Commentary: How Wisconsin regulators 'tax' renewable energy

Michael Vickerman's commentary in Midwest Energy News on the recent changes in WI renewable energy. Find the original post here.

Commentary: How Wisconsin regulators ‘tax’ renewable energy

RENEW Wisconsin's Michael Vickerman

Starting next January, the price of purchasing renewable energy voluntarily through monthly utility bills will spike to all-time highs, thanks to recent decisions rendered by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) on two popular “green pricing” programs.

The thousands of Madison Gas & Electric (MGE) customers participating in the utility’s Green Power Tomorrow program will see their premiums jump from 2.5 cents/kWh to 4 cents/kWh. That’s an increase of 60 percent. To translate this into dollars and cents, an average MGE customer consuming 500 kWh of electricity per month and subscribing at the 100 percent level will pay $90 more in 2013 for the same amount of renewable kWh sold this year.

Residential customers of Milwaukee-based We Energies (WE) will see an even larger percentage increase next year. In that utility’s rate case, the PSCW jacked up the premium paid by Energy for Tomorrow subscribers by nearly 73 percent, from 1.39 cents to 2.4 cents/kWh. Energy for Tomorrow has more than 20,000 subscribers.

Back in 1999, the year both programs were launched, MGE and WE customers paid an extra 3.33 cents and 2.04 cents/kWh, respectively, for the renewable energy they sponsored. Come January 1st, MGE and WE will likely share the dubious distinction of being the only utilities in the country offering renewable energy at a higher rate than they did in the 1990’s. So much for progress.

Adding insult to injury, renewable program subscribers will be subject to general rate increases approved by the PSCW this November. The utilities sought higher rates to recover the costs of retrofitting older coal-fired power stations with modern pollution controls. The fact that the renewable generators leveraged by program participants will never need pollution control retrofits is wholly disregarded in determining the size of the premium.

This is unquestionably a subsidy that flows from program participants to all ratepayers.

How did this happen?
Since 1999, renewable generation costs have tumbled, while productivity has improved.
A frustrated program subscriber might well ask: If base utility rates are going up, and the cost of renewable electricity is declining, why are premiums going up instead of down?

The short answer is that wholesale electricity prices have sagged in recent years, owing to a combination of unsustainably low natural gas prices, stagnant demand, and rapid expansion of wind power displacing higher-cost generation. In contrast, the price of renewable energy procured under long-term contracts held steady. When prices dropped in the wholesale market beginning in late 2008, the gap between system energy and renewable sources widened.

Though accurate, the above explanation is deeply unsatisfying, because the wholesale “market” is concerned about one thing only: the marginal cost of producing electricity into the grid. Nothing else matters, including the expenditures approved by the PSCW to reduce emissions from older generators. Even though retail customers wind up footing the bill for those upgrades, the wholesale market does not treat pollution control retrofits as marginal costs. Not one cent paid by ratepayers for these expenditures is reflected in the prices that renewable generators compete against.

The net effect of this disconnect is to artificially suppress the price of electricity from older and dirtier generators relative to newer and cleaner electricity producers. Real markets factor in the cost of upgrading and replacing capital equipment that manufacture the product bought by customers. What we have instead is an artificial contrivance that sacrifices long-term considerations like clean air, resource diversity and regulatory risk for the short-term reward of low prices.

Indeed, it would be difficult to design a more punitive market structure for renewables than the one we have at present.

‘Swimming up a waterfall’
Pricing renewable energy against a market operating in real time also undermines a valuable attribute of renewable energy, namely its inherent price stability. In this environment, the only way a customer can directly benefit from a fixed-price energy source like solar is to self-generate at his or her premises to reduce consumption of grid-supplied electricity.

In setting the premium size, the PSCW relied on pricing data at a time when the regional wholesale market was near its cyclical bottom. Electricity prices are now edging upward as forward prices of natural gas have rebounded from historic lows earlier this year. It’s a safe bet that wholesale electricity prices will continue to increase in 2013.

This sets up the very real possibility that WE and MGE will collect more revenue than is necessary to cover the cost spread between system energy and the renewable energy supplies servicing their customers. Unfortunately, the next time the base premium for each utility can be adjusted is January 1, 2015.

