RENEW Wisconsin Media Center

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

2011-12-08T14:11:00.001-06:00

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 --

2011-11-08T12:42:00.000-06:00

Click on a link below to find the document you wish to view.
News Releases
Commentaries
Newsletters
Presentations
Public Service Commission Testimony & Filings
Photos
Testimony - Legislative & local
Solar hot water - Installation profiles
Letters to the editor
Catching Wind, reporting on news, events and policies affecting commercial wind energy development in Wisconsin.

Facts on wind installations trump myths

2011-11-08T12:36:00.001-06:00

Michael Vickerman's letter-to-the-editor of the Racine Journal Times:

Dear Editor:

In his November 3rd letter opposing S.C. Johnson’s proposed wind development in Mt. Pleasant, Tom Joy rattles off a number of myths about wind turbines that populate the Internet. However, the facts on the ground paint a very different picture of wind generation than what Mr. Joy represents.

First, there is no medically credible study out there that concludes or suggests that wind generation is a threat to human health. According to Dr. Jevon McFadden, a public health professional serving on Wisconsin’s Wind Siting Council, “Evidence does not support the conclusion that wind turbines cause or are associated with adverse health outcomes.”

If the experience elsewhere in Wisconsin is any guide, the proposed wind turbines will have no discernible effect on neighboring property values. But don’t just take RENEW’s word for it. Ask any and all assessors in townships that host large wind turbines, and to a person they will confirm that finding. Moreover, in Kewaunee County, home to the oldest commercial wind projects in Wisconsin, new homes are going up within sight of the 31 turbines operating there.

S.C. Johnson’s proposed project has been carefully designed to meet the strict performance standards specified in Wisconsin’s wind siting rule. We have little doubt that this project, once placed in service, will very quickly become a source of pride for the surrounding community.

Sincerely,

Michael Vickerman
Executive Director
RENEW Wisconsin

RENEW puts solar hot water on the Wisconsin map

2011-10-17T12:00:00.000-05:00

Immediate release
October 13, 2011

More information
Michael Vickerman
Executive Director
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

From the North Woods to the Illinois border, from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River, growing numbers of Wisconsin factories, businesses, schools, hospitals, fire stations, apartment buildings and breweries have installed systems that heat their water with the power of the sun.

A newly launched online map on RENEW Wisconsin’s web site displays the locations of more than 60 nonresidential solar hot water systems installed in the state. Each flagged system is accompanied by a box containing information on the owner, installation contractor, system size and date of installation. Many of these systems are linked to their installers’ web sites, accompanied by photos.

The solar hot water map joins the family of on-line renewable energy maps developed by RENEW Wisconsin in the past year. Some maps are resource-specific; others break out renewable energy systems by county.

“These maps verify the enormously positive effect that Wisconsin’s clean energy initiatives like Focus on Energy have had in creating such a vibrant economic sector,” said RENEW executive director Michael Vickerman.

Created in 1999 and strengthened in 2006, Focus on Energy is a ratepayer-funded initiative that helps Wisconsin residents and businesses employ energy efficiency measures and install renewable energy systems.

“In the past five years, Focus on Energy incentives have been instrumental in putting solar hot water on the map in Wisconsin,” Vickerman said. “No other Midwestern state has come close to experiencing Wisconsin’s success in advancing this particular application of solar energy.”

The table below shows the five largest solar hot water installations operating in Wisconsin, two are located at University of Wisconsin campuses.

Owner: UW-Oshkosh
Installer: H&H Solar, Green Sky Energetics
County: Winnebago
Capacity: 6,800 square feet (total)
Year installed: 2010, 2011

Kalahari Resorts
Terrytown Plumbing/H&H Solar
Sauk
4,160
2007

Menomonie Indian Tribe
Energy Concepts
Menomonie
2,600
2010

UW-Stevens Point
Hooper Corp./ Pertzborn Plumbing
Portage
2,240 (total)
2011

Avis Rent-a-Car (multiple locations)
Mitchell’s Heating & Cooling
Outagamie
2,160 (total)
2007

Milwaukee-based Hot Water Products, one of the largest stocking distributors for solar thermal and domestic hot water systems in the Midwest, supplied and designed four of these systems and many others in Wisconsin over the last five years. In addition to training contractors in this field, Hot Water Products also assists them with system design and equipment sizing support.

This year, installation activity has been brisk, but most installation contractors are bracing for a sharp slowdown in 2012, due to a Focus on Energy decision on July 1st to suspend renewable energy grants and incentives to nonresidential customers. The announcement of the funding suspension came after the Legislature voted in June to lop $20 million from Focus on Energy’s 2012 budget.

“The longer Focus on Energy’s funding suspension goes on, the deeper the damage will be. Installers are holding their breath as they wait for Focus on Energy to restore renewable energy funding assistance.”

Installers and system owners wishing to add their installations to the map should contact Alex Brasch at brasch@renewwisconsin.org.

Renewable Energy in Wisconsin: Anatomy of a Long, Strange Trip and Where We’re Headed Next

2011-10-17T11:42:00.002-05:00

From a presentation by Michael Vickerman to Sierra Club – Great Waters Group in Milwaukee, WI on October 17, 2011:

The most agonizing decisions that await us will involve determining which elements of our built environment can be supported with renewable energy and which elements cannot. With a lower EROEI (energy return on energy invested), we will not be able to run a world that formerly ran on cheap, abundant fossil fuels. We have little choice but to downsize our buildings, downscale our communities, and reorganize the economy.

[The large file may take a minute or two to download.]

Montfort wind farm marks 10th anniversary

2011-09-28T10:23:00.003-05:00

News release
Renew Wisconsin
September 27,2011

More information:
Michael Vickerman
Executive Director
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

The Montfort Wind Energy Center, a popular attraction in western Iowa County along U.S. Highway 18, turned 10 years old this summer. The 30-megawatt (MW) project, which for many years was Wisconsin’s largest commercial wind energy installation, began generating electricity in 2001, and thus far has produced over 500,000 megawatt-hours of electricity. In a typical year, Montfort’s output serves more than 5,000 households.

The project’s 20 turbines are divided into two arrays. The main array, consisting of 17 turbines, runs along the southern side of U.S. 18 between Cobb and Montfort. The output from those 17 turbines is sold to Milwaukee-based We Energies. The other three turbines, located to the south of the main array, produce electricity under contract to Alliant Energy’s Wisconsin Power & Light subsidiary, whose service territory covers Iowa County.

Originally developed by Enron Wind, the Montfort project was purchased in 2001 by NextEra Energy Resources, a Juno Beach, Florida-based company. Residents of Cobb and Montfort have been strongly supportive of this project. “Montfort has a gas station called Windmill Mobil,” said Carol Anderson, a project landowner. “Most commonly, I hear people ask ‘When we’re going to get more’?” Just east of the Windmill Mobil, an informational kiosk on the project stands prominently in front of the Tower Junction restaurant, located directly across the highway from Montfort’s westernmost turbines.

Carol Anderson holds a map of Wisconsin to show a group the topography with the best wind resource for projects similar to the Montfort Wind Farm.

“People are also surprised at how quiet the turbines are,” Anderson said. “Some family members still live in our homestead only 2,000 feet from the turbines, and they don’t have any problems with noise or anything else.

This project has brought economic development to Iowa County,” Anderson said. “Conservation is a big value in this area. All of us appreciate the conservation aspects of the clean energy.” Montfort is not the first Wisconsin wind project to complete 10 years of continuous operation. Others include the Rosiere and Lincoln projects in Kewaunee County, totaling 31 turbines, and the two-turbine Byron project south of Fond du Lac along U.S. Highway 41.

