No it is not. As a consumer in Dallas we get to choose which power company we want to buy from. Basically, we have to buy our share of electricity that is used from the grid.
Right now, we generally treat "the internet as the grid", but there's no inherent reason we can't separate "the internet"/IP address and network peering from "the grid"/physical last-mile cables.
Having moved to Texas recently, I was really impressed by the electricity set up.
There's one company which, I assume, is granted a local monopoly on power distribution (Oncor for my area, IIRC), and they handle the actual lines to the buildings/meters etc. I've never had to deal with them directly.
I can choose from probably 40+ companies and different plans offering different rates, expected usage, contract terms, etc. and whatever other criteria I care about, all listed in one place and compared side-by-side on one website.
It was really depressing having just gotten my head around that wealth of choice to then be told "for internet, you will have Spectrum."
In that case, better to give the money to some charity that say, replaces incandescent bulbs with the newest LED lamps starting with your own house and office if you haven't already converted. Also, better to take mass transit than use the car.
BTW, our brilliant NY Govenor Cuomo is putting a lot more carbon-based fuel back on-line. Because nuclear is more expensive than gas powered generation, he is removing the Indian Point nuclear power plant from the grid. This plant generates 1/4 the electricity for NYC and adjacent Westchester County.
The population of NYC is 8.5 million, Westchester County is about 1 million. So removing the carbon-free power for about 2.5 million people.
All will be replaced with carbon-based fuel generation. So much for people like you trying to be responsible and green.
I'm curious how this works. What happens if you pay for clean and the wind isn't blowing at night? What happens if everyone paying for clean turns on their appliances and the demand outstrips the clean supply?
I highly doubt there are blackouts in these occasions so it seems like someone is getting screwed.
To incentivize renewable energy production, "Renewable Energy Credits" are used for the bookkeeping of what kinds of energy is being generated, and are created when energy is produced by a renewable provider (handwaving a bit here...)
Consumers and businesses can have their electric plan provider purchase these credits per their usage to make sure they are getting the correct portion that actually comes from a renewable source.
So the demand and pricing is adjustable determined by the pricing of the credits.
It's pretty likely that the literature describing the plan mentions what happens when they can't buy renewable power.
edit: Going from memory... The fine print on your electric bill in Texas says something like: "If we, the electricity provider, don't have enough renewable energy to meet your current need, we promise to offset the amount of non-renewable energy we provide to you now with a future purchase of the same amount of renewable energy from an electricity generator." In other words, you get the electricity today, they get the money today, but they have to buy more renewable energy in the future.
So yes, if people stopped buying from companies selling wind and solar only the companies selling gas and coal would be putting energy into the grid.
The tilting at windmills joke comes to mind :-)
Honestly, first off the article says that it seems that gas is less competitive than renewable, so there are already market incentives in Texas to build windmills.
A lot of the money for windmill power simply ends up in General Electric's (the major US vendor for windmills) pockets.
Also, I think ones energy is best put in doing what one can do to minimize energy consumption using LED lights in place of incandescents, using mass transit instead of one's automobile and working with city council in Dallas and other major Texas cities to encourage more production of mass transit.
Also, doing what one can to turn up air conditioning from 72 to 76 or 78 in Dallas will save substantial amount of carbon-based power generation.
There is also the use of microturbine technology that can be used for trigeneration meaning that water chillers for air-conditioning as well as electric power from natural gas. This is very efficient and if it received the same financial incentives and wind and solar probably much more cost effective.
I actively prefer it if GE (etc.) makes money building windmills.
To switch to renewables, you have to build new infrastructure. That means the people who manufacture the equipment are going to make money. And they should make money! That's their reward for being part of the solution.
Not to mention, it encourages them do more R&D because of the potential for better profits. And it encourages competitors to join in, which is even better.
"If you elect to purchase a renewable energy product, we will ensure that the appropriate amount of renewable energy credits (RECs) is retired to authenticate the renewable energy contained in the product."
So here in TX we can actually individually vote with our wallets to make a difference in the makeup of renewable energy demands in the state. Maybe tiny steps at a time, but at least it is possible.
Google has lots of documents online about how they go about ensuring that their efforts to buy renewable energy actually help the grid get cleaner. "Additionality" is one buzzword that might help you locate them.
Yes they will. They get more money, so they can afford to invest in more green energy, and there's clearly more demand for clean energy, so it would be prudent to produce more of it. This is how markets work. You vote with your dollars.