For at least a century now, fossil fuels have been the default resource option for most utilities. Against this institutional bias, switching to renewable energy is akin to swimming upstream. But given how far backward the PSCW bent to accommodate utilities’ continued reliance on coal and natural gas, quite a few renewable energy subscribers may balk at the prospect of swimming up a waterfall.

In fairness to MGE and WE, the price hikes approved by the PSCW went well beyond the incremental increases proposed by the two utilities. That’s because the agency relies solely on the wholesale “market” metric described above that filters out all societal benefits from the equation. To the agency, renewables are another source of electrons that deserve no special consideration. And, in reaching its decision, the PSCW disregarded the potential impact that abrupt price hikes might have on customer participation.

Programs outliving their usefulness?
A significant loss in subscribership would be a regrettable outcome if the programs were still viable vehicles for leveraging new sources of renewable energy. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

Earlier this decade, WE and MGE pulled the plug on a popular feature of their programs, specifically the special solar energy buyback rates that were funded with participant dollars. This innovation, which spurred the installation of hundreds of solar electric systems in their territories, succeeded in elevating MGE and WE’s stature while achieving the aims of their participating customers. However, when the utilities eliminated their solar incentives, they also removed the principal rationale for subscribing to their programs.

It seems quite clear that the current crop of voluntary renewable energy programs have outlived their usefulness. They are stagnating under a market structure that distorts and amplifies their true costs as well as a regulatory climate that greatly discounts their benefits to ratepayers. What were once dynamic vehicles for increasing supplies of renewable energy are now little more than feel-good marketing exercises running on autopilot. The value proposition to customers just isn’t there anymore.

There is nothing out there to prevent utilities from revitalizing their green pricing programs and making them useful once again. Such an undertaking, however, would require them to do something they haven’t done before: present an affirmative case for adding more renewables into their energy mix.

To do that effectively, utilities would need to recognize that the fossil energy path leads to a dead-end and that renewables ought to be the default resource option going forward. From that starting point, designing a program in which modest customer premiums actually result in additional supplies of renewable energy should be a simple and straightforward exercise.

It’s the very least a responsible utility should do to reduce the impact of generating electricity on the one planet we are privileged to call home.

Michael Vickerman is program and policy director of RENEW Wisconsin, a sustainable energy advocacy organization. RENEW Wisconsin is a member of RE-AMP, which also publishes Midwest Energy News.

Find the original article post here.

India's Blackout Lesson: Coal Failed, Small Solar = Big Results

From a story by Justin Guay, Sierra Club International Program:

Of course they still have to face the problems they have inherited from trying to copy/paste a centralized grid from the West. So what can they do to solve peak problems with the grid they already have in place? Deploy lots and lots of distributed solar and efficiency.

That's because, unlike coal, solar for the most part is available when you need it - during peak hours. Which is why it's great to see States like Gujarat taking the lead in roof top solar programs with the support of the IFC. And efficiency makes the peaks smaller so you need less power in the first place.

The irony here of course is that distributed generation has always been ignored as trivial compared to the real need for a large scale 'modern grid.' That’s because policymakers and commentators lack the imagination to understand the fact that when aggregated, small can be very, very big.

Take the hidden truth behind India's modern grid (as my colleague Jigar Shah points out): it is actually already a distributed system that is largely powered by filthy, costly diesel gen sets. That’s because power outages are so frequent that businesses and wealthy individuals have been forced to pay for this backup generation to ensure power. This is a tremendous opportunity for companies seeking targeted diesel replacement strategies to save people and companies tremendous amounts of money, while providing reliable power.

Only 20, not 200, years of coal; we have to move "so fast" to get to 100% renewables

Leslie Glustrom is the featured speaker at RENEW's Energy Policy Summit, January 13, Madison. Read the report that she mentions about 11 minutes into the interview.

Register and get details about the Summit at the Summit Web page.

Manure-to-electricty plant planned for Greenbush farm

From an article by Josh Lintereur in the Sheboygan Press:

For the past 71 years, the cows at the Goeser family dairy farm in rural Plymouth have been fairly prolific at producing two things — milk and manure.