“Wind generation is proving to be a reliable source of clean energy over the long haul,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide organization promoting Wisconsin’s renewable energy marketplace. “Furthermore, unlike coal-fired generators, wind projects will never need expensive retrofits to comply with federal clean air regulations because they don’t produce particulates, sulfur compounds or greenhouse gases.”

“Wisconsin utilities are now in the process of spending more than a billion dollars to clean up their older coal-fired power stations,” Vickerman said. “This is a considerable expense that utility ratepayers will fully absorb. By contrast, Montfort’s owner will never have to spend a dime on pollution control technology over its entire operating life.”

“When you add the cost of retrofitting older coal-fired units to the cost of supplying these generators with fuel transported from Wyoming, windpower is hands down the better economic choice,” Vickerman said.

In addition to Montfort, NextEra Energy Resources also owns and operates the 36-turbine, 54 MW Butler Ridge project near Iron Ridge in Dodge County. That project started commercial operations in 2009.

RENEW asks PSC to stop We Energies' termination of renewable program

2011-08-23T13:53:00.002-05:00

From the testimony of RENEW presented by Michael Vickerman, who draws attention to the fact that We Energies is trying to defund its $6 million/year renewable energy development program without any justification. In fact We Energies doesn't say anything about their actions. RENEW asks the PSC not to sanction this sleight of hand maneuver:

Q. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A. The purpose of my testimony is to discuss the May 2011 decision by We Energies to cancel a 10-year, $60 million commitment to support renewable energy development in its service territory. [***BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL***] [***END CONFIDENTIAL***] (Exhibit __ (MJV-1)).

My testimony includes a recommendation to the Commission that it not allow We Energies to reallocate in 2012 the $6 million per year it had committed to spend on renewable energy development activities for other purposes. [***BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL***] [***END CONFIDENTIAL***]

Q. What is RENEW’s interest in this proceeding?
A. [***BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL***][***END CONFIDENTIAL***] RENEW is also a founding member of the We Energies Renewable Energy Collaborative (“WEREC”), the stakeholder body that has helped We Energies to achieve its voluntary renewable energy goal (5% by 2011) and maximize the value of its 10-year commitment to build, largely from scratch, a strong renewable energy infrastructure within its service territory. The collaborative, consisting of Midwest Renewable Energy Association, Citizens Utility Board, American Wind Energy Association, Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corporation, Customers First Coalition, and the 16th Street Community Health Center, has been working since 2002 to shape and guide We Energies’ renewable energy program. I think I can speak for all of the nonprofits in the collaborative when I say that our combined efforts and resources produced the strongest and most innovative utility-run renewable energy program in the state. Until We Energies announced its decision to terminate it, the program it had developed was widely regarded as one of the most successful utility-administered renewable energy initiatives in the nation.

Q. What was the basis of We Energies’ $6 million per year commitment to renewable energy?
A. I will quote from Jeff Anthony, who, as a We Energies manager in 2005, submitted testimony in the utility’s 2005 rate case (Docket No. 05-UR-102) providing details regarding We Energies’ request to recover $6 million per year in costs associated with planned renewable energy development activities:

In its first “Power the Future” filing in early 2002, [We Energies] made several commitments to renewable energy. Among those commitments was that, subject to regulatory approval and cost recovery, the Company would spend an additional $6 million per year to achieve a target of 5 percent of Wisconsin retail load served by the year 2011. With reference to this commitment, the PSCW in its November 10, 2003, Order in the “Power the Future” docket, stated: “As part of the PTF proposal, WEPCO has committed to a goal of obtaining 5 percent of its energy from renewable resources by 2011. This is more than twice the renewable portfolio standard set forth under Wis. Stats. § 196.378, which requires that at least 2.2 percent of each electric provider’s retail energy must be from renewable energy resources by this date. WEC has also declared its intent to spend up to $6 million per year for ten years on emerging technologies and activities, to encourage the development of renewable resources.

Q. We Energies launched its Renewable Energy Development program in 2002. Why did the utility wait until 2006 to begin spending $6 million per year on the program?
A. As a condition of its WICOR merger, the Commission imposed a five-year rate freeze on We Energies that expired on January 1, 2006.

Q. Did We Energies receive approval on its request to recover $6 million for renewable energy development costs?
A. Yes, it did. It also received approval from the Commission in 2007 to spend $6 million per year on its renewable energy development program in 2008 and 2009, and it also received approval in 2009 to spend $6 million per year on its renewable energy development program in 2010 and 2011. All told, We Energies has sought and received permission to spend up to $36 million on the renewable energy program it has developed in consultation with WEREC.

Q. Did We Energies produce a “Renewable Energy Development” program plan for the PSC’s review?
A. Yes. In 2006, We Energies created a fully fleshed-out program plan and presented it to the PSC that September, building on the summary table it had submitted in the previous rate case. The program plan contained a diverse portfolio of renewable energy projects and initiatives. We Energies also committed to hiring an outside firm to perform an independent assessment of all of the elements and initiatives set forth in the Renewable Energy Development program plan.

Q. What elements of We Energies’ Renewable Energy Development program do you consider to be particularly successful?
A. Several of We Energies’ customer incentives and tariffs were unique in the way they complemented Focus on Energy’s renewable energy program. For example, We Energies was the first utility to: (1) offer a solar energy-specific buyback rate; (2) increase the net energy billing capacity ceiling for small wind systems generators to 100 kW; and (3) support renewable energy-specific conferences and events such as Solar Decade held in Milwaukee. Perhaps the most innovative element in We Energies’ program, however, was its special incentive for nonprofit customers seeking to install renewable energy systems. Every three months, We Energies would solicit proposals from schools, religious institutions, local governments, nature centers and other nonprofit entities to co-fund new renewable energy systems on their premises. This We Energies incentive supplemented Focus on Energy grants and cash-back awards. It was designed to overcome the inability of these nonprofit entities to capture federal renewable energy tax credits to offset their own system acquisition costs. As a result of this unique incentive, there are more renewable energy systems serving nonprofit customers in We Energies territory than in any other utility territory. This initiative has an educational component to it as well; We Energies posts real-time production data from these systems on its web site. (Exhibit __ (MJV-2)).

We Energies was also the first Wisconsin utility to field a large solar initiative which supported a total of one megawatt of photovoltaic generating capacity on seven customer rooftops. All told, We Energies’ support of solar energy, including solar hot water systems, helped foster the convergence of a solar industry cluster in southeast Wisconsin consisting of such companies as Helios USA, Johnson Controls, Caleffi Solar, Hot Water Products, and Sunvest.

Q. In what other ways did We Energies’ program benefit ratepayers?
A. We Energies has a number of renewable energy systems 10 kW and above that are interconnected to its distribution system. (Exhibit __ (MJV-3)). Depending on the specific tariff through which We Energies acquires the generation, many of these installations, including most if not all of the biogas generation facilities in its service territory, are a source of Renewable Energy Credits, that, beginning in 2012, can be banked to help the utility meet its 2015 target under Wisconsin’s Renewable Energy Standard. That supply cushion could become very valuable to We Energies if an extended interruption occurs with a major supply source of renewable electricity. Also, the preponderance of solar PV systems in We Energies territory was a contributing factor enabling We Energies to weather July’s heat waves without setting a new record for system-wide peak demand.

Q. Did RENEW have any advance knowledge of We Energies’ unilateral decision to prematurely terminate its Renewable Energy Program?
A. At WEREC’s May 11, 2011 meeting, We Energies representatives disclosed to the collaborative the company’s internal decision to unilaterally and prematurely terminate the program. There had been no discussion of such an outcome between We Energies and any of the other collaborative members prior to the meeting. We Energies’ representatives assured us that the decision was final and irrevocable. Indeed, by the time We Energies got around to dropping this particular bombshell on WEREC participants, program termination was already a fait accompli. One day later, an announcement on the termination appeared on We Energies’ web site.

