{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016649048625792813, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0010570824524312897, 'mean_word_length': 4.988924050632911, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Wind Power for Utility Applications

be convinced first by renewables marketing, and, accordingly, are most willing to pay the highest amount for renewable power. Correspondingly, those who have not yet chosen to “buy green” are more likely to be tougher sells. It is uncertain at best to conclude that renewables developers will want to risk money on new facilities knowing that the remaining market they seek to tap are the ones less likely to be convinced to enter into such a transaction. Therefore, it is questionable whether those who buy from existing facilities today will really cause new facilities to be built in the future. At least one marketer has offered a specific option under which consumers could pay more on the chance that enough consumers will do so that the marketer will cause the construction of a new wind turbine. There is no promise that a new facility will be built. If nothing is built, at least one developer offering this option states that it will refund the cost differential. This marketing approach acknowledges the possibility that nothing new will be built, but again fails to point out that its sales options rely on power sources that are already delivering into the system and that purchases from these sources have no net effect on the environment. Conclusion: Renewables Marketers Should Assess Carefully Their Message So, we are left with the question we began with: are those who purchase “green power” getting what they think they are bargaining for? To date, renewables marketing has been disappointing. From the marketing material that renewables developers provide, it is hard to see what purchasers are currently being offered, other than the opportunity to feel good. It is unfortunate that renewables marketing is not as forthright as their claim to moral high ground implies it should be. If, in fact, the product they are offering has the validity they claim it has, then there should be substantially less embarrassment to acknowledge what they really are providing. The fact that renewables marketing appears to be designed in the classic tradition of product offerings (with an emphasis more on style and less on substance) leaves wide open what is the future of renewables in California. California policy makers have challenged renewables developers to back up their claims that the public really is willing to pay more to increase development of renewables power. Under the California approach, if renewables marketers are correct, then the industry will flourish as consumers “vote with their pocketbook.” If the renewables marketers are wrong, then 4 years from now, they will be returning to the legislature to explain why they should receive subsidies in some other form, but they will have no apparent public support to back their requests. As a transitional measure, the legislature has endorsed substantial. renewables subsidies through collection of $540 million over the next four years from consumers connected to investor-owned utilities. This will give marketers four years to convince consumers that they are a choice worth taking. The early stages of this marketing effort have had some success. However, it is not clear whether consumers will be as disposed to buying from renewables developers if they feel they have been misled regarding what they are buying. Renewables marketers should be seriously concerned that they may jeopardize the future of their market by making claims now, in order to boost short-term sales, that consumers ultimately regard as misleading. Renewables marketers will want to reassess carefully whether their marketing techniques will achieve long-term acceptance by consumers. If those marketers alienate the market they hope to access, there may not be legislative third chance.