But by next year, the cows could also become a reliable source of renewable energy. Using a simple process that's been around for decades, a Milwaukee startup firm called U.S. Biogas has proposed building a small power plant at the farm that would use cow manure to create electricity.

At peak production, the plant, called an anaerobic digester, could process 15 million gallons of manure a year and produce enough electricity to power up to 1,200 homes.

The process would also produce a liquid fertilizer that can be used to grow crops, along with a fiber product that can be used as bedding for the farm's 2,000 cows. Any unused fiber — which is rich in nutrients — will be sold to nurseries and landscapers.

The benefit to the farm is that the resulting fertilizer would be mostly odor free, and its phosphorous content would be cut by 50 to 60 percent, meaning there would be significantly less phosphorous runoff into nearby lakes and streams.

"It's a good deal for us, and we feel it's a positive for the public," said Craig Goeser, who owns the third-generation dairy with his two brothers, Pat and Brian. "You're reducing the amount of phosphorous going out into the fields, so you're protecting the environment, and you're not burning coal to produce electricity."

If the project goes forward, the plant would be the only one of its kind operating at a Sheboygan County dairy farm, and it would join the growing number of manure digesters operating in Wisconsin, which produces more so-called cow power than any other state.

Coal Critic Coming to Madison to Speak on Effective Renewable Energy Advocacy, January 13, 2012

For immediate release
December 7, 2011

More information
Michael Vickerman
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Leslie Glustrom, research director of Colorado-based Clean Energy Action, and an unwavering critic of utility reliance on coal for electricity generation, will be the featured speaker at RENEW Wisconsin’s Energy Policy Summit.

The Summit will be held on Friday, January 13, 2012, at the University of Wisconsin-Extension’s Pyle Center located on the UW-Madison campus. Summit attendees will spend the day discussing and selecting renewable energy strategies that make sense in the current political environment in Wisconsin. More information on the Summit can be found on the RENEW Wisconsin website at http://www.renewwisconsin.org.

As research director, Glustrom authored in 2009 an extensively referenced report on U.S. coal supplies titled, “Coal—Cheap and Abundant—Or Is It? Why Americans Should Stop Assuming that the US has a 200-Year Supply of Coal,” available for free at http://www.cleanenergyaction.org.

Since 2009, Glustrom has traveled to numerous states helping them to understand the likely constraints on their coal supplies.
Glustrom’s on-going research illuminates a future in which coal prices will likely continue to escalate, driven by a combination of less accessible coal supplies, increasing demand from Asian countries, and rising diesel fuel costs for hauling coal to distant markets like Wisconsin.

Clean Energy Action is spearheading a campaign to shut down Colorado’s coal-fired power plants and replace them with locally generated renewable electricity.

“Leslie’s experiences with Clean Energy Action can help Wisconsin renewable energy advocates formulate effective strategies for 2012 and beyond,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide sustainable energy advocacy organization headquartered in Madison.

“Even though Colorado is a coal-producing state, it has adopted some of the most aggressive policies in the country for advancing renewable energy,” said Vickerman. “Colorado’s commitment to clean energy is driving its economy at a time when its coal output is diminishing. For example, Vestas, the world’s largest manufacturer of wind turbines with four plants employing 1,700 people in Colorado, supplied 90 turbines this year to Wisconsin’s largest wind project, the Glacier Hills Wind Park in Columbia County.”

“Leslie will inspire us to reverse the retreat from renewables and retake the initiative going forward,” Vickerman said.

In Boulder, Glustrom was part of the team that led the successful 2010 and 2011 ballot initiatives allowing Boulder to move ahead with plans to municipalize and break away from the long term commitment to coal plants made by their incumbent utility, Xcel Energy.

-- END --

Green Bay-based renewable fuels company will study new use for Menasha steam plant

From an article by Michael King in the Appleton Post Crescent:

MENASHA — The defunct Menasha Utilities steam plant, closed since October 2009, could come back to life burning environmentally friendly pellets instead of coal.

The Menasha Common Council on Monday voted 8-0 to approve a letter of intent that allows Greenwood Fuels, a Green Bay-based renewable fuels company, to study the steam plant at 198 River St. for potential conversion to generate electricity by burning pellets made from paper sludge at its Green Bay facility.

