Saimondo

Thanks for the criticism - it helps a lot, as it highlights some misconceptions. It is not clear to me whether you are an environmentalist, energy market participant or simply an interested party, but this matter has been debated at length for years and the concerns you highlight are beginning to be addressed by a number of means, such as improvements in label design.

Although the citation from Greenpeace expresses some valid concerns, it was written at a point (2000) when RECS was very new, and guarantees of origin - GOs - simply did not exist (nowadays, RECS is only active in the minority of member states that have yet to implement GOs, or where these implementations have shortcomings). The system has improved a lot since then, as has our understanding, and we find that NGOs now understand the proper use of certificates, which is as an accounting tool that can be of great use to label operators, offering solid guarantees to consumers.

The most important thing to grasp is that RECS is not a labeling scheme. These have the value of not only guaranteeing the source of the energy and preventing double-counting; but they also apply a set of conditions regarding the eligibility of electricity according to such matters as the originating technology, the age of the plant and the source of the energy. The benefit of certifying energy is that it is the only way of ensuring that the supplied energy is what it purports to be; and that it has only been supplied once. This is a benefit to labeling schemes, which cannot by themselves guarantee the source of the energy (even where a contract for physical supply exists, there is no guarantee that such instruments as swap contracts have not been used). Finally, well-operated label schemes must ensure that either sales of labelled electricity do not affect the residual mix; or that the residual mix is adjusted in line with such sales. We are now coordinating with a number of label schemes in order to help them to improve their products; as well as working closely with member states who are anxious to ensure that European legislation can be applied in a way which closely aligns with national preferences.

I have therefore added a further paragraph to the definition of RECS, which I hope makes this clear:

“While RECS guarantees the source of the energy and prevents double-counting, it is not a label: these also guarantee other matters relating to the supplied electricity, such as the originating technology, the age of the plant and the source of the energy. Labels must also ensure that sales of labelled electricity either do not change the blend of sources of electricity that is supplied unlabelled, or that the buyers of such electricity are informed accordingly.”

I leave it to you whether you leave your criticism on the page, or whether I have been able to reassure you? Always happy to discuss, whether by this medium or by phone. --Philhmoody (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for writing! I am a German chemistry Ph.D. student, my work is a bit related to regenerative energies, but I read a lot about it out of private interest.

I like the way you put it: .. an accounting tool that can be of great use to label operators, offering solid guarantees to consumers.. So it is a accounting tool that can be used legitimately -as you wrote it- in combination with other criteria like for the German "ok-power label, coissued by WWF: 1/3 of the power plants must be younger than 6 years; 1/3 yunger than 12 and 1/3 younger than 12 years and no power generation in national parks. It uses RECS PLUS it insists to know the exact power plant that issued the RECS to check if it complies to the age restrictions mentioned before.

Some people of energy marketing section of greenpeace Germany/ to be more accurate greenpeace-energy.de overdo it in my opinion by talking bad about this ok-power label issued by their colleagues from WWF just because the use this RECS at all! ( I only have a German pdf statement mailed by them..)

But indeed, like most other tools, RECS can and has been misused to misleadingly imply that their RECS electricity will help the environment while they just got RECS of an old power plant that produces energy anyways.. Since this is still the case in Germany (there are many companies that sell only RECS-certified electricity today) I think it is important to make people aware of this misleading potential and convince them of the importance of real labels.

So you reassured me that RECS CAN be a good thing, but I think a extra section is the best way to state the misuse potential and lacks of this method. But you inspired me to rename the section from "Critics" to "Limits of the Certificate" and to include an "alone" to write "there is no ecological benefit ensured by this certification method alone."

Unfortunately I do only know labels for the German market ( ok-power and "grüner Strom Label" ). in this Öko Institute pdf link, there is a list, but I did not find out how good the labels are. If you know reputable labels, I think it would be a good job to link them to make the section a bit more constructive. Or maybe a whole list-article about eco-labels?..

I hope the addition of the limitation section (that you inspired me to :) ) does not repeat so much stuff from above, but I think your sentence "Labels must also ensure that sales of labelled electricity either do not change the blend of sources of electricity that is supplied unlabelled, or that the buyers of such electricity are informed accordingly.” is rather the general idea while the limits section contains examples of the bigger German reputable labels (grün strom & ok-power) and some institutes postulations. If you find some grammar mistakes feel free to correct them. My English is not perfect.

cheers! Saimondo (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Some further food for thought

My own background is computer systems and energy/financial markets, and I have strong views on environmental issues, so being able to work with the founders of the nascent energy certificate market 15 years ago was a dream come true. I set up the Wikipedia webpage as part of a wider exercise in putting AIB and EECS on the map - AIB provides services to RECS, so naturally I added a page, but I'll now pass this over to RECS International, as really it should not be my responsibility. Also, AIB has different views from RECS International on a number of matters, so we should not be seen as two sides of the same coin - in fact, our members are governmental organisations and their agencies, while RECS members are traders - they want to make money, we want to facilitate the market; they want to change policy, we want to implement the law - so we will never fully agree. That being said, we have shared views on a number of issues.

