[Climate Change] Want to make a difference? Sign up for 100% Renewable Energy

[atribecalledquest]

Concerned about Trumps appointments and his overall disregard to science, climate change, energy, the environment?

I recently signed up for Arcadia Power (disclaimer: referral link) to offset all my home electricity usage with 100% clean renewable energy. If you signup using the referral link, we both get a $25 credit on our utility bill. If/when you signup, post your referral link in this thread to also get in on the savings!

How does it work? (youtube video)

Arcadia Power gives customers across the country a simple way to use clean energy.

The power infrastructure makes it impossible to track electrons from a particular source to your home. Energy simply goes into the grid, mixes with other electrons, and your local utility delivers it over the poles and wires. Your local utility can’t even tell you where the electrons powering your computer originated.

With Arcadia Power, you have a choice to ensure you’re using clean energy. We do this by buying Green-e Energy certified renewable energy certificates (RECs) from wind farms to match your exact monthly usage. This certifies that that when energy that you consume at home is matched with RECs, you are using clean, wind energy.

Arcadia Power offers two tiers. The first is free and they will offset 50% of your electricity with clean renewable energy and the second tier is what I signed up for, 100% renewable energy.

Below is my first statement from them. I used 200kWh and they charge a $0.015/kWh premium to offset my electricity usage which equals ~ $3.00. They have a minimum of $5.00, which is what shows up on my statement.



Even if you use double the amount of electricity I used to 400kWh, you are only paying a $6.00 premium to offset your electricity usage with renewables.

[kpd905]

If anyone has We Energies for power, they also have a program for this.  You pay about 2 cents extra per kwh.  You can choose 25%, 50% or 100% from renewable energy.

Link is here: https://www.we-energies.com/residential/acctoptions/eft.htm

[m8547]

My utility offers a wind power program that would cost me about $13 a month or $0.0216/kWh sold in units of 100kWh. It looks like Arcadia is cheaper, $0.015/kWh or maybe $9/month. Which would be more effective? What if I sign up for both? Do I get 200% of my energy supplied by wind? Do they double the voltage coming into my house?

Also, are there any similar companies or programs offering nuclear power?
Edit: It looks like nuclear does not qualify for Renewable Energy Certificates. A utility company could still offer a nuclear power program if they wanted to. I'd sign up!

[Metric Mouse]

My utility offers a wind power program that would cost me about $13 a month or $0.0216/kWh sold in units of 100kWh. It looks like Arcadia is cheaper, $0.015/kWh or maybe $9/month. Which would be more effective? What if I sign up for both? Do I get 200% of my energy supplied by wind? Do they double the voltage coming into my house?

No. The money just goes into a slush fund that the utility can use to invest in future renewable project, or to cover their losses for operating renewable resources . They don't actually produce fewer emissions because their customers sign up fir this, they just make more money, and possibly add more renewable generation into their ten-year plan, which they would have had to do anyway.

[PhrugalPhan]

No. The money just goes into a slush fund that the utility can use to invest in future renewable project, or to cover their losses for operating renewable resources . They don't actually produce fewer emissions because their customers sign up fir this, they just make more money, and possibly add more renewable generation into their ten-year plan, which they would have had to do anyway.

I have to agree with this.  If the utility wants to (or is forced to) have renewable, the costs of having this should be spread among all users, not just those willing to pay an extra fee.  That way the wasteful users will pay the most for renewables as it should be.  My opinion is if you care about climate change then use less power.  That way you help the environment and help your bottom line.   That's what I do at home and my utility bills are much lower than anyone I work with.

[Chris22]

This smacks of greenwashing.

Or, as I like to call it, modern indulgences. 

[BudgetSlasher]

If anyone has We Energies for power, they also have a program for this.  You pay about 2 cents extra per kwh.  You can choose 25%, 50% or 100% from renewable energy.

Link is here: https://www.we-energies.com/residential/acctoptions/eft.htm

Here in Maine the utility only operates as a distributor and the generators are separate. If you make no selection for your power you will get the standard offer, but you can choose your source (including several 100% renewable) http://www.maine.gov/meopa/utilities/electric/supply.html.

[PhrugalPhan]

I have to agree with this.  If the utility wants to (or is forced to) have renewable, the costs of having this should be spread among all users, not just those willing to pay an extra fee.  That way the wasteful users will pay the most for renewables as it should be.  My opinion is if you care about climate change then use less power.  That way you help the environment and help your bottom line.   That's what I do at home and my utility bills are much lower than anyone I work with.