"We produce a fuel pellet that is considered by the state to be renewable," said Ted Hansen, general manager of Greenwood Fuels, which started up in 2009 and has grown to 30 employees.

"There's a lot of questions and a lot of hurdles and we just want to start the process," he said. "We basically are trying to solve some of the world's problems with burning too much coal."

Besides avoiding coal burning emissions, the fuel pellets also help the environment by diverting waste from landfills.

"It (the letter of intent) is strictly an investigative document where we would work with the city (and) begin to study the plant," Hansen said.

He said Greenwood Fuels has already been in contact with the Sierra Club, which had filed a lawsuit against the city for allegedly violating its coal-burning permit.

The feasibility study and business plan are expected to take 60 to 90 days to complete.

How coal stacks up against wind

Madison Peak Oil Group listserve subscribers are debating coal vs. wind. To join the debate, drop an email to madisonpeakoil-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

Rising Diesel Prices Fuel Higher Electric Rates

For immediate release
April 15, 2011

More information
RENEW Wisconsin
Michael Vickerman
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

We Energies Customers Will Pay the Higher Cost of Hauling Coal

We Energies’ electricity customers can look forward to coughing up an additional $25 million in 2011 due to the Public Service Commission’s approval yesterday [April14] of a rate increase to cover the escalating cost of transporting coal to Wisconsin power plants.

Milwaukee-based We Energies, Wisconsin’s largest electric utility, imports coal from such distant locations as Wyoming and Pennsylvania to generate electricity. Transportation now accounts for two-thirds of the delivered cost of coal to Wisconsin.

Diesel fuel costs have jumped to approximately $4.00 a gallon this year, propelled by political unrest in the Middle East, declining petroleum output from Mexico, a weakening dollar, and other factors. We Energies’ request predated the ongoing civil war in Libya.

“While we cannot control any of those price drivers, we can more effectively cushion their effects by diversifying our energy generation mix with locally produced wind, solar, small hydro, and biogas electricity,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide organization advocating for public policies and private initiatives that advance renewable energy.

“The coal mines aren’t getting any closer to Wisconsin. Therefore we have to be serious about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels that are tied to the global oil supply picture. Now is not the time to skimp on investments in conservation and renewable energy that will help stabilize the utility bills of businesses and residents,” Vickerman said.

“Do we have the will to pursue energy policies that take us off of the fossil fuel price escalator? Doing nothing will bake these rate increases into our future without any corresponding boost to Wisconsin’s job market and sustainable energy economy.”

--END--

Appleton-based Boldt Company picked for coal plant conversion to biomass

From an article in the Appleton Post-Crescent:

MADISON — The Appleton-based Boldt Company will partner with an international engineering firm on a $250 million state project converting a coal-fired heating plant into one using biomass for fuel.

Gov. Jim Doyle on Monday announced the project converting the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Charter Street Heating Plant to a cleaner, renewable fuel source.

“Today, we are breaking ground on the Charter Street biomass plant and taking a major step forward to make this goal a reality,” Doyle said. “The Charter Street plant will turn a waste stream into clean energy, it will keep energy dollars in our communities, and it will help clean our air and water.”

Boldt, which operates offices in Madison and 10 other Wisconsin communities, will partner with AMEC, an international engineering and project management firm with expertise in coal-to-biomass boiler conversion.

The two companies were partners in building an addition to a Manitowoc Public Utilities plant in 2006.

Boldt President Bob DeKoch said the project will be the largest biomass conversion project in Wisconsin.

“There are a lot of larger (conversions) out there but this is a very large one,” Koch said. “Nearly all of the biomass would be supplied from sources within the state of Wisconsin.”

The plant, which provides steam and heat for UW-Madison campus buildings, now burns 108,000 tons of coal per year. Once converted, it will burn renewable materials — such as forest waste, wood scraps created in the wood-harvesting process and paper mill residues — as its primary source of fuel.