Q. Has We Energies provided any information to the Commission explaining its unilateral decision to prematurely terminate its program?
A. No, it has not. We Energies has yet to offer an explanation for its decision in this proceeding. In fact, We Energies is not explicitly asking for permission to discontinue funding for this initiative at this time. Instead, the program’s suspension is merely assumed within its proposed suspension of certain regulatory amortizations for 2012. This suspension for the test year would appear to set the stage for termination of the program pursuant to Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 137.

Q. Why should the Commission reject We Energies’ decision to prematurely and unilaterally terminate its Renewable Energy Development program?
A. There are several persuasive reasons for not sanctioning We Energies’ decision to unilaterally and prematurely terminate its Renewable Energy Development program. One, this proceeding, to date, is devoid of any justification by We Energies for this abrupt change of course. Two, the Commission has in three previous rate cases approved the $6 million per year earmarked for supporting renewable energy development activities. Nothing has happened between the most recent approval of funds for this initiative and today that warrant a lesser amount of funding for this initiative, let alone its outright termination. [***BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL***][***END CONFIDENTIAL***] In other words, there is a trust issue here that should not be summarily dismissed.

Five, the Commission staff audit in this proceeding revealed excess revenue for the test year of more than $85.8 million under the proposal submitted by WEPCO compared with adjustments proposed by Commission staff. “In other words, these proposed adjustments indicate that applicants are proposing to defer $85.8 million more than is necessary to achieve no change in base rates.” Accordingly, there is no valid basis for We Energies to contend that it must terminate or suspend its renewable energy program with a relatively small annual budget of $6 million. We Energies could cover program costs 14 times over with its revenue surplus. Six, this initiative is an important source of renewable energy development and innovation throughout We Energies’ service territory, providing support for customer-sited renewable energy installations, conferences, workshops, research and development activities, demonstration projects, and advanced renewable buyback rates. Although the accomplishments of this program over the past five years are a good start, there is still much to be achieved. Termination of this program would be a severe blow to area contractors, businesses, and manufacturers that invested in new production capacity and expanded their workforce in direct response to the favorable climate for renewable energy that We Energies had created in its service territory. Allowing We Energies to abruptly terminate its renewable energy initiative without cause would send a strong signal to these businesses and other prospective market actors that they should focus their renewable energy development work in out-of-state markets, where policy commitments are durable enough to survive the whims of utility managers.

Q. Does this complete your direct testimony?
A. Yes it does.

Statement of Michael Vickerman on Alliant's Iowa Wind Project

2011-08-08T11:33:00.003-05:00

Immediate release
August 8, 2011

More information
Michael Vickerman
Executive Director
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Statement of Michael Vickerman
Executive Director – RENEW Wisconsin on
Alliant’s Iowa Wind Energy Project

Alliant Energy, parent company of Wisconsin Power and Light, disclosed its intention last week to build a 100-megawatt wind energy facility in Franklin County, Iowa, and place it in service before December 2012. For the moment at least, the costs of this investment will not be borne by Alliant’s Iowa or Wisconsin ratepayers, but rather the parent company’s shareholders.

Moving forward now on this project locks in the favorable pricing terms for the wind turbines that Alliant had negotiated several years ago with Vestas, a Danish turbine manufacturer with a plant in Colorado.

We at RENEW support Alliant’s renewable energy venture so long as it operates as either a merchant plant, selling the electricity into the Midwest wholesale market, or a dedicated source of renewable electricity serving Alliant’s Iowa ratepayers.

However, RENEW firmly believes that utility-owned generating assets should be located in the same state where the ratepayers who are underwriting the project reside. In other words, if there comes a time when Alliant needs a new wind project to meet its Wisconsin renewable energy requirements, it should either build that installation in Wisconsin or purchase electricity from a new nonutility-owned installation located in Wisconsin.

There is a fully permitted wind project in Alliant’s Wisconsin territory that is ready to serve Wisconsin Power and Light customers. Located in Lafayette County, the Quilt Block project, developed by EDP Renewables, an independent wind developer, is licensed to be a 99-megawatt facility that could be operational before the end of 2012. The economic benefits to Lafayette County and Wisconsin as a whole from pursuing local wind projects like Quilt Block far exceed what can be obtained from more distant sources of renewable electricity.

END

RENEW Debuts Wisconsin Renewable Energy Map

2011-07-26T11:08:00.002-05:00

For immediate release

More information
Joe Friesen, Communications Assistant
608.819.0748
jfriesen@renewwisconsin.org

RENEW Debuts Wisconsin Renewable Energy Map

Volunteer Joe Friesen started a “simple” task to organize basic information on Wisconsin’s wind farms. This task grew over time to become a database and map that documents the location of nearly every renewable energy generating system in the state. Highlighting over 1,300 installations that total more than 700 megawatts of renewable electricity, RENEW Wisconsin’s database has become the most comprehensive on-line compilation of in-state renewable energy systems.

Installations depicted on this on-line tool range from small customer-owned solar electric systems to the 162 MW Glacier Hills wind farm in Columbia County, the largest renewable energy installation in Wisconsin. The database also includes a county by county breakdown.

“The real power of this database is the ability to visually represent the data across Wisconsin,” said Friesen. “Being able to see the distribution of renewable energy systems from Racine to Ashland shows that these are proven technologies that play a critical role in Wisconsin’s energy mix.”

When Glacier Hills comes online this December, the combined output from Wisconsin’s commercial-scale wind farms will produce the equivalent energy needed to power 175,000 residences.

At 1,200 installations, more than 90% of RENEW’s database is comprised of solar electric systems placed on homes, churches, businesses and schools.

“The steady growth of small-scale renewables here is attributable to the state’s previous commitment to build a vibrant renewable energy marketplace,” Friesen said. “Unfortunately, the policies adopted years ago to accomplish that objective are now under attack from the Legislature and certain utilities. This is certain to result in a dramatic slowdown of renewable energy installation activity.”

“Legislators needn’t look any further than their own districts to see examples of renewable energy systems creating local jobs and contributing to Wisconsin’s energy security” Friesen said.

Individuals interested in helping should send details about their renewable energy installations to Joe Friesen. Pertinent details include: system capacity, name of installer, year of installation, and zip code of installation.

Joe Friesen’s volunteer work with RENEW is made possible through a program called Mennonite Voluntary Service. MVS is a nationwide program which seeks to match dedicated volunteers with deserving nonprofit organizations at a fraction of the cost of a normal full-time employee.

--END--

RENEW Wisconsin is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives. More information on RENEW’s Web site at www.renewwisconsin.org.

National Study Vindicates Wisconsin’s Clean Energy Policies

2011-07-18T13:34:00.002-05:00

Immediate release
July 18, 2011

More information
Michael Vickerman
Executive Director
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

National Study Vindicates Wisconsin’s Clean Energy Policies

Nearly a decade of forward-looking strategies propelled investments in Wisconsin’s clean jobs economy above other Midwest states, according to an economic study issued by The Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan public policy organization in Washington, D.C.

Reviewing data gathered between 2003 and 2010, the Brookings analysis pegged the number of clean economy jobs in the state at 76,858, a net increase of nearly 4,000. Measured as a percentage, Wisconsin’s clean economy accounted for 2.7% of all jobs in the state, compared with 2.5% for Iowa, 2.1% for Minnesota, 1.9 % for both Indiana and Michigan, and 1.8% for Illinois. Overall, Wisconsin ranked 8th among all states and the District of Columbia in the relative size of its clean economy.

The report categorizes clean economy jobs as those in energy efficiency and renewable energy; sustainable forestry products; recycling and reuse; waste management and treatment; organic food and farming; energy efficient appliance and building manufacturing; and more.

