3.</a> For a discussion of the general awareness campaign and supplier
marketing, see the report by Environmental Futures, Inc., cited in <a href="green-ma.htm#fn1">Note 1</a>
above. </p>
<p><a name="fn4">4.</a> For a discussion on this point, as well as Working Assets' defense
of its marketing approach, see Holt, E., and J.M. Fang<i>, <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/research/ceaa/emaa/nhtib">The New Hampshire Retail Competition
Pilot Program and the Role of Green Marketing</a></i>, NREL/TP-460-23446, November 1997. </p>
<p><a name="fn5">5.</a> The incentives of free ice cream or free long-distance services
were added after the information ballot was prepared and, hence, were not included in the
computation of the comparative price for Working Assets. </p>
<p><a name="fn6">6.</a> Executive Office of Communities and Development. <i>Northampton:
Hampshire County, A Community Profile</i>. William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the
Commonwealth; 1995. For a comparison of the demographic information concerning population,
population density, percentages of registered voters and with bachelor's degree or higher,
and median annual household income for the four pilot cities, see Environmental Futures,
Inc., <i>op. cit.</i> Table 4. </p>
<p><a name="fn7">7.</a> The G1 rate schedule is for small commercial and industrial
customers not exceeding 10,000 kWh per month or 200 kW of demand. The G2 rate
schedule is for small commercial and industrial customers exceeding 10,000 kWh but not
exceeding 200 kW of demand. </p>
<p><a name="fn8">8.</a> The Joint Committee on Electric Utility Restructuring of the
Massachusetts Legislature. <i>An Act to Promote Competition in the Electric Utility
Industry.</i> HR 1744, March 20, 1997. </p>
<p><a name="fn9">9.</a> Massachusetts Electric Company, <i>Be Among the First! Choose Your
Electricity Supplier with Massachusetts Electric's Choice: New England Pilot, and Have the
Opportunity to Save Money</i>. Participation Information. October, 1996. </p>
<p><a name="fn10">10.</a> Ackerman, Terry. "Hints of Future for Utilities," <i>Boston
Globe</i>, January 9, 1997. p. D1.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="green-ma.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<h3 class="H3">Topical Issues Briefs Previously Published by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory*</h3>
<p><i><a href="http://www.eren.doe.gov/greenpower/power/index.html">Power Marketing and
Renewable Energy</a></i><br>
September 1997<br>
NREL/SP-460-22080</p>
<p><i><a href="http://www.eren.doe.gov/greenpower/netmetering.html">Net Metering Programs</a></i><br>
September 1996<br>
NREL/SP-460-21651<br>
</p>
<p><i><a href="http://www.nrel.gov/research/ceaa/emaa/open_access/index.html">Open Access
Transmission and Renewable Energy Technologies</a></i><br>
September 1996<br>
NREL/SP-460-21427 </p>
<p><i><a href="http://www.nrel.gov/research/ceaa/emaa/natural_gas/index.html">Small
Turbines in Distributed Utility Application: Natural Gas Pressure Supply Requirements</a></i><br>
May 1996<br>
NREL/SP-461-21073 </p>
<p>*<a href="green-ma.htm#order">Click Here</a> for ordering information. </td>
</tr>
</table>
</center></div><p align="center"><br>
</p>
<p align="center">[ <a href="green-ma.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="green-ma.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </td>
</tr>
</table>
</center></div>
<p align="center"><a href="green-ma.htm#top"><img src="../images/b-t-top.gif" alt="Back To Top" border="0" WIDTH="71" HEIGHT="35"></a></p>
</body>
</html>