Wind generation reduces climate-changing emissions

From a report titled "The Facts about Wind Energy’s Emissions Savings" prepared by the American Wind Energy Association:

. . . four of the seven major independent grid operators in the
U.S. have studied the emissions impact of adding wind energy to their power grids, and all four have found that adding wind energy drastically reduces emissions of carbon dioxide and other harmful pollutants. While the emissions savings depend somewhat on the existing share of coal-fired versus gas-fired generation in the region, as one would expect, it is impossible to dispute the findings of these four independent grid operators that adding wind energy to their grids has significantly reduced emissions. . . .

DOE data show that wind and other renewables’ share of Texas’s
electric mix increased from 1.3% in 2005 to 4.4% in 2008, an increase in share of 3.1 percentage points. During that period, electric sector carbon dioxide emissions declined by 3.3%, even though electricity use actually increased by 2% during that time. Because of wind energy, the state of Texas was able to turn what would have been a carbon emissions increase into a decrease of 8,690,000 metric tons per year, equal to the emissions savings of taking around 1.5 million cars off the road.

Report: Coal use saps Wisconsin's economy

From an article by Larry Bivins in the Appleton Post-Crescent:

WASHINGTON — Wisconsin is the nation's fifth most coal-dependent state for generating electricity, according to a report released Tuesday.

Because the state has no coal supplies of its own, it spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year to import the fuel for power generation. Coal imports accounted for 68 percent of all power used in the state in 2008, research by the Union of Concerned Scientists found.

Wisconsin spent $853 million in 2008, or $152 per person, to import 25 million tons of coal from nine states, according to the report.

The state ranked 12th in the amount spent and in the amount of coal imported. Wyoming, which provided 40 percent of all U.S. coal in 2008, received $702 million of Wisconsin's money.

Coal-fired plants are the nation's biggest source of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas that leading scientists say is causing global warming. Carbon dioxide emissions pose a danger to public health as well as the environment.

The Union of Concerned Scientists report, "Burning Coal, Burning Cash: Ranking the States that Import the Most Coal," covers 38 states that are net importers of domestic and foreign coal. Those states spent $27.7 billion on domestic and foreign coal imports in 2008, the latest year for which figures were available from the U.S. Energy Department.

Three states — Wyoming, West Virginia and Kentucky — produce most of the domestic coal burned in U.S. plants.

The report's authors conclude that all states would be better served if the money spent on coal were diverted to the development of renewable energy and energy-efficiency programs.

"The regions most dependent on imports, the Midwest and Southeast, have some of the best wind and bioenergy resources in the country," said Barbara Freese, a senior policy analyst for the UCS who helped write the report.

"Wisconsin has the technical potential to generate 4.2 times its electricity needs from renewable power," Freese said during a teleconference.

Costs of coal plants keep going up

A commentary by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin:

For Immediate Release
April 7, 2010

For More Information Contact
Michael Vickerman
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

In recent weeks, some groups have suggested that we maintain our current energy portfolio, continuing to rely heavily on coal-fired generation for a substantial amount of our electricity. These groups claim that gradually moving toward more reliance on local, in-state sources of energy will increase electricity costs. These claims have been thoroughly discredited by two economic studies concluding that electricity bills will decrease with the Clean Energy Jobs Act.

Further, these groups refuse to acknowledge the substantial, ongoing costs associated with coal plants. Since 1999, Wisconsin utilities have spent over $2 billion of customer money keeping old, inefficient coal plants running. For comparison purposes, this sum is nearly triple the utilities’ investment in windpower facilities during the same period. Customers have seen the real and substantial impact of these coal plant costs through rising electricity rates over the past several years. These costs are in addition to the more than $700 million (exclusive of transportation costs) we send out of state each year to pay for the coal to fuel these aging plants. Reliance on dirty, antiquated coal plants leaves Wisconsin in a vulnerable position, unable to predict or control energy costs.

Unlike coal, clean resources like biogas, wind and solar will produce energy throughout their productive lives without requiring costly pollution abatement measures. Going forward, the more renewable energy we add to Wisconsin’s energy resource mix, the less exposed we will be to these downstream liabilities. The avoidance of these regulatory risks is another compelling reason for passing the Clean Energy Jobs Act legislation in this session.