“Clearly, Wisconsin’s commitment to clean energy has paid dividends, attracting new businesses and creating high-paying jobs that could have easily gone elsewhere,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide organization advocating for public policies and private initiatives that advance renewable energy.

These policies and initiatives include the establishment of Focus on Energy, the region’s first ratepayer-funded energy efficiency and renewable energy program, attractive buyback rates offered by utilities for renewable energy, and innovative incentives to encourage customer installation of renewables.

In addition, Wisconsin’s adoption of a 10% renewable energy standard back in 2006 spurred new utility-scale installations built by skilled tradesmen employed by local contractors. During the study period, the number of wind-related jobs in Wisconsin doubled from less than 450 to 900.

As documented in the Brookings report, the wages for these clean economy jobs run higher than the statewide average ($37,931 vs. $35,906).

“Unfortunately, Wisconsin’s clean economy is in danger of losing a good deal of its steam as a result of policy rollbacks and funding cutbacks in the renewable energy arena,” Vickerman said. “The short-sighted attacks we’ve seen in 2011 could throw the state’s clean economy into reverse next year.”

So far this year, the Legislature has reduced funding for Focus on Energy, suspended the statewide rule regulating the permitting of wind turbines, and weakened the state’s renewable energy standard by allowing utilities to count Canadian hydropower toward their requirements.

“On top of that, We Energies, the state’s largest utility, announced that it will discontinue what had been an effective renewable energy initiative,” Vickerman said. “Among other accomplishments, it was instrumental in enabling Helios USA to build a solar-electric manufacturing facility in Milwaukee’s Menomonee River Valley.” The plant now employs 50 workers.

END

Wisconsin’s Widening War on Renewable Energy

2011-07-11T14:08:00.002-05:00

Dramatic Slowdown in Market Activity Anticipated
By Michael Vickerman
July 11, 2011

What started out as an opening salvo from the Walker Administration to shackle large-scale wind projects has in six months turned into a systematic campaign to dismantle the state policies that support renewable energy development. Joining the executive and legislative branches in pursuing policy rollbacks and/or funding cutbacks against renewables are various utilities and, surprisingly, Focus on Energy, Wisconsin’s ratepayer-funded energy efficiency and renewable programs.

Since January 1st, Wisconsin has seen a series of assaults against utility-scale projects and smaller renewable systems serving both residences and businesses. These include the following actions:

The Legislature suspended PSC 128, the statewide rule developed by the Public Service Commission last year in response to a law passed by the Legislature in 2009 ordering the agency to establish uniform standards for permitting wind energy systems. Since the March 1 suspension vote, wind development in Wisconsin has slowed to a standstill.
The Legislature adopted SB 81, a bill that RENEW Wisconsin describes as the “Outsource Renewable Energy to Canada Act.” SB 81 allows Wisconsin utilities to meet their renewable energy requirements beginning in 2015 with electricity generated from large hydropower plants in other states and Canada. By allowing Wisconsin utilities to become even more dependent on energy imports than they are today, SB 81 turns Wisconsin’s Renewable Energy Standard on its head. Importing large-scale hydropower exports the very dollars that could have been used to harness Wisconsin’s renewable energy resources.
We Energies, the state’s largest electric utility, abruptly decided in May to walk away from an agreement with RENEW to dedicate $60 million over a 10-year period in support of renewable energy development in its territory. The decision came in the sixth year of this program. We Energies plans to reallocate the unspent dollars (totaling about $27 million) to general operations.
Green Bay-based Wisconsin Public Service (WPS) instituted in April a new net energy policy designed to discourage new customer-sited renewable energy systems. Until recently WPS had been paying its customers the full retail rate for electricity that flows back on the wires, which is now about 12 cents/kWh. But under the new rate, WPS only pays three cents/kWh for electricity exported to the grid. Moreover, the utility calculates the net each month, which penalizes customers whose loads vary significantly depending on seasonal factors. Right now, the new policy only covers systems installed after March 2011, but WPS has said that it plans to apply that rate to older systems effective January 2013.
In its deliberations on the biennial state budget passed in June, the Legislature appended a rider to tie Focus on Energy’s annual budget to a percentage (1.2% of gross utility revenues). This action will mean a cut of $20 million in the program’s 2012 budget relative to this year’s allocation of $120 million. The Focus on Energy program provides grants and cash-back awards supporting customer investments in solar electric, solar thermal systems, small wind, biogas and biomass energy systems.
Last, but certainly not least, as of July 1, Focus on Energy stopped accepting applications for business program incentives to help customers install renewable energy systems. These incentives, which average about $7 million per year, had been available since 2002 to businesses, farms, schools, local governments and other nonprofit customers. It is not clear when these incentives will be resumed and in what quantity.

This one-two punch of policy rollbacks and funding cutbacks has cast a pall over the state’s renewable energy marketplace. At this year’s Energy Fair in Custer, Wisconsin, the prevailing mood of contractors and exhibitors was one of bewilderment tinged with anger. It is dawning on these companies that their state, which once took pride in its efforts to nurture a thriving renewable energy market, is becoming an inhospitable place to do business. The transformation is occurring with stunning speed; no business is likely to be spared from this abrupt reversal of fortune, which will hit home soon and continue for several months, if not years.

At this moment, however, the Wisconsin renewable energy landscape is humming with installation activity. New wind turbines are soaring above cornfields in Columbia County, where construction crews and operating engineers from Appleton-based Boldt Construction and Brownsville-based Michels Wind Energy assemble what will become Wisconsin’s largest wind generation facility. The towers for the Glacier Hills wind energy project are being fabricated at Tower Tech in Manitowoc. Solar hot water systems now crown the rooftops of new apartment and university buildings, while solar PV panels mounted on 14-foot-tall poles rise above a farm field in Dane County to power Epic Systems’ ground source heat pump system. A cranberry company in Monroe County is about to become the second of its kind to rely on a pair of small wind turbines for its electrical needs. Meanwhile, all across Wisconsin one can find contractors building this year’s crop of bioenergy systems that convert the effluent from dairy farms, cheese producers and wastewater treatment plants into a baseload source of electricity.

Indeed, this wave of projects, fueled principally by funding commitments made in previous years and the early part of this year, should keep contractors and installers busy through the end of 2011. Though an observer unfamiliar with this year’s travails might be deceived by this show of vitality, both installers and advocates know that this activity can’t be sustained for long without a fresh supply of oxygen in the form of policy and funding initiatives. But until state government recognizes the folly of its war against renewable energy and changes course on energy policy, the rollbacks of 2011 will suck much of the oxygen out of next year’s renewable energy marketplace, setting it up for significant contraction in the years that follow.

How Wisconsin benefits from shrinking its renewable energy business community and becoming even more dependent on finite supplies of fossil energy imported from afar is a question worth posing to our political leaders. In our view, that approach is guaranteed to turn Wisconsin into an economic backwater. Is this what they hope to achieve? Probably not. But the toll on the state goes beyond the jobs that weren’t created, the investments from overseas that went to other states, and the tax revenues that failed to materialize as projected.

An even bigger casualty of these rollbacks is Wisconsin’s ability to project itself as a center of consistency and stability, a place where policy changes affecting businesses occur gradually and over time. Not long ago, Wisconsin political leaders were capable of working on complex legislative matters in a low-key and bipartisan manner. An example of that is the Energy Efficiency and Renewables Law (2005 Act 141) signed into law in March 2006, which increased Wisconsin’s Renewable Energy Standard to 10% by 2015 and protected Focus on Energy from future budget raids. That law created what seemed at the time to be a durable framework for enabling renewable energy resources to play an expanded role in the state’s energy future.

