P.J. Popovic, CEO of Houston-based Rhythm, explains Renewable Energy Certificates work and their impact on Texas. Photo courtesy of Rhythm

We all know what renewable energy is — wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydropower — but how do you purchase it? It's invisible. Not to mention when energy from any source enters the electricity grid, there's no way to track all those electrons.

Renewable Energy Certificates have made it possible

Renewable Energy Certificates, or RECs, allow us to track your clean energy. Each individual REC represents one megawatt-hour of clean energy generated. And while a REC isn't technically electricity, it represents the clean energy going into the electricity grid—meaning homes and businesses claim their commitment to renewable energy if their electricity is supported by RECs.

It's also important to understand what a renewable energy certificate is not: an offset. An offset represents a metric ton of emissions avoided and a REC represents 1 MWh of clean energy generated. While each have similar goals, they are not quite the same thing.

Not all RECs are created equally

The market for RECs is fluid. Due to the growth of the renewable energy market, RECs have been oversupplied for years. This has created low prices and little-to-no financial advantage for the facilities that generate clean electricity (e.g., wind facilities, solar farms, hydro plants).

In Texas, the retail electricity market is inundated with renewable electricity claims said to be supported by RECs. The energy plan you sign up for might come from solar, wind, biomass, or even trash incineration, but the renewable energy facilities likely are coming from outside Texas, located in places like California, Canada, or elsewhere. While there's no wrong way to switch to renewable energy, supporting renewable energy sources inside Texas helps Texans move closer to being a more sustainable state.

Choosing Texas renewable energy plans and your actions do have a true, real-world impact more than ever before

Some critics have argued that REC-supported renewable energy plans don't meet the highest standard of sustainability arguing RECs are not foundational to the existence of renewable energy assets. In other words, they argue that RECs don't provide a material revenue source for renewable projects because they don't incentivize new developments of renewable facilities to be built.

When RECs were trading for less than a dollar, this was a valid argument. But that was then, and this is now.

In the last year alone, voluntary renewable energy certificate prices have skyrocketed and are now between $7 and $10 per MWh. This means RECs can now contribute up to 30 percent of a renewable facility's revenue. Naturally, this encourages more and more clean-energy facilities and clean-energy jobs to be created. A win-win.

What about Power Purchase Agreements?

A Power Purchase Agreement, or PPA, is a tad different than a REC. In a PPA, the developer of a renewable project (solar arrays at a solar farm, or turbines at a wind farm) can sell the actual energy it produces over a 10-to-20-year contract.

While the sale of this renewable energy still contributes to a larger portion of project revenues, the revenue mix has clearly shifted, and RECs cannot be considered an immaterial incentive anymore. Sure, PPAs are a stronger market signal for renewable project development, but only a couple of hundred organizations globally utilize PPAs. This makes them very challenging for businesses to access.

Through PPAs, various risks, credit needs, and long-term commitments create challenges for many organizations to meet their sustainability goals. So, while RECs do not provide as material of a market signal as PPAs, with the recent changes in market prices, RECs can now be considered a meaningful, profitable market signal for renewable projects.

Making the future of renewable energy in Texas even brighter.

------

P.J. Popovic is the CEO of Houston-based Rhythm.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Baylor College of Medicine names Minnesota med school dean as new president, CEO ​

new leader

Dr. Jakub Tolar, dean of the University of Minnesota Medical School, is taking over as president, CEO and executive dean of Houston’s Baylor College of Medicine on July 1.

Tolar—who’s also vice president for clinical affairs at the University of Minnesota and a university professor—will succeed Dr. Paul Klotman as head of BCM. Klotman is retiring June 30 after leading Texas’ top-ranked medical school since 2010.

In tandem with medical facilities such as Baylor St. Luke’s Medical Center and Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor trains nearly half of the doctors who work at Texas Medical Center. In addition, Baylor is home to the Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Texas Heart Institute.