Coal Plant Retrofit Costs (1999-2009)
(in Millions of Dollars)

Energy independence goal for UW-Green Bay, 3 other UW campuses not practical

From an Associated Press article by Ryan J. Foley in the Green Bay Press Gazette:

MADISON — Gov. Jim Doyle has backed off a campaign promise that the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and three other UW campuses will be energy independent by 2012 after determining it was not practical as proposed.

Weeks before he was re-elected in 2006, Doyle said campuses would “go off the grid” by becoming the first state agencies to purchase or produce as much energy from renewable sources as they consume. He said they would achieve that by replacing fossil fuels with cleaner energy sources like solar, wind and biomass.

The goal has since been changed to require the campuses to sharply reduce their carbon dioxide emissions, instead of ending them altogether or going off the grid entirely, by 2012. The change came into public view this month during a Board of Regents meeting.

Some university officials say the original plan never made much sense because “going off the grid” would have required them to start producing their own electricity instead of buying it from utilities, which was not feasible or cost-effective.

At the same time, they credit the challenge with spurring them to conserve energy, study alternative fuels, and purchase more renewable sources from the utilities that provide their electricity.

Doyle told reporters Wednesday his original vision may have been unrealistic because of the challenges associated with producing energy on campuses, but the program would still motivate students and university employees to reduce pollution

Geologists: Energy's future in for big change

From an article by Joe Knight in the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram:

"This is the age of oil, but the age of oil is about to end," said Lori Snyder of UW-Eau Claire's geology department.

In 1950, the U.S. did not import any oil. Today, we still like our cars, and we have to import 60 percent of the oil we use to support our driving habit, she said.

Vehicles may have gotten a smaller and more fuel efficient since the 1950s, but our appetite for energy - the majority of it coming from fossil fuels - is huge. Today the average American uses three times the amount of energy we used in 1950, Snyder said.

Snyder and J. Brian Mahoney, also of the geology department, discussed the future of fossil fuels and energy Tuesday night for an "Ask A Scientist" program at UW-Eau Claire.

An audience of mixed ages attended, and many asked questions of the scientists, but the answers they received painted a less-than-reassuring picture of our energy future.

Fossil fuel basically is solar energy trapped by plants and bugs - sometimes millions of years ago - that never completely decomposed. We have extracted the fuels and used it to power our cars, heat our homes and generate our electricity, but supplies are becoming scarce, the geologists said.

Oil supplies in the U.S. peaked in the 1970s, Mahoney said. World supplies of oil that is readily accessible are peaking now, he said.

There are some alternative sources of oil, such as sand tars in Alberta, Canada, which are being mined, but they require a substantial amount of energy to extract and are costly to the environment, Mahoney said.

We still have an abundance of coal in the U.S. - enough to meet our electrical needs for 200 to 250 years, Snyder said. Unfortunately, coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel for emissions. We're already altering the composition of the atmosphere, and continuing at the current rate or increasing emissions brings about more questions about climate change and what life on Earth might be like in 100 years, Mahoney said.

"It's taking us to a place we don't really understand," he said.

Two showings set for Coal Country documentary video

An announcement from the Sierra Club's campaign Moving Wisconsin Beyond Coal:

Fond du Lac, WI
Hosts: Thomas and Karen S.
When: 7:00 PM, November 13, 2009
We will view this video and discuss it's implications and talk about actions we can take. Click here for more details.

Appleton
Host: Kristine B.
When: 6:30 PM, November 14, 2009
This will be a relaxed viewing. If you wish to bring a snack to share feel free. There is parking in back plus the eventis on the busline! Click here for more details.

Coal Country is a stunning new documentary that reveals the devastation of mountaintop-removal coal mining to the forests, streams, and communities of Appalachia. Produced by Mari-Lynn Evans and Phylis Geller, Coal Country brings us inside the lives of Appalachian residents who are directly threatened by mountaintop-removal, a destructive mining practice where mountaintops are blasted away to expose the coal; the waste is then dumped in the waterways of nearby communities. As it takes us through each stage of coal mining and processing, Coal Country reveals the shocking true cost of America's over-reliance on coal.

The State of Wisconsin owns 15 coal plants across Wisconsin - including eight UW campuses and three health facilities. Governor Doyle agreed to clean up two in Madison.