I dont understand this argument. Why not both? I used 199kWh last month (dare I say less than you) and I also pay to support renewable energy.

Nothing wrong doing both, but *most* (i.e. those not on here) do it so they can feel good about themselves, not to cut back.  BTW, I just checked my electric bill which has the last 13 months of usage.  November was 140 kWh, October was 162kWh.  And November '15 I used 165kWh.  And I live in a 4 bedroom SFH (though I do live here by myself).  Don't think you can out frugal me young whippersnapper :P

[Metric Mouse]

If anyone has We Energies for power, they also have a program for this.  You pay about 2 cents extra per kwh.  You can choose 25%, 50% or 100% from renewable energy.

Link is here: https://www.we-energies.com/residential/acctoptions/eft.htm

Here in Maine the utility only operates as a distributor and the generators are separate. If you make no selection for your power you will get the standard offer, but you can choose your source (including several 100% renewable) http://www.maine.gov/meopa/utilities/electric/supply.html.

This is not at all uncommon. Which makes it even harder for a customer to see where their energy comes from - it's all sold on a market, with the goal being a stable grid, not low emissions.  If it's a calm winter night in Maine, where are all these '100%' renewable electrons coming from? They're not; they're just being paid for by the distributer so that the supplier can make more money to off-set their expensive renewable generation. Germany ran into this same problem; it's definitely a work in progress.

[obstinate]

I'm offsetting, but I don't do RECs. I'm somewhat concerned about whether there's an additionality here. In other words, does more renewable energy get installed because of RECs? Or am I just taking on a higher fraction of the cost for installations that would have occurred anyway? Personally I think the best way to do this is state level renewable energy fraction targets. Actually carbon taxes are really the best way, but that's never going to happen.

[Metric Mouse]

I'm offsetting, but I don't do RECs. I'm somewhat concerned about whether there's an additionality here. In other words, does more renewable energy get installed because of RECs? Or am I just taking on a higher fraction of the cost for installations that would have occurred anyway? Personally I think the best way to do this is state level renewable energy fraction targets. Actually carbon taxes are really the best way, but that's never going to happen.

You're just paying more. It's not as if a utility says "Oh, we were just going to build a cheap coal plant that we can run for $X, but since all these people gave us more money, we'll build a wind farm that we can run for $X+." That's not really how business work.

Basically the government is already moving to "It's going to $X+++ to permit and build new coal (or whatever), but we will give you the permits for nat. gas or wind for $X+"  So even if coal would be cheaper to run, overall costs favor low emissions. Renewables/low emission generation is going to be built anyway, and when they are everybody is going to be paying more, so these programs are just a way for the G&Ts to help front-load the cost so they are in a better financial position when they need to borrow for their next project.

[lifeanon269]

You're just paying more. It's not as if a utility says "Oh, we were just going to build a cheap coal plant that we can run for $X, but since all these people gave us more money, we'll build a wind farm that we can run for $X+." That's not really how business work.

Basically the government is already moving to "It's going to $X+++ to permit and build new coal (or whatever), but we will give you the permits for nat. gas or wind for $X+"  So even if coal would be cheaper to run, overall costs favor low emissions. Renewables/low emission generation is going to be built anyway, and when they are everybody is going to be paying more, so these programs are just a way for the G&Ts to help front-load the cost so they are in a better financial position when they need to borrow for their next project.

That's not completely true. Utility companies purchase electricity just like we purchase electricity. They pay a price for it. Your utility company isn't the one building power plants and producing electricity. They just deliver it to you. If you as a consumer purchase a wind energy package of say 300KWh from your utility company, your utility company purchases RECs on your behalf. RECs come in packages of 1MWh, so they take those credits and repackage them accordingly so that they're sized better for their customers (often in packages of 100-300KWh). So buy purchasing a Wind energy package from your utility, that directly contributes to your utility company purchasing more RECs.

RECs were created so that demand could be generated and tracked for renewable energy. Wind power farms are built and then the electricity they generate is sold off as RECs which utility companies and other large commercial enterprises can purchase as offsets. Since they're not packaged/sized appropriately for consumers, that is why your utility company repackages them for you so that you can purchase credits to ensure your electricity is generating demand for new renewable energy farms. The more RECs that are purchased, the higher the justification is for building a new renewable energy plant.