However, it is now painfully evident that the political consensus that created the five-year-old law has evaporated. The resulting vacuum has emboldened incoming legislators to fix their crosshairs on the policy mechanisms supporting investment in renewable energy. With the active assistance of politically powerful interests like the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, these legislators are now attacking Wisconsin’s pro-renewable energy policies in a manner resembling a wave of Formosan termites going through a house.

What has happened to Wisconsin’s energy policy here is a microcosm of the radically polarized political dynamic that has, unfortunately, become “the new normal” in this state. In this environment, confrontation is celebrated and compromise is shunned. Politics in Wisconsin has become a roller-coaster ride that is heavy on the sharp turns and violent dives, and light on the straightaways and gentle grades. And, with the Senate recall elections this summer and the virtual certainty of a gubernatorial recall election in the offing, this dynamic is not going away any time soon.

Needless to say, this volatility makes long-range financial commitments to upgrading the state’s energy infrastructure a challenge if not an impossibility. The suspension of the state’s wind siting rule, for example, upended a deliberate and multiyear effort to build predictability and certainty into the permitting process. With the rule in abeyance, what wind developers now face amounts to a random walk through a minefield. Small wonder that many of the developers who were active here three years ago have migrated to less explosive pastures. Indeed, high-profile rollbacks like these give the state an unwelcome reputation as being famously difficult to do business in.

Amazingly enough, despite the onslaught from political leaders and certain utilities, public support for renewable energy has held strong, according to a St. Norbert College poll conducted between April 11 and April 18 for Wisconsin Public Radio. More than three-quarters of the respondents favored additional investments in windpower, even if such expenditures would increase monthly electric bills. The rankings for each resource surveyed were: wind (77%), hydropower (60%), biomass (54%), natural gas (39%), nuclear (27%), and coal (19%). The results suggest that the hostility that the Walker Administration and the Legislature have shown to the renewable energy business community is completely out of step with the public.

Along with many other organizations and individuals, RENEW Wisconsin helped build public awareness on the value of renewable energy for jobs and energy self-sufficiency. Now in its 20th year, RENEW Wisconsin finds itself vigorously defending the many policies and practices that made Wisconsin a regional leader in the use of its native renewable energy resources. Though the future is fraught with challenges and uncertainties, about one thing we can be certain: the assaults and policy swings that come our way will not change either the citizen consensus or RENEW Wisconsin’s commitment to a future based on clean, local and sustainable energy.

Funding Hiatus Darkens Outlook for In-State Renewables

2011-07-05T15:23:00.002-05:00

Immediate release
July 5, 2011

More information
Michael Vickerman
Executive Director
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Funding Hiatus Darkens Outlook for In-State Renewables

For the first time in its 11-year history, Focus on Energy is no longer accepting applications from Wisconsin businesses and nonprofit entities seeking to install renewable energy systems. This new policy took effect July 1.

According to Focus on Energy officials, this suspension of financial incentives is necessary to balance demand for renewable energy systems with available funds. In 2009, Focus on Energy allocated approximately $10 million to support customer-sited renewable energy systems. More than half of that allocation went to businesses, farmers, local governments, schools, and nonprofit organizations throughout the state.

“We recognize that Focus on Energy officials have a responsibility to ensure that outflows don’t exceed revenues. However, this suspension could not have occurred at a worse time for Wisconsin’s renewable energy contractors,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin.

“Unfortunately, this move coincides with Milwaukee-based We Energies’ decision to walk away from an agreement with RENEW Wisconsin to commit $60 million over a 10-year period to develop renewable energy within its territory,” Vickerman said. ‘We Energies disclosed its unilateral action in May, barely more than halfway into honoring its commitment.”

“Given the adverse environment for renewable energy right now in Wisconsin, we hope that the interruption amounts to nothing more than a brief timeout,” said Vickerman.

“Unless funding is restored quickly, 2012 will turn out to be a very lean year for contractors and installers,” Vickerman warned.

As of this moment, the renewable energy marketplace is bristling with new installations. Installations to be completed this summer with incentives from Focus on Energy include:
• Two small wind turbines serving a Monroe County cranberry grower;
• A solar hot water system serving a new apartment building next to the Hilldale shopping complex in Madison;
• Side-by-side solar hot water and electric installations atop a new classroom building at the UW-Oshkosh;
• An engine generator fed with biogas derived from the City of Appleton’s wastewater treatment plant.

However, without a fresh supply of Focus-funded projects, Wisconsin’s renewable energy development pipeline will slow to a trickle, forcing contractors and installers to either seek work in other states or lay off employees.

Wisconsin has more than 2,500 customer-sited renewable energy installations, the vast majority of which received either financial incentives or facilitation services from Focus on Energy. In total, these installations have a generating capacity of about 20 megawatts.

END

State’s Hostility Toward Renewables Escalates; “Leaders” Lag Citizenry on Wind Support

2011-06-14T15:32:00.003-05:00

Two articles from Catching Wind, a newsletter published by RENEW Wisconsin with funding from a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy:

State’s Hostility Toward Renewables Escalates
At the urging of Wisconsin utilities, several lawmakers have introduced a bill to allow a renewable energy credit (REC) to be banked indefinitely. If adopted, this measure (AB146) would constitute the most devastating legislative assault yet on the state’s renewable energy marketplace, which is already reeling from the suspension of the statewide wind siting rule this March and the loosening of renewable energy definitions to allow Wisconsin utilities to count electricity generated from large Canadian hydro projects toward their renewable energy requirements.

“Leaders” Lag Citizenry on Wind Support
Public support for wind energy development has held strong against the attacks launched by Governor Walker and the Legislature’s new Republican majority, according to a poll conducted between April 11 and April 18 by the St. Norbert College Survey Center for Wisconsin Public Radio.

Asked whether Wisconsin should "increase, decrease or continue with the same amount" of energy supply from various sources, 77% favored increasing wind power, the highest of any option (60% favored increasing hydropower, 54% biomass, 39% natural gas, 27% nuclear, and 19% coal).

Wisconsin Renewable Quarterly, Spring 2011

2011-06-06T15:42:00.000-05:00

The Wisconsin Renewable Quarterly, the newsletter of RENEW Wisconsin, features these article:

Siting Rule Suspension Rocks Wind Industry
In a move that sent shock waves through the wind industry in Wisconsin, a joint legislative panel voted on March 1 to suspend the wind siting rule promulgated by the Public Service Commission in December 2010.

Community Biogas Project Fires Up
Home to 400 dairy farms, Dane County recently dedicated a community-scale manure-to-methane generating system designed to reduce nutrient runoff into the Yahara Lakes.

Insty Prints: Mpower ChaMpion
But if I can help other businesses make some of the harder choices by being more vocal, then I’m willing to help.

Manitoba Hydro: A Washout?
On behalf of our members and the many businesses and individuals who support the continued expansion of Wisconsin’s renewable energy marketplace, RENEW Wisconsin is here to express opposition to AB 114 (and its companion SB 81), and urges the Legislature not to pass this bill.

Verona Firm Begins Work on “Epic” PV
With the commissioning of its 1,300-module solar electric canopy spanning its parking deck, Epic Systems joins an elite group of Wisconsin companies embracing on-site energy capture to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. At 360 kilowatts (kW), Epic’s new photovoltaic system is the largest solar array in Dane County and the third largest in Wisconsin.

Calendar of Renewable and Energy Efficiency Events
June 17-19, 2001 The Energy Fair. Custer, WI. The nation’s premier sustainable energy education event. Three days of workshops, demonstrations, and exhibits highlighting renewable energy and sustainable living. For details see www.midwestrenew.org.

July 8-10, 2011 EcoFair360. Elkhorn, WI. Join hundreds of exhibitors and presenters and thousands of attendees who will Make Green Happen for three days of education, exploration and inspiration. For details see www.ecofair360.org.