That is an important point: it is an accounting tool. For years, people have criticised certificates (particularly in Germany!) because of how they have been used, but that is like criticising money "because it might get into the wrong hands". The essence of our role is the proper creation of certificates, and supervision of the certificate market - although trade is slowly moving from brokers and bilateral trades towards exchanges (Italy's GSM goes online in the summer, followed by German, Austrian and French exchanges), so the financial markets will have to take a stronger role in the near future.

You raise the issue of RECS certificates being used to sell the output of old and viable power plant. I do understand your concerns - I, too, dislike the idea of misleading consumers into thinking they are doing something, while there is no real effect. However, this is natural where a commodity already exists, and is then found to have unexpected values. As an analogy: I grow pears in my garden - suppose pear juice is found to have cancer-curing properties; should I be prevented from selling my pears simply because I planted them before the value of pear juice was understood? Maybe government should not support me - that is reasonable - but I should not be prevented from selling them, and I should be able to advertise their benefits, too. Similarly, I believe that old hydro plant should be able to realise the value of its output, although I do not believe it needs support. Government support is there to let renewable plant compete with traditional plant; but disclosure certificates (RECS, GOs) are there to allow consumers to choose the energy sources they want: if nobody wants nuke, then the nuke plant will become unviable. Similarly, if everyone wants windpower, then its value will increase, stimulating new build. This is in fact getting closer to happening by the year - see our statistics at http://www.aib-net.org/portal/page/portal/AIB_HOME/FACTS/Market%20Information/Statistics (I am currently writing a commentary on these statistics, and hope to publish within the week - you need this to understand some of the current shortcomings - also subscribe to our newsletter by going to: http://www.aib-net.org/portal/page/portal/AIB_HOME/AIB_NEWSLETTER/REGISTRATION).

I wonder if some of the antagonism shown by NGOs has been due to misunderstanding how certificates work and should be used; and how much is the result of in-fighting between NGOs? Much, I fear, was down to suppliers making a fast euro out of consumer ignorance. However, consumers have caught up, and suppliers have fast realised that they will have to clean up their game if they are not to lose customers. Consumers are not stupid, and neither are suppliers!

You write "there is no ecological benefit ensured by this certification method alone." While I almost agree with you, there is one benefit that you should recognise. Faced with two products of equivalent price, consumers will tend to choose the one that offers more. Do not underestimate consumer choice as a powerful market driver: look at how German, Austrian and other consumers do not want nuke, regardless of price.

The current president of AIB is from Öko Institute, and he often advises us on "good" labels. He also leads the EU Commission-backed RE-DISS project on energy source disclosure (see http://www.reliable-disclosure.org), which is also calculating residual mixes in EU member states. These should be calculated based on national production mix adjusted by imports and exports. However, imports will contain the residual mix of the exporting country (unless otherwise contracted), so how is this calculated? An international approach is required. That is why "labels must also ensure that sales of labelled electricity either do not change the blend of sources of electricity that is supplied unlabelled, or that the buyers of such electricity are informed accordingly."

I have corrected the more awful mistakes in the English (there were not many - your English is pretty good, and certainly better than my German!), but am passing management of this webpage to RECS International: it is, after all, their business, not mine. I've sent them your comments, and suggested they consider adding the pages you suggest.

All the best, and good luck with your doctoral thesis! --Philhmoody (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Some further food for thought

Thank you for your insights. I like your example with money (and I totally agree in this point). I also think, the nice analogy with peas, reveals that some decisions are not so easily to make. If you only had a limited amount of money to give, would you give it to everybody that grow peas, including the guy who´s grandpa start seeding peas in his garden ? Or would you include a more complicated regulation, so that you concentrate most of the spendings on the guys that actively develop and seed those healthy peas?

But after all, I think market mechanisms can be used to push something like the energy market in the right direction, if a few things are fulfilled: First, the right cost (punishment/reward) structure (and I hope the "social prestige" and alleviate a guilty consciousness is at least something..) Second, enough transparency (plus motivation for people to get informed and spend attention..)

For the transparency, i would say, a eco label might be maybe oversimplified but more practicable than checking a recs certificate and wonder if you want to also support old power plants.

All the best for your work! Saimondo (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lobby register may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• or wrong entries as a central prerequisite for a working register.<ref Name="OECDlobbying" /><ref Name="<ref name="RescueEURegister" /> In many cases there are complains that this has not been
• Register-mit-93-Eintragungen-gestartet Lobbying-Register started; 2013; Newspaper ''Der Standard'' (availiable in German only]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Saimondo. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Hey how am I ?.
Message added 12:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I am very good & creative! Saimondo (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fusion power may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• "Proliferation Risks of Fusion Energy: Clandestine Production, Covert Production, and Breakout"]; (''9th IAEA Technical Meeting on Fusion Power Plant Safety'' (accessible at no cost, 2013) and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)