Even if more and more renewable energy is placed into the grid, there will still be fossil fuel based plants out there. So long as there are fossil fuel plants out there, there will be a need for RECs to track demand specific to renewables. However, the greater the supply and cheaper the cost of renewables, the cost of RECs will continue to go down (as they have been). Eventually dirty power generation will become obsolete, but it is very specific to regional market.

Another alternative is a new product called a Sunport that you can plug into any outlet. All it does is tracks the electricity used through that outlet and in turn purchases that amount of SunJoules. SunJoules are just SRECs microcredits that are repackaged to consumer levels by a company called ReChoice.. Those SunJoules create new demand for solar electricity. It is a pretty cool product that allows you to "use" solar electricity from any outlet anywhere you go.

[Syonyk]

Another alternative is a new product called a Sunport that you can plug into any outlet. All it does is tracks the electricity used through that outlet and in turn purchases that amount of SunJoules. SunJoules are just SRECs microcredits that are repackaged to consumer levels by a company called ReChoice.. Those SunJoules create new demand for solar electricity. It is a pretty cool product that allows you to "use" solar electricity from any outlet anywhere you go.

Wow, where can I Kickstart that?  Does it have an app?  Does it have a video showing people Making a Difference(TM) by plugging this device in???

Sorry, that sounds beyond silly.  I'm sure it sells great.

[lifeanon269]

Another alternative is a new product called a Sunport that you can plug into any outlet. All it does is tracks the electricity used through that outlet and in turn purchases that amount of SunJoules. SunJoules are just SRECs microcredits that are repackaged to consumer levels by a company called ReChoice.. Those SunJoules create new demand for solar electricity. It is a pretty cool product that allows you to "use" solar electricity from any outlet anywhere you go.

Wow, where can I Kickstart that?  Does it have an app?  Does it have a video showing people Making a Difference(TM) by plugging this device in???

Sorry, that sounds beyond silly.  I'm sure it sells great.

I agree that, for anyone who doesn't really consider their carbon footprint, something like that would be the last place they should start if they wanted to try and reduce their footprint. I do think it is a great product and idea though.

I'm of the pessimistic nature and believe that we're far beyond trying to prevent the most damaging effects of climate change. The largest contributor toward climate change is animal agriculture, so anyone who still eats meat should probably look to their dinner plate first if they want to reduce their carbon footprint. When I look around me and see how many people would never consider leaving meat off their plate, it doesn't give me much hope. Even if the entire transportation sector was carbon neutral, we'd still be pushed beyond the 2 degree celsius barrier that's considered safe, just because of animal agriculture.

I'm a vegan who drives an electric car and lives in a 1000 sqft house. So I like to try and do every little thing I can to help. When the SunPort was released, they bumped up the device to be able to handle 15amps instead of the originally designed 10amps. So that allows me to plug my electric car into the Sunport. So far, I've reduced my footprint by over 2,500 lbs of CO2 with the Sunport alone. So I do think that it is a decent product if you're looking for further ways to trim your footprint.  It is an easy way to earn renewable energy credits in situations where it isn't feasible. But, I agree, it isn't where most people should start.

[bacchi]

Basically the government is already moving to "It's going to $X+++ to permit and build new coal (or whatever), but we will give you the permits for nat. gas or wind for $X+"  So even if coal would be cheaper to run, overall costs favor low emissions. Renewables/low emission generation is going to be built anyway, and when they are everybody is going to be paying more, so these programs are just a way for the G&Ts to help front-load the cost so they are in a better financial position when they need to borrow for their next project.

Isn't that the point of "putting your money where your mouth is?" People voluntarily decide to help a utility build/buy renewable energy more quickly. The subscription model also avoids the uproar caused by people who don't believe in renewable energy and don't want to pay even a penny more per kwh to build a wind farm.

Or are you suggesting that Duke just takes the extra .02/kwh and pays it out in dividends and doesn't even bother to buy wind or solar on the market?

[Syonyk]

I agree that, for anyone who doesn't really consider their carbon footprint, something like that would be the last place they should start if they wanted to try and reduce their footprint. I do think it is a great product and idea though.

It's Greenwashed Consumerism.  It lets you buy something, which has to be built, to feel good about yourself, while being somewhere between useless and harmful.

Wanna do the math on embodied energy and carbon in the gizmo and the servers that power it's Cloud Backend?  I'm pretty sure it's a net loss, in terms of carbon, over just not buying the stupid little thing in the first place.  Oh, and don't forget the smartphone you need for it to work...