The hunt for a new leader at Baylor yielded 179 candidates. The medical school’s search firm interviewed 44 candidates, and the pool was narrowed to 10 contenders who were interviewed by the Board of Trustees’ search committee. The full board then interviewed the four finalists, including Tolar.

Greg Brenneman, chair of Baylor’s board and the search committee, says Tolar is “highly accomplished” in the core elements of the medical school’s mission: research, patient care, education and community service.

“Baylor is phenomenal. Baylor is a superpower in academic medicine,” Tolar, a native of the Czech Republic, says in a YouTube video filmed at the medical school. “And everything comes together here because science saves lives. That is the superpower.”

Tolar’s medical specialties include pediatric blood and bone marrow transplants. His research, which he’ll continue at Baylor, focuses on developing cellular therapies for rare genetic disorders. In the research arena, he’s known for his care of patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, a severe genetic skin disorder.

In a news release, Tolar praises Baylor’s “achievements and foundation,” as well as the school’s potential to advance medicine and health care in “new and impactful ways.”

The Baylor College of Medicine employs more than 9,300 full-time faculty and staff. For the 2025-26 academic year, nearly 1,800 students are enrolled in the School of Medicine, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences and School of Health Professions. Its M.D. program operates campuses in Houston and Temple.

In the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2024, Baylor recorded $2.72 billion in operating revenue and $2.76 billion in operating expenses.

The college was founded in 1900 in Dallas and relocated to Houston in 1943. It was affiliated with Baylor University in Waco from 1903 to 1969.

​Planned UT Austin med center, anchored by MD Anderson, gets $100M gift​

med funding

The University of Texas at Austin’s planned multibillion-dollar medical center, which will include a hospital run by Houston’s University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, just received a $100 million boost from a billionaire husband-and-wife duo.

Tench Coxe, a former venture capitalist who’s a major shareholder in chipmaking giant Nvidia, and Simone Coxe, co-founder and former CEO of the Blanc & Otus PR firm, contributed the $100 million—one of the largest gifts in UT history. The Coxes live in Austin.

“Great medical care changes lives,” says Simone Coxe, “and we want more people to have access to it.”

The University of Texas System announced the medical center project in 2023 and cited an estimated price tag of $2.5 billion. UT initially said the medical center would be built on the site of the Frank Erwin Center, a sports and entertainment venue on the UT Austin campus that was demolished in 2024. The 20-acre site, north of downtown and the state Capitol, is near Dell Seton Medical Center, UT Dell Medical School and UT Health Austin.

Now, UT officials are considering a bigger, still-unidentified site near the Domain mixed-use district in North Austin, although they haven’t ruled out the Erwin Center site. The Domain development is near St. David’s North Medical Center.

As originally planned, the medical center would house a cancer center built and operated by MD Anderson and a specialty hospital built and operated by UT Austin. Construction on the two hospitals is scheduled to start this year and be completed in 2030. According to a 2025 bid notice for contractors, each hospital is expected to encompass about 1.5 million square feet, meaning the medical center would span about 3 million square feet.

Features of the MD Anderson hospital will include:

  • Inpatient care
  • Outpatient clinics
  • Surgery suites
  • Radiation, chemotherapy, cell, and proton treatments
  • Diagnostic imaging
  • Clinical drug trials

UT says the new medical center will fuse the university’s academic and research capabilities with the medical and research capabilities of MD Anderson and Dell Medical School.

UT officials say priorities for spending the Coxes’ gift include:

  • Recruiting world-class medical professionals and scientists
  • Supporting construction
  • Investing in technology
  • Expanding community programs that promote healthy living and access to care

Tench says the opportunity to contribute to building an institution from the ground up helped prompt the donation. He and others say that thanks to MD Anderson’s participation, the medical center will bring world-renowned cancer care to the Austin area.

“We have a close friend who had to travel to Houston for care she should have been able to get here at home. … Supporting the vision for the UT medical center is exactly the opportunity Austin needed,” he says.

The rate of patients who leave the Austin area to seek care for serious medical issues runs as high as 25 percent, according to UT.