July 16, 2011 Western Wisconsin Sustainability Fair. Menomonie, WI, Dunn County Fair Grounds. Exhibitors from business, government, and non-profi t groups, speakers, workshops, music, energy effi cient vehicles, a photo contest, and a tour of the Cedar Falls Dam. See http://sustainabledunn.org for more information.

July 30, 2011 8th Annual Kickapoo Country Fair. LaFarge, WI. The Midwest’s Largest Organic Food and Sustainability Festival. Food, music, bike and farm tours, cooking demonstrations, theater, kids’ activities, dancing. More information at www.kickappoocountryfair.org.

October 1, 2011 Solar Tour of Homes and Businesses. All across Wisconsin. Owners open their doors to let people see how renewable energy is practical, reliable, and affordable in today’s economy. The homes and businesses often include other energy efficiency and renewable technologies. For details see http://nationalsolartour.org.

October 26, 2011 Wisconsin’s Solar Decade Conference. Milwaukee, WI. Now in its seventh year, the Wisconsin
Solar Decade Conference is your opportunity to see fi rsthand the latest developments in the world of solar energy. For details see www.solardecade.com.

Siting Windpower: The View From the Minefield

2011-05-31T13:32:00.001-05:00

From a presentation by Michael Vickerman Wind Powering America All States Summit in Anaheim, CA, May 26, 2011:

In January 2011, All Hell Broke Loose:
• PSC 128 [statewide wind siting rule] clears legislative review in December;
• Gov. Walker introduces bill Jan. 11 in special session (SB 9) that threatens to bring wind development to a standstill;
• Most important provision in SB 9: greatly extends minimum setback requirement;
• PSC rule: 1.1 x total height from property lines (400-500 ft.);
• SB 9: 1,800 feet from property lines.

How Problematic Are 1,800 ft. Setback Requirements to SitingWind Turbines?
Consider Glacier Hills – a 90-turbine wind project under construction in two townships in Columbia County characterized by a low density of population:
• No. of turbines beyond a 1,250 ft. setback requirement from non-participating residences: 75 to 80;
• No. of turbines beyond an 1,800 ft. setback requirement from property lines: 2 to 5.

We Energies Terminates Its Renewable Energy Program

2011-05-13T12:38:00.000-05:00

For immediate release
May 13, 2011
More information
RENEW Wisconsin
Michael Vickerman
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

We Energies Terminates Its Renewable Energy Program
Utility Pulls Plug on $6 Million a Year Commitment

As reported on its Web site, Milwaukee-based We Energies will discontinue an innovative and effective renewable energy development program that supported scores of renewable energy systems throughout its service territory. [The announcement can be accessed at http://www.we-energies.com/re.]

“It’s a sad day when the state’s largest utility decides to walk away from its commitment to a clean energy future,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide organization advocating for public policies and private initiatives that advance renewable energy.

As indicated in various filings with the Public Service Commission, We Energies had committed to spend $6 million a year over 10 years to increase its renewable energy supplies and make renewable energy more affordable to its customers through grants and incentives. We Energies’ commitment came in the wake of a settlement with RENEW over the utility’s plans to build two coal-fired power stations in southeast Wisconsin.

Of the $60 million committed, the utility has spent approximately $30 million since 2006. This program will be zeroed out in We Energies’ next rate filing, which will cover 2012 and 2013.

This program supported numerous customer-sited renewable energy installations [see list below], conferences and workshops, research and development activities, and innovative buyback rates.

“Perhaps not coincidently, the decision to terminate this program comes just months after We Energies placed its second coal-fired plant in service. The $6 million a year was a small price to pay for the all of the renewable energy advances that occurred while the utility built two coal plants,” said Vickerman.

“Now that the coal plant is up and running, it appears that the program has outlived its usefulness to We Energies,” Vickerman said.
Six million dollars equates to about .025 percent of We Energies’ annual expenditures.

“This cancellation comes as a blow to area contractors and businesses that were relying on the program to create jobs and clean energy,” said Vickerman. “The achievements leveraged far outweigh the program’s negligible cost.”

“Between utility program cutbacks and state government rollbacks, Wisconsin’s policy framework for supporting renewable energy will be largely dismantled by the end of the year.”

--END- -

Customer-owned renewable energy success stories and live data

A growing number of customers have their own renewable energy facilities. The links below go to summaries of the projects and/or real-time production data from the solar photovoltaic, solar hot water and wind renewable energy generation systems.

Solar electric photovoltaic
Ascension Lutheran Church
Cedar Community
City of Brookfield Safety Building
Concordia University Wisconsin
Cooper Elementary School
Cross Lutheran Church
Crown of Life Lutheran Church
Energy Producing Home #1
Evangelical and Reformed United Church of Christ - Waukesha
Fairview Charter School
Family Enrichment Center of Ozaukee County
First Congregational Church - Port Washington
First Unitarian Society of Milwaukee
Fox River Christian Church
Fox Valley Lutheran High School
Gateway Technical College Horizon Center Solar Tracker
GE Healthcare
GE Research Park
Good Shepherd Evangelical Lutheran Church and School
Growing Power - Milwaukee
HOPE Christian School
Johnson Foundation
Kettle Moraine Lutheran High School
La Casa de Esperanza
Lake Country School
Lake Park Lutheran Church
Lawrence University
Madison Area Technical College - Fort Atkinson Campus
Madison College - Fort Atkinson
Menomonee Falls North Middle School
Milwaukee Area Tech College - Oak Creek
Milwaukee Central Library
Milwaukee County Zoo
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Milwaukee Recycling Education Facility
MSOE:Fat Spaniel Tech MSOE Monitor
Navarino Nature Center
North Shore Presbyterian Church
Our Savior Lutheran Church
Outpost Natural Foods
Pragmatic Construction Home 1 - PV
Purdy Elementary School - Fort Atkinson
Racine City Hall Annex
Racine Eco-Justice Center
Racine St. Catherine's High School
Schlitz Audubon Nature Center
St. Matthew’s Evangelical Lutheran Church
Shoreland Lutheran High School
Shorewood School District
Still Point Zen Center
The Order of Julian of Norwich
Town of Greenville
Town of Menasha
Unitarian Universalist Church West
United Community Center
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
University of Wisconsin - Parkside
Urban Ecology Center
Village of Marshall Wastewater Treatment Facility
Village of Wind Point
Walden III Middle and Senior High School
Waukesha County Technical College
Wauwatosa Fire Department
Whitewater Innovation Center
Wisconsin Lutheran College
Wisconsin State Fair Park

Solar water heating
Fort Atkinson High School Solar Thermal
Fort Atkinson Middle School Solar Thermal
Milwaukee Habitat for Humanity SHW 1
Milwaukee Habitat for Humanity SHW 2
We Energies HQ: Fat Spaniel Tech Wired Solar

Solar electric photovoltaic and wind
Discovery World
Lakeshore Technical College
Mequon Nature Preserve
Milwaukee Area Tech College - Mequon

Wind
Boys & Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee – Camp Whitcomb Mason
Village of Cascade Wastewater Treatment Plant

List from We Energies' Web site -- http://www.we-energies.com/residential/energyeff/active_installdata.htm

Testimony in Opposition to Counting Canadian Hydro Toward RPS

2011-05-03T12:01:00.006-05:00

Statement of RENEW Wisconsin in Opposition to SB 81

Senate Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce and Government Operations Committee

May 3, 2011

Good morning, my name is Michael Vickerman. I am here to represent RENEW Wisconsin, a nonprofit advocacy and education organization based in Madison. Incorporated in 1991, RENEW acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives. We have over 300 total members, and more than 60 businesses around the state, including Biogas Direct (Prairie du Sac), Bubbling Springs Solar (Menomonie), Crave Brothers Farm (Waterloo), Convergence Energy (Lake Geneva), Emerging Energies (Hubertus), Energy Concepts (Hudson), Full Circle Farm (Seymour), Full Spectrum Solar (Madison), GHD, Inc. (Chilton), H&H Solar (Madison), Kettle View Renewable Energy (Random Lake), Michels Wind Energy (Brownsville), North American Hydro (Neshkoro), Northwind Renewable Energy LLC (Stevens Point), Pieper Power (Milwaukee), Organic Valley (LaFarge), Quantum Dairy (Weyauwega), Renewegy (Oshkosh), and Seventh Generation Energy Systems (Madison).