Wisconsin's State-Owned Coal Plants
1.Capitol Heat & Power (Madison)*
2.Hill Farms (Madison)
3.Mendota Health Institute (Madison)
4.Northern Wisconsin Center (Chippewa Falls)
5.UW-Eau Claire
6.UW-LaCrosse
7.UW-Madison*
8.UW-Oshkosh
9.UW-Platteville
10.UW-River Falls
11.UW-Stevens Point
12.UW-Stout
13.UW-Superior
14.Waupun Correctional Institution
15.Winnebago Mental Health Institute (Oshkosh)
*Governor Doyle committed these facilities to burn biomass and natural gas instead of coal.

The cost of clean air

From an article by Mike Ivey in The Capital Times:

For more than a decade, customers at Madison Gas & Electric have voted with their pocketbooks for cleaner energy.

Under the voluntary "Green Power Tomorrow" program, more than 12,000 MGE customers - nearly 10 percent of its total customer base - pay on average a premium of about $6 per month to get their electricity from such nonpolluting sources as wind.

"It's been a very reasonable way to reduce our carbon footprint," says Tom Yager, 37, a stay-at-home father of two who lives in Seminole Forest. "It's also helped us track how much electricity we're using and find ways to cut back."

MGE's program has been so successful, in fact, that the company was recently honored by the U.S. Department of Energy with its Utility Green Power Program of the Year Award.

But the bigger question facing all utility customers across Wisconsin is whether they are willing to pay more for their electricity - by some accounts 30 percent more - in the name of saving the planet. Proposed federal rules aimed at curbing such greenhouse gas emissions as carbon dioxide (CO2) would fall most heavily on such states as Wisconsin that rely on fossil fuels to generate most of their
electricity. . . .

And with the state economy already struggling with manufacturing job losses, [Scott Manley, who heads environmental programs for Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state's largest business lobbying group,] is concerned that additional mandates or tougher limits on emissions will further hamstring business efforts. He estimates it could cost $15 billion to reach the 25 percent renewable goal within the next 15 years.

"The fact is, these things are not free, they are tremendously expensive," he says.

WMC has even come out with a survey showing that while Wisconsin residents are concerned about global warming and clean energy, most aren't ready to pay more to address it. The survey of likely voters found that 73 percent are opposed to any increased fees on utility bills to pay for energy conservation. Those polled were, by a 3-1 margin, also against paying as little as $25 a month to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

But clean energy advocates say this is exactly the time to be pushing energy alternatives.

They point to a competing survey from the Forest County Potawatomi showing widespread support for reductions in greenhouse gases like CO2. The poll found support for climate change legislation crossing party lines, with 53 percent of Republicans, 67 percent of independents and 87 percent of Democrats favoring action at the state level.

Michael Vickerman, executive director of Renew Wisconsin, thinks the state should set ambitious goals and send a signal it's serious about wind, solar and other clean energy alternatives.

"Even if we reach 10 percent (renewables) by 2015 it doesn't mean you just stop there," he says.

To that end, Gov. Doyle last month signed legislation to allow uniform rules for the development of small wind farms. Vickerman calls it the most significant piece of clean energy legislation ever passed in Wisconsin, crediting WMC for helping to make it happen. "They really helped us line up Republican votes, otherwise I don't think it would have passed," says Vickerman.

The new law requires the PSC to issue standardized rules for the entire state. Local units of government would then apply these standards as they consider small wind farms of under 100 megawatts.

Vickerman is optimistic that wind power will continue to gain support in the state. He says a project to watch is the proposed Glacier Hills wind project in Columbia County from We Energies that would add 90 turbines producing up to 162 megawatts of electricity.

While Wisconsin doesn't have the ideal landscape for wind power as does Minnesota, Vickerman says that's no reason to stand pat.

"Our wind resources are robust enough," he says. "If we were fully committed, we could accommodate another 1,000 megawatts."

RENEW's winter newsletter goes online

The Wisconsin Renewable Quarterly, RENEW Wisconsin's newsletter, features these articles:

+ Rest in Peace: Cassville Coal Plant
+ Mississippi River Bird and Bat Study
+ Osceola School Heats Pools with Solar
+ Bob Ramlow: Solar Pioneer
+ Focus on Energy Issues Biogas Profiles
+ Focus on Energy Earns National Honor
+ State Plugs into Renewable Energy

Brown County's air among worst in U.S.

