With growing concerns about air quality issues and the continuing restructuring of electricity supply industries world-wide, the prospects for ‘green power’ - that is, environmentally-friendly electricity - are probably better now than they have ever been. What kinds of power are deemed to be ‘green’, however, is the subject of much debate. In an effort to standardise the definition of green power, certification programs are being developed independently by different countries at the national or sub-national level. Effectively, these are the mechanisms by which green power is currently being defined.
This article compares the attributes of four certification programs for green power-those in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. The goal is to determine the ways in which these programs are similar, and the extent to which they are different. Though there is no definitive effort to determine which certification program is ‘best’, the key debates surrounding the most contentious parts of green power certification programs are identified and investigated. Accordingly, the policy discussion about the relative merits of different approaches is informed and stimulated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderGary (1996), ‘Overview: The Context of Renewable Energy Technologies’, in BoyleGodfrey (ed), Renewable Energy: Power for a Sustainable Future (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 1–40.
American Wind Energy Association (1998), Principles of Green Marketing (Washington, DC: American Wind Energy Association, http://www.igc.org/awea/pol/greenprins.html; accessed 1 February 2001).
4.
CEC (2001). Environmental Challenges and Opportunities of the Evolving Continental Electricity Market.Working Draft: Background Notes for the First Meeting of the Advisory Board North American Commission for Environmental Co-operation. (January 16).
5.
CRS (2000). Green-e Renewable Electricity Branding Project, Wholesale/Retail Marketer's Agreement, Appendix B, Code of Conduct Draft XVI (San Francisco, CA: Center for Resource Solutions).
6.
De Montfort University, School of Agriculture (1999), ‘Introduction to Biomass Energy for Gasification’, accessed February 22, 2001. Lincolnshire, UK. Last update November 9, 1999. Available: http://www.dmu.ac.uk/ln/itc/gas.htm
7.
DryzekJohn (1997), The Politics of the Earth (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
8.
DTI (2000), New & Renewable Energy: Prospects for the 21st Century (The Renewables Obligation Preliminary Consultation) (London: Department of Trade and Industry).
9.
DunnSeth (1997), ‘Power of Choice’, WorldWatch (September/October), pp. 30–35.
10.
ECP (1996), Verification and Licensing Criteria: Alternative Sources Electricity Generation (Ottawa, ON: Environmental Choice Program, PRC-108. 17 October).
11.
ECP (1997), Panel Review Process: Verification and Licensing Criteria: Alternative Source Electricity Generation from Remote-site Sawmill Waste-wood (Ottawa, ONL Environmental Choice Program, PRC-029. 29 May).
EgréD.GagnonL. and MilewskiJ.C. (1999), ‘Are Large Hydro Projects Renewable and Green?’, Hydropower & Dams (Vol. 1), pp. 73–74.
21.
EST (2000), Review of Future Energy (London: Energy Savings Trust, November).
22.
FE (1999), Future Energy: A Scheme for Accrediting Renewable Energy, Scheme Description and Criteria (London: Energy Savings Trust for Future Energy, Issue 1, May).
23.
Friends of the Earth (1999), Press Release - ‘Sparks Fly Over Green Energy Con. FOE Slams Minister Over Rubbish Burning’, 13 July 1999; Friends of the Earth, London: http://www.foe.co.uk/
24.
GibsonRobert (1997), ‘Unity in Diversity’, Alternatives (Vol. 23, No. 3).
HillJ. (1996), ‘Environmental Considerations in Licensing Hydropower Projects: Policies and Practices at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’, in MirandaL. E. and DeVriesD. R. (eds), Multidimensional Approaches to Reservoir Fisheries Management (Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society), pp. 190–99.
27.
HoltEdward A. (1997), Disclosure and Certification: Truth and Labeling for Electric Power (Washington, DC: Renewable Energy Policy Project. Issue Brief, January, #5).
28.
IEA (1998), Benign Energy: The Environmental Implications of Renewables (Paris: International Energy Agency).
29.
KnoxPaul (2001), ‘Leaders talk oil and gas in Mexico’, Globe and Mail. February 17, 2001, A20.
30.
KomorP. (2000), ‘Special Report: Renewable Electricity Generation’, Power Outlook (December), 25–55.
McCullyPatrick (1996), Silenced Rivers: The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams (London: Zed Books).
33.
National Energy Policy Development Group (2001), National Energy Policy (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, May).
34.
NozickMarcia (1992), No Place Like Home: Building Sustainable Communities (Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council on Social Development).
35.
ParkinsonDavid (2001), ‘Electricity markets are changing radically’, Globe and Mail. February 17, 2001, B6.
36.
RaderNancy (1998), Green Buyers Beware: A Critical Review of ‘Green Electricity’ Products (Washington, DC: Public Citizen, October).
37.
Marlo Raynolds and Andrew Pape (2000), The Pembina Institute Green Power Guidelines for Canada (Drayton Valley, AB: Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development).
38.
RobinsonJohnFrancisGeorgeLeggeRussel and LernerSally (1990), ‘Defining a Sustainable Society: Values, Principles and Definitions’, Alternatives (Vol. 17, No. 2, July/August).
39.
RowlandsIan H.ParkerPaul and ScottDaniel (2000), ‘Strategies for a Softer, More Sustainable, Residential Energy Path’, Environments (Vol. 28, No. 3).
40.
RowlandsIan H. and PattersonMary Jane (2001), ‘A North American Definition for “Green Electricity”: Implications for Sustainability’, paper scheduled for presentation at the Fourth Biennial Conference of the Canadian Society for Ecological Economics (CANSEE), Montreal, QC, August.
41.
Schiller Associates (1999), Deemed Savings Values and Verification Approaches for Residential Energy-Efficiency Measures: Final Report (prepared for Center for Resource Solutions. Oakland, CA: 4 June).
42.
SEDA (2000a), National Green Power Accreditation Program: Accreditation Document, Version 1 (Sydney: Sustainable Energy Development Authority, January).
43.
SEDA (2000b), National Green Power Accreditation Program: Quarterly Status Report (September).
44.
SEDA (n.d.), Green Power: Information to be Submitted for Generator Approval (Sydney: Sustainable Energy Development Authority).
Uranium Information Centre (2000), ‘Australia's Electricity’, Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 37, August; accessed 1 February 2001; http://www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm
47.
von MirbachMartin (1997), ‘Demanding Good Wood’, Alternatives (Vol. 23, No. 3), 11–17.
48.
WackernagelMathis and ReesWilliam (1996), Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth (Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers).
49.
WüstenhagenRolfGrasserChristianKieferBerndSutterChristoph and TrufferBerhard (1999), ‘Green Electricity Labelling in Switzerland: A Powerful Tool to Enhance Sustainable Energy Market Penetration?’, 1999 Summer Study Proceedings of the European Council for Energy Efficient Economy (web version, www.eceee.org, accessed 1 February 2001).