More on North American Hydro later.

On behalf of our members and the many businesses and individuals who support the continued expansion of Wisconsin’s renewable energy marketplace, RENEW Wisconsin is here to express opposition to AB 114/SB 81, and urges the Legislature not to pass this bill. If passed as is, AB 114/SB 81 would allow electric utilities to use generation from hydro facilities larger than 60 megawatts to satisfy their renewable energy requirements under 2005 Act 141. Manitoba Hydro could easily become Wisconsin’s largest supplier of statutorily sanctioned renewable energy in the next decade.

Because no increase to the state’s Renewable Energy Standard is contemplated in this bill, the outwash of kilowatt-hours from Manitoba in the next decade will crowd out opportunities for utility-scale renewable energy development opportunities in Wisconsin. The window was already closing for in-state renewable energy sources before this bill was introduced. According to Platt’s Electric Daily, Wisconsin Power & Light and WPPI Energy have already accumulated enough renewable electrons and credits to meet their 2015 targets. The same is true of Madison Gas & Electric. The Platt’s article also quotes a Wisconsin Public Service Corporation official stating that the utility can meet its 2015 renewable energy requirements with what it has acquired to date until 2020. AB 114/SB 81 would enable those utilities to enter into contracts with Manitoba Hydro to supply them with post-2015 renewable energy, thereby sparing these utilities from ever having to invest another nickel in a Wisconsin renewable energy project again.

Leaving aside We Energies’ proposed biomass plant in Rothschild, which may or may not go forward, We Energies’ Glacier Hills wind project in Columbia County is the only utility-scale renewable energy project under construction right now in Wisconsin. It will be completed this December. None of the other utilities have any plans to build a renewable energy generating facility in Wisconsin in the next five years. Should this legislation pass, we could go 15 to 20 years before seeing another large renewable energy project built in this state, if ever.

True, there are quite a few wind prospects under development in Wisconsin, all of them pursued by independent companies. But as of late, Wisconsin utilities have shown no interest in entering into a contract with them. And if AB 114/SB 81 is adopted without an increase in the state’s Renewable Energy Standard, Wisconsin utilities will have no reason to buy wind projects or their output, because the utilities can get whatever they need from Manitoba Hydro.

For the record, RENEW supported the Clean Energy Jobs Act introduced last year and the compromise on large-scale hydro in that legislation. That bill would have increased the utilities’ renewable energy requirements along with classifying large hydro as an eligible renewable energy resource. In it there was room for both in-state renewable energy development and electricity purchases from Manitoba Hydro. However, as a stand-alone measure, AB 114/SB 81 would make room for Manitoba Hydro at the expense of local renewable energy businesses. If passed, this bill would effectively turn Wisconsin into a renewable energy backwater for the next 20 years.

In the absence of legislation to increase the state’s renewable energy standard, AB 114/SB 81 is best described as the “Outsource Renewable Energy to Canada Act.”

About North American Hydro, this company owns 25 hydro generating units in Wisconsin and employs about 70 people. Both the company and its employees pay taxes in Wisconsin and spend the income they earn in their respective communities. That won’t happen when renewable energy production is outsourced to Canada.

Let me close by asking a few rhetorical questions.

How does the elimination of in-state renewable energy development revitalize the state economy and create new jobs?
How does importing vast quantities of hydropower from another jurisdiction promote energy self-sufficiency and resilience in this state?
How does purchasing vast quantities of hydropower from another country improve the country’s balance of payments?
Where will our children and young people go to find renewable energy employment opportunities if we decide that foreign hydro should become Wisconsin’s default energy resource option.

Respectfully submitted,
Michael Vickerman,
Executive Director

Rising Diesel Prices Fuel Higher Electric Rates

2011-04-15T16:27:00.000-05:00

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--

Testimony - Legislative & local

2011-04-03T14:32:00.004-05:00

2011
05.03.11 RENEW opposes legisation to count hydro toward renewable portfolio standard

2010
02.02.10 Testimony in support of Clean Energy Jobs Act bill

2009
05.12.09 Windpower in Wisconsin: The Permitting Crisis

2008
06.18.08 Comments on Strawman Proposal for Governor Doyle’s Global Warming Task Force
05.29.08 Statement in support of Wind Project in Town of Union, Rock County, Wisconsin

Second Wind Developer Forsakes Wisconsin for Greener Pastures

2011-03-30T11:08:00.001-05:00

For immediate release:
March 30, 2011
More information
Michael Vickerman
Executive Director
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Second Wind Developer Forsakes Wisconsin for Greener Pastures

Citing Wisconsin’s inhospitable regulatory climate, Midwest Wind Energy, LLC (MWE), a Chicago-based developer of wind generation installations, became the second developer in two weeks to suspend all wind energy development activity in Wisconsin. Another Chicago-based wind developer, Invenergy, LLC, announced last week that it had canceled a 100-turbine wind project in southern Brown County.

Both announcements come on the heels of a March 1 vote by a legislative panel to suspend a Public Service Commission (PSC) rule establishing standards for local government review of windpower projects. That body, the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules, voted yesterday to introduce legislation to repeal the wind siting rule (PSC 128) and direct the Commission to promulgate a new rule.

In 2006 MWE proposed erecting a 98 megawatt (MW) prospect in southern Calumet County, north of We Energies’ Blue Sky Green Field installation. Called Stony Brook, MWE’s proposed development was stymied in 2007 and 2008 by a combination of moratoria and arbitrary ordinance changes imposed at the county and township level. In an interesting twist, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in 2009 invalidated Calumet County’s wind ordinance, after determining that local governments lack the authority to restrict wind energy systems beyond what is allowed in state statutes.

“One wonders if our political leadership appreciates the economic damage being done to Wisconsin when it decided to pull the welcome mat out from under the wind industry,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin. ‘The industry’s exodus to greener pastures will cause manufacturing and construction jobs to migrate to states that are friendlier to wind energy. It will be a challenge for Wisconsin businesses that participate in the wind energy supply chain to avoid being caught up in the collateral damage caused by the prevailing climate of inhospitality,” Vickerman said.

MWE’s 98 MW Stony Brook facility represents about a $230 million investment in a locally available source of renewable energy that would generate more than 130 construction jobs, support 10 permanent high-tech jobs, yield an annual flow of nearly $400,000 to host local governments and more than $500,000 to host landowners, as well as create manufacturing and consulting opportunities for a host of Wisconsin businesses.

An early entrant to the Wisconsin wind development scene, MWE secured permits for two mid-sized windpower facilities now operating: Cedar Ridge, a 41-turbine, 68 MW project in Fond du Lac County; and Butler Ridge, as 36-turbine 54 MW facility in Dodge County. Cedar Ridge is owned by Alliant Energy and Butler Ridge is now owned by NextEra Energy Resources.

-- END --

Hostile Regulatory Climate Sinks Brown County Wind Project

2011-03-27T11:05:00.000-05:00

More information
Michael Vickerman
Executive Director
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Hostile Regulatory Climate Sinks Brown County Wind Project

Less than a month after a 10-member legislative committee prevented a statewide wind permitting rule from taking effect, Invenergy, LLC, a Chicago-based wind developer that owns and operates the 86-turbine Forward Energy Center installation south of Fond du Lac, has ended efforts to install 100 turbines in southern Brown County.

