Some additional thoughts on RECs, which as Matt said are contentious:
RECS and power are sold separately, meaning that the REC is sold in addition to the power being sold. My understanding is that RECS were originally to provide the cost delta between legacy power generation like fossil fuels and renewable power generation, which used to cost more. Since renewables are now the cheapest form of energy generation (there is no fuel cost) in most of the US and world, what are RECs? One point of view is that they are meaningless because the cost delta is now below zero (costs of developing and operating legacy power plants are high that the costs of renewables). Another point of view is that they provide an additional income source for renewable energy generators making the transition to renewable energy more rapid. In any case, a carbon neutrality claim should be based on all-electric (efficient!) design having 100% renewable energy that includes a long term energy purchase that includes and retires RECs, but is not just RECs. Energy purchases should include new generation dedicated to a given project, not reallocation of existing generation, and be additional to any RPS energy standard that a utility has. My opinions only, of course.
3 Likes