I'm of the pessimistic nature and believe that we're far beyond trying to prevent the most damaging effects of climate change.

I would generally agree.  Adapting to the changing and uncertain future is certainly a good area to focus.

The largest contributor toward climate change is animal agriculture, so anyone who still eats meat should probably look to their dinner plate first if they want to reduce their carbon footprint. When I look around me and see how many people would never consider leaving meat off their plate, it doesn't give me much hope. Even if the entire transportation sector was carbon neutral, we'd still be pushed beyond the 2 degree celsius barrier that's considered safe, just because of animal agriculture.

Are you basing that on Cowspiracy?  The study it uses doesn't really hold up to any sort of actual analysis.  Agriculture is a major contributor, yes, but not the 51% claimed in that movie (at least based on studies that don't pull numbers out of thin air and do voodoo math on them).

I'm a vegan who drives an electric car and lives in a 1000 sqft house. So I like to try and do every little thing I can to help. When the SunPort was released, they bumped up the device to be able to handle 15amps instead of the originally designed 10amps. So that allows me to plug my electric car into the Sunport. So far, I've reduced my footprint by over 2,500 lbs of CO2 with the Sunport alone. So I do think that it is a decent product if you're looking for further ways to trim your footprint.  It is an easy way to earn renewable energy credits in situations where it isn't feasible. But, I agree, it isn't where most people should start.

M'kay...

How much would you have reduced your footprint with an electric bike instead? ;)  They use 30Wh/mi or less, and I know your car uses about 10x that.

But, seriously, there aren't farms of solar panels sitting around going, "Ooh, someone turned on a hair dryer, let out a little bit more power!"  Right now, the farms pump out power whenever they have sun (unless they're curtailing output for voltage or frequency stabilization, which I don't believe is widely done).  So I'm not entirely convinced that the plug thing has any impact, at all, on anything but making people's wallet a bit lighter.  That 2500 lbs of CO2 just went to someone else who had an effectively lower blend of solar in their power (not that you can tell where the electrons come from).

[lifeanon269]

It's Greenwashed Consumerism.  It lets you buy something, which has to be built, to feel good about yourself, while being somewhere between useless and harmful.

Wanna do the math on embodied energy and carbon in the gizmo and the servers that power it's Cloud Backend?  I'm pretty sure it's a net loss, in terms of carbon, over just not buying the stupid little thing in the first place.  Oh, and don't forget the smartphone you need for it to work...

You're assuming that they're not also offsetting their energy costs with RECs, while I am admittedly assuming they are. At the very least, I am creating more demand for renewable energy, which at this stage of the game, every needs to be doing even if at this point the actual result is no net decrease in CO2 put into the atmosphere. There is an end-game that needs to be in sight and sometimes getting there isn't always a direct path.

Are you basing that on Cowspiracy?  The study it uses doesn't really hold up to any sort of actual analysis.  Agriculture is a major contributor, yes, but not the 51% claimed in that movie (at least based on studies that don't pull numbers out of thin air and do voodoo math on them).

No, I am getting that information from the FAO of United Nations that says that it accounts for about 18% of all GHG emissions, but they also didn't account the destruction of much of the planet's carbon sinks. 90% of the Amazon has been destroyed and most of that was for the purpose of animal agriculture. Low-end estimates put animal agriculture's impact around 30%.

I'm a vegan who drives an electric car and lives in a 1000 sqft house. So I like to try and do every little thing I can to help. When the SunPort was released, they bumped up the device to be able to handle 15amps instead of the originally designed 10amps. So that allows me to plug my electric car into the Sunport. So far, I've reduced my footprint by over 2,500 lbs of CO2 with the Sunport alone. So I do think that it is a decent product if you're looking for further ways to trim your footprint.  It is an easy way to earn renewable energy credits in situations where it isn't feasible. But, I agree, it isn't where most people should start.

How much would you have reduced your footprint with an electric bike instead? ;)  They use 30Wh/mi or less, and I know your car uses about 10x that.

But, seriously, there aren't farms of solar panels sitting around going, "Ooh, someone turned on a hair dryer, let out a little bit more power!"  Right now, the farms pump out power whenever they have sun (unless they're curtailing output for voltage or frequency stabilization, which I don't believe is widely done).  So I'm not entirely convinced that the plug thing has any impact, at all, on anything but making people's wallet a bit lighter.  That 2500 lbs of CO2 just went to someone else who had an effectively lower blend of solar in their power (not that you can tell where the electrons come from).

