EPA's Green Power Partnership

Environmental Economics reports that the EPA has recently published a list of their top 25 Green Power Partners (out of 607 organizations that participate in the program). The Green Power Partners are basically companies that are using electricity generated from renewable resources. From the EPA website:
Top 25 Partners are Partners whose annual green power purchase is the largest, and whose green power purchase has been completed. Their actions are helping drive the development of new renewable energy sources for electricity generation. Combined, their purchases amount to 3.3 million megawatt-hours (MWh) annually, which is approximately 75 percent of the green power commitments made by all Partners.
Interestingly, the amount of green energy used by the top 25 companies ranges from 2% of their total electricity purchase (Safeway) to 100% (Whole Foods, the World Bank Group, Advanced Micro Devices, WhiteWave, the Tower Company, Hyatt/DFW hotel, Western Washington University), with the average being 44% (but the median only 27%). Which leads me to wonder how much renewable energy the remaining 582 companies are using. But at least they're apparently trying.
Thanks.  I was surprised to see the location I'm sitting in right now is on the list.
I think programs like this are important to the development of alternative energy. I know the local utility companies near me are investing in solar and landfill gas collection. Solar seems particularly promising.
I think the best way to encourage growth of alternative energies is to subsidize individual investment. In other words, instead of earmarking funding towards 'research' which is really just another form of corporate welfare (there was a time when companies paid for their own R&D, and it came out of their profit margin), I would like to see the President create some type of tax credit program. For example, the federal government would pay 75% the cost of installing solar power to your home. [I know that leaves room for extortion, but that's what auditing is for... ;) ]
Sorry to post twice, but I have read a bit and have more to say.
Simply reading TOD I have come to realize three things.

Ethanol is a VERY touchy topic. I have seen more fighting over it than over any previous discussion topic. Furthermore, the attacks related to ethanol discussion are more personal, and more vindictive, suggesting a fundamental difference in opinions. If this is how the topic plays out in an energy blog, which is ahead of the general public, I think a candidate's stance on ethanol could become a major political plank when the general public gets talking.

Several alternatives currently exist. Solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, ethanol, heavy sour crude, coal (notice how the list gets dirtier)... We know there is obviously a problem (or problems if you count global warming and political tensions). So, we have one BIG problem, and many small solutions. If we pour all our resources into any one of these technologies, we MIGHT get it to work, but alot of energy (no pun intended) has been spend arguing over the validity of such a solution.

TOD has been a great resource, and alot of knoweledge and thought provoking questions have appeared here so far. In addition, TOD is growing (any admin want to comment on the number of users). However, to keep the forward momentum of this site, it is critical we continue to discuss solutions, and seek innovative methods for communicating our message (in short we need T.V. time - just kidding). Does anyone have any ideas on how we can accomplish this?

I have noticed that the price of my morning muffin at Whole Foods went up a dime since they started their "green power" purchases.

Increasing the cost of power is clearly inflationary.