In a March 21 letter to the Public Service Commission (PSC), Invenergy singled out the recent suspension of the agency’s wind siting rule as a significant factor in its decision to cancel the Ledge Wind Energy Center. “The absence of regulatory stability has made it imprudent for Invenergy to proceed with investments in a project which unknown regulations might make infeasible to construct,” the letter states. Invenergy’s application to build the 150-megawatt Ledge Wind project was filed in October 2009.

“The regulatory environment for permitting wind energy systems in Wisconsin is deteriorating rapidly,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin. “The rollback started with Governor Walker’s proposal to impose onerous and unworkable setback requirements on wind turbines, and continues with the Legislature’s assault on the PSC’s wind siting rule.”

“By all appearances, it seems that Governor Walker and the Legislature intend to close the door on wind development in Wisconsin once We Energies completes its Glacier Hills project later this year,” Vickerman said.

The PSC rule, which was scheduled to take effect March 1st, would have fulfilled the Legislature’s intent to create uniform siting regulations to replace what had become a restrictive and hodgepodge of local requirements. On that very day, the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules suspended the rule on a 5-2 vote that tracked along party line votes (Republicans in favor; Democrats against).

Had the 150 MW Ledge Wind Energy Center gone forward, it would have generated $600,000 annually in municipal revenues to Brown County and four host townships, and more than $600,000 annually to host landowners and their neighbors. On average, installing one turbine requires 1,325 hours of craft labor, and a 100-turbine wind project will support a payroll of over $10 million, according to figures provided by Boldt Construction.

“Invenergy’s cancellation of its Ledge Wind project should not come as a surprise,” Vickerman said. “It should be expected with a political leadership that treats windpower as a pariah energy source. Until the day the Governor and the Legislature put aside their ideological blinders and recognize the benefits that come with developing a clean, locally available and inexhaustible energy source, Wisconsin will remain a very unappetizing place to pursue utility- scale wind projects.”

“Wisconsin can ill-afford to export windpower-related jobs and local payments to other states,” Vickerman said.

-- END --

Suspension of wind siting rule endangers state’s economic future

2011-03-01T14:27:00.001-06:00

For immediate release:
March 1, 2011

More information
Michael Vickerman
Executive Director
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

(Madison) - The wind industry in Wisconsin suffered a serious setback when a joint legislative panel voted to suspend the wind siting rule promulgated by the Public Service Commission (PSC) in December, according to RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide renewable energy advocacy group.

The five-to-two vote tracked along party lines, with all five votes to suspend coming from Republican members of the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR).

Many companies involved in windpower supported the PSC’s rule as a workable compromise that would have created a stable and predictable permitting environment for all wind energy systems regulated by local governments. The rule, which was scheduled to take effect today, would have fulfilled the Legislature’s intent to create uniform siting regulations to replace what had become a restrictive hodgepodge of local requirements.

“The committee gave the state of Wisconsin a black eye that, in the view of the wind industry, will linger well into the future,” Vickerman said.

“The suspension rolls the wind permitting environment back to the dark days when wind project developers routinely faced arbitrary and ever-shifting local regulations – the kind of chaos that will hasten their departure from Wisconsin to more business-friendly states.”

“As of today, Wisconsin utilities have placed more megawatts of wind capacity in neighboring states than in Wisconsin. As indicated in the following table, importing wind generation from other states deprives Wisconsin of a valuable source of employment, income for rural residents, and property tax relief,” said Vickerman.

The figures compiled by RENEW show that the 219 utility-owned wind turbines that will be operational by January 1, 2012, will yield nearly $2.7 million per year in potential property tax relief for towns and counties hosting wind projects. All told, these projects will be responsible for nearly 300,000 construction-related job-hours.

“We have a hard time foreseeing in-state utility-scale wind development going forward without statewide siting standards.”
“It’s a shame to see the end of bipartisanship that led to the passage of the rule requirement in 2009. What we are seeing here is a breakdown of governance that will rob the state of one of its brightest economic hopes for the future,” Vickerman said.

Click on table to enlarge.

RENEW Wisconsin is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives. More information on RENEW’s Web site at www.renewwisconsin.org.

Comments of RENEW on the draft Strategic Energy Assessment, January 28, 2010

2011-01-31T11:23:00.003-06:00

BEFORE THE

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN

Strategic Energy Assessment for the Years

January 1, 2010 through December 31
2016 Docket No. 05-ES-105

COMMENTS OF RENEW WISCONSIN ON THE DRAFT STRATEGIC ENERGY ASSESSMENT

_________________________________________________

RENEW Wisconsin submits these comments on the Commission’s draft Strategic Energy Assessment (SEA) 2016. RENEW’s comments focus on the “Electric Demand and Supply Conditions in Wisconsin” section.

The draft SEA notes that, in 2008, 67% of the energy produced in Wisconsin was generated by coal-fired power plants; 8% by natural gas; and 2% by biomass. Draft SEA, p. 18. Collectively, these units supplied 77% of the energy produced in Wisconsin. With the addition of the two new coal-fired generating units at the Elm Road Generation Station in 2010 and 2011, Wisconsin’s percentage of coal-fired generation has increased even more.

Fuel for all of these types of generating units comes at a cost, both the cost of the fuel itself and the cost to transport it to a generating station. Because coal makes up such a significant portion of the energy generated in Wisconsin and because it is not available in Wisconsin, its costs are particularly important. For years, the assumption has been that coal is cheap and abundant. Even the draft SEA notes that “Coal has historically been an abundant and inexpensive fuel for electric generation.” Draft SEA, p. 46. However, the ability to extract high quality coal and the cost to transport it to Wisconsin have been steadily increasing, calling into question the “abundant and cheap” mantra.

Most of the coal that fuels Wisconsin’s power plants comes from the Powder River Basin (PRB) in Wyoming. That region supplies coal to many of the largest coal plants in Wisconsin’s generating fleet--Columbia, Pleasant Prairie, Weston, Oak Creek, J.P. Madgett, Edgewater, and others. The contribution from other coal fields, such as those in the North Appalachian and Colorado regions, is small by comparison to the voluminous flow of low-sulfur subbituminous coal coming out of such mines as Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, Cordero Rojo, Antelope, and North Antelope Rochelle. The coal extracted from these mines is transported to power plants 1,000 miles away in Wisconsin on unit trains with as many as 130 cars.
Data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) document the steadily rising cost of coal imported to Wisconsin over the past 10 years. In 1999, the average cost of coal delivered to Wisconsin electric utilities was $1.02/MMBtu (Table 34, Electric Power Monthly (EPM), March 2001). By 2004, the average cost had risen to $1.18/MMBtu (Table 4.10B, EPM, April 2005). The cost increase over the next five years was more pronounced, rising to $2.02/MMBtu (Table 4.10B, EPM, March 2010). The cost escalation between 1999 and 2009 corresponds to annual increases of 7%.

Increases in the cost of diesel fuel account for a significant portion of coal’s price rise. Spiking dramatically in mid-2008, diesel prices slumped 40% in 2009 but have since mid-2010 retraced a significant part of that decline, and are now comparable to where they were in early 2008.

Another driver behind rising coal prices is the increased cost of resource extraction. From 2000 to 2010, spot market prices of PRB coal rose from about $4 per ton to $14 per ton. Rising prices reflect increases in the “stripping ratio ,” a key measure of ore quality, encountered by mine operators. The stripping ratio indicates the number of tons of rock that must be moved to obtain a ton of coal. It is prudent to expect the stripping ratio of PBR coal to increase as the largest and most accessible mines become played out and mine operators shift to newer mines with deeper overburdens and thinner coal seams