I agree, an electric bike would definitely be better. I purchase a Tern bike for the purpose of possibly converting it to electric down the road with a Bionx setup. But, ultimately I live in an area where I need my car for work. Once I FIRE however, I'll be ditching the car. My current electric car will be the last car I ever own.

No one said there are farms that pump out electricity only when someone asks for it. All power plants, renewable or not put their power directly into the grid. Utility companies purchase that power for the price that the market dictates. All power plants compete in the same market that the regional grid dictates and that's where the price is determined. That's why some places are areas where solar is already at grid parity, whereas others solar has yet to be able to compete with cheaper (dirtier) alternatives. The only way we're going to get renewables to compete in markets where dirtier alternatives dominate is to create additional demand for them through an increased demand for RECs. As you said, you can't specifically ever know where your electrons come from. So the only way to make a claim that the energy you use is from a wind turbine instead of a coal fire is to have as many RECs for the amount of electricity in total that you used. Sure, in the long term, RECs will go away and won't be needed. But, in the short-term, they're desperately needed to help renewables saturate the market.

I'd suggest rather than being critical of the people who do actually make real-life choices that do make a difference, you turn your critical attention to those who haven't done anything at all. I estimate that my carbon footprint is 1/30th compared to the typical American. If everyone did that, we'd be in a much better place.

[Syonyk]

You're assuming that they're not also offsetting their energy costs with RECs, while I am admittedly assuming they are. At the very least, I am creating more demand for renewable energy, which at this stage of the game, every needs to be doing even if at this point the actual result is no net decrease in CO2 put into the atmosphere. There is an end-game that needs to be in sight and sometimes getting there isn't always a direct path.

No, I assume they are using RECs, which are a shell game.  The companies selling power to the grid are going to pump out as much as they can, regardless of RECs or not, so they just amount to throwing a bit more money at a solar farm.

I'm fine with the "encouraging renewable growth," but I'm not entirely convinced that a plug in feel-good gizmo makes a bit of difference.

No, I am getting that information from the FAO of United Nations that says that it accounts for about 18% of all GHG emissions, but they also didn't account the destruction of much of the planet's carbon sinks. 90% of the Amazon has been destroyed and most of that was for the purpose of animal agriculture. Low-end estimates put animal agriculture's impact around 30%.

Ok, that's fair.  Usually the "majority" claims come from the Cowspiracy 51% number which is more than a little bit suspect.

I agree, an electric bike would definitely be better. I purchase a Tern bike for the purpose of possibly converting it to electric down the road with a Bionx setup. But, ultimately I live in an area where I need my car for work. Once I FIRE however, I'll be ditching the car. My current electric car will be the last car I ever own.

Ugh.  Build your own.  Don't use BionX.  Or, if you do, get an old one with a bad battery and send the pack to me for rebuilding.  BionX is proprietary and ~impossible to repair when things go wrong.  I make a lot of money supporting old BionX systems for people.  They're nice, but seriously, for a company that talks about sustainable transport, their stuff is a black box and they'd rather you throw away a modular battery pack than ship you a component to replace if it fails.  Output transistors die?  Scrap the whole pack.  You have an old system?  Well, buy a new one.  Etc.

I'd suggest rather than being critical of the people who do actually make real-life choices that do make a difference, you turn your critical attention to those who haven't done anything at all. I estimate that my carbon footprint is 1/30th compared to the typical American. If everyone did that, we'd be in a much better place.

I'm not being critical of you.  I'm being critical of a plug in feel-good gizmo, and questioning where some of your claims come from (based on similar phasing used to people whose claims come from thin air, or near enough to make no difference).

Realistically, though, we're not going to buy our way out of the problems caused by consumerism.

There's not a particularly good path forward at this point, unfortunately, beyond working to make ones self and family resilient and able to ride through various events that will be coming.

[lifeanon269]

Ok, that's fair.  Usually the "majority" claims come from the Cowspiracy 51% number which is more than a little bit suspect.

I just wanted to clarify that I didn't say a majority. I just said that it was the largest single contributor. The easiest way for anyone to decrease their carbon footprint with the biggest impact today, with very little effort, is to ditch meat from their plate.