From an article by Tony Walter in the Green Bay Press-Gazette:

The health of the air in Brown County ranks among the worst in the United States, according to a recently released study of fine particle pollution by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Brown County is one of 54 new counties that received a negative designation based on three successive years of being graded below the federal government's soot standards. In all, 211 counties did not meet the EPA's standards.

"It's no surprise to us," said Richard Wulk, air management supervisor for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources' Northeast Region. "It's from fuel combustion, cars, diesel trucks and power plants that burn coal. They produce small particles that can create deep lung irritants and that can cause problems."

It's a health issue that has continued to fly under the radar in the county, according to Dr. Manar Alshahrouri, a pulmonologist with the Sleep & Respiratory Care Department at the Prevea Allouez Health Center.

"Absolutely, it's a problem," Alshahrouri said. "There is medical data that supports the fact that across the board there is an increase in incidence of problems and a significant reduction in lung function (in counties graded poorly) compared to people in less polluted areas."

Utility wants to spend $153 million on pollution controls at Sheboygan plant

From an article by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Pollution controls would be installed at a 23-year-old coal-fired power plant in Sheboygan at a cost of $153 million under an application filed with state regulators Friday by Alliant Energy Corp.

Wisconsin Power & Light Co., a subsidiary of Alliant, is seeking permission from the state Public Service Commission to install pollution controls that would reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide by 75%, the utility said.

The Edgewater 5 power plant along Lake Michigan in Sheboygan is a jointly owned plant, with Alliant owning 75% and the remainder owned by We Energies of Milwaukee. That means that if the project is approved, WP&L electric customers would pay $115 million and We Energies customers would pay $38 million for the project.

The project has a six-year payback period and would keep the coal plant that opened in 1985 open for another 45 years, WP&L said. If the PSC approves the work, the project would be completed by 2011.

The filing comes days after the Public Service Commission denied an Alliant request to build a new coal-fired power plant in Cassville in southwestern Wisconsin at a cost of nearly $1.3 billion.

Nitrogen oxide is a contributor to ground-level ozone, a contributor to smog that has been linked to asthma and other respiratory problems, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Energy future clearly not in coal

From an editorial in the Sheboygan Press:

The Wisconsin Public Service Commission sent a clear message last week that coal-fired power plants will probably not be a big part of Wisconsin's energy future.

Alliant, which provides electricity for much of Sheboygan County through Wisconsin Power and Light, lost its bid for a 300-megawatt plant near Cassville in southwestern Wisconsin. The 3-0 negative vote showed that the PSC is clearly concerned about the effect carbon emissions have on the environment, specifically global warming.

Eric Callisto, PSC chairman, said, "We are at a unique juncture in this country, and in Wisconsin, and decisions regarding new sources of electric generation need to account for the likely future costs of complying with constraints on carbon emissions."

This follows the lead set by Gov. Jim Doyle.

The governor's Task Force on Global Warming recommended reduction of carbon emissions and increased reliance on renewable power. Doyle himself came out against using coal at state-owned heating plants in Madison, saying, "We must chart a course that lowers greenhouse gas emissions and encourages new alternative energy sources."

To its credit, Alliant is already pursuing some of those new sources of electric generation in its wind power projects. The company also planned to use biomass as a partial fuel source for the Cassville plant: 80 percent coal and 20 percent switch grass, wood chips and cornstalks.

But that failed to sway the commission.

Nor apparently was the PSC influenced by Alliant's plans to close down the oldest coal-fired plant in the state, Unit 3 at the Edgewater Generating Station here in Sheboygan. Though this would reduce greenhouse gasses by about 500,000 tons a year — and make the air cleaner in Sheboygan — the Cassville plant would produce about 3 million tons. Opponents of the Cassville project were quick to cite this net gain in greenhouse gas production.

We endorsed the plan for Cassville last summer, in part because it meant cleaner air here with the closing of Edgewater's Unit 3, and because of the commitment to the use of fuel sources other than coal or natural gas. Those were and still are laudable goals. And we hope Alliant and other energy producers continue to pursue them. . . .