Paying Our Share

Two-and-a-half cents.

That’s how much it will cost me to put my money where my mouth is, according to ConEd, the utility that supplies New York with electricity. ConEd recently sent out a brochure offering to deliver only wind-generated power to my apartment, for the nominal fee of an additions 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

ConEd helpfully points out that 60,000 other households have already done so (making me feel even more like the eco-villain if I decline), and that for the average customer, switching to wind power is the equivalent of not driving 5,763 miles when it comes to generating carbon emissions.

Certainly a few pennies doesn’t sound like much, though the figure seems much higher when you consider that ConEd says that will raise the average New Yorker's electric bill by about 10%. Am I willing to pay 10% more per month to support wind power? To be honest, I’m not sure.

What I find interesting about this offer is the completely shameless way that ConEd is trying to pass the buck to its customers. Does it really cost them more to produce wind power? Well, the wind is free, but installing turbines involves a significant upfront investment.

But contrast that with the expense of running a hydro plant, or a nuclear plant, or even a coal-powered generator. Lots of labor, lots of safety equipment, and (except for hydro), plenty of raw materials. I have to wonder how much utilities spend purchasing coal.

To be sure, green energy is part of an eco-friendly lifestyle, and I am willing to pay my fair share. And that’s exactly the point that ConEd’s brochure wants to drives home: “Together, we can make a difference,” wrote Peter Blom, their manager for renewable energy services.

But what happens when my 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, finally pays off its investment in turbines? Is ConEd really going to pass that on to consumers as well, by reducing their rates?