[/quote]Ugh.  Build your own.  Don't use BionX.  Or, if you do, get an old one with a bad battery and send the pack to me for rebuilding.  BionX is proprietary and ~impossible to repair when things go wrong.  I make a lot of money supporting old BionX systems for people.  They're nice, but seriously, for a company that talks about sustainable transport, their stuff is a black box and they'd rather you throw away a modular battery pack than ship you a component to replace if it fails.  Output transistors die?  Scrap the whole pack.  You have an old system?  Well, buy a new one.  Etc.[/quote]

Thanks for the advice. I'll keep that in mind. I'm a big proponent of design that thinks about the life of the product beyond the grave. Too many companies don't anticipate what their product will be like after it fails or after its seen its use.

[/quote]I'm not being critical of you.  I'm being critical of a plug in feel-good gizmo, and questioning where some of your claims come from (based on similar phasing used to people whose claims come from thin air, or near enough to make no difference).

Realistically, though, we're not going to buy our way out of the problems caused by consumerism.

There's not a particularly good path forward at this point, unfortunately, beyond working to make ones self and family resilient and able to ride through various events that will be coming.
[/quote]

I understand. But, the reality is that we need to find a way to transition our society to a sustainable one while realizing that our society will likely never stop being consumer oriented. I realize consumerism and sustainable should never be in the same sentence, but the reality is that not everyone is going to live a mustachian lifestyle, so any product that can attempt to bridge us from the unsustainability that we have today to a sustainable one tomorrow is OK in my book. Even if that "bridging" is ultimately just a means of starting the conversation about it and nothing more. Because the truth is that the conversation about it hasn't really even begun for a bulk of Americans.

[Fishindude]

If you're closer to a coal fired or nuke generating plant than a wind or solar farm like most of us are, you are likely using coal fired or nuke energy.
It's not like they are going to run a special line from the windmills and solar farms to everyone's home who signed up for these programs.

[Highbeam]

You eat less meat, the price of meat goes down, more people eat more meat. It's a wash. Classic supply/demand stuff.

[Syonyk]

If you're closer to a coal fired or nuke generating plant than a wind or solar farm like most of us are, you are likely using coal fired or nuke energy.
It's not like they are going to run a special line from the windmills and solar farms to everyone's home who signed up for these programs.

Right.  And it's not like they're going to not generate wind/solar power if they don't sell the RECs either.  The price of RECs will just drop on the open market.

[obstinate]

Ok, that's fair.  Usually the "majority" claims come from the Cowspiracy 51% number which is more than a little bit suspect.

I just wanted to clarify that I didn't say a majority. I just said that it was the largest single contributor. The easiest way for anyone to decrease their carbon footprint with the biggest impact today, with very little effort, is to ditch meat from their plate.

It's a meaningful amount, but it's a pretty small fraction of most folks' emissions. Average American is 20T CO2e, meat accounts for 1-1.5T (beef accounts for ~1T of this, so just switching to chicken+pork only is 66% of the benefit).

[m8547]

The idea of RECs is to incentivize investment in renewable energy, not change the amount that's produced at any particular time. Obviously renewable installations will generate whenever they are able to (have sunlight or wind) as long as the marginal cost to operate (like maintenance on wind turbines) is lower than the marginal cost of other sources (fuel plus maintenance). If the cost to generate renewable energy was high for some reason, then RECs (or similar programs) could pay to turn on more renewable generation, but intuitively it seems like renewable should be cheaper than things that require fuel.

Here are two studies that claim that there is no significant change in investment as a result of voluntary RECs. Maybe the market is just too small to make a difference yet, or maybe there's another problem.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148113005338
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513009737

I didn't look for any studies that show benefits of RECs, but if you know of any I'd like to see them.

[Metric Mouse]

The idea of RECs is to incentivize investment in renewable energy, not change the amount that's produced at any particular time. Obviously renewable installations will generate whenever they are able to (have sunlight or wind) as long as the marginal cost to operate (like maintenance on wind turbines) is lower than the marginal cost of other sources (fuel plus maintenance). If the cost to generate renewable energy was high for some reason, then RECs (or similar programs) could pay to turn on more renewable generation, but intuitively it seems like renewable should be cheaper than things that require fuel.

Here are two studies that claim that there is no significant change in investment as a result of voluntary RECs. Maybe the market is just too small to make a difference yet, or maybe there's another problem.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148113005338
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513009737

I didn't look for any studies that show benefits of RECs, but if you know of any I'd like to see them.

This is basically what I was getting at. Thank you for the studies.

[obstinate]

This is exactly what I was worried about too. I'm less concerned about high quality carbon offsets since they are certified for additionality (at least the ones I'm buying).