Energie-Mythos #10: Green Power Is Significantly More Expensive
“Green is nice, but it costs significantly more.” This belief runs deep — and it’s still too short-sighted. Because it describes a market that no longer exists in that form.
What the market shows
The big premium for green power has become a myth. Through competitive tendering, the bundling of several supply points and PPA structures, green power is now frequently competitive. Where guarantees of origin were once simply added on top of a conventional contract, competition today shrinks the price gap — or removes it entirely.
Why the myth persists
The idea dates from a time when green power was a niche product with a noticeable surcharge. Anyone still booking green as a pure cost item overlooks two things: the reduced price gap and the value contribution. Genuine green power feeds into ESG rating, financeability and asset value — factors that matter directly for a real estate portfolio.
Why green need not be expensive
Competition lowers the green-power price.
Bundling across the portfolio creates the necessary volume.
A PPA instead of add-on guarantees of origin — often the more economical route.
Genuine green power strengthens the ESG rating.
A value and financing advantage rather than a pure cost item.
The NeoBid view
For asset managers, green power is therefore a double lever: no meaningful price surcharge and a plus for sustainability, rating and value retention. NeoBid tenders green power competitively and bundles supply points — for green prices without a large surcharge.
Conclusion
It isn’t green that’s expensive — it’s the absence of competition. Green power is no longer a surcharge topic but a value topic.
NeoBid doesn’t think of energy as a price comparison — but as a strategic value driver for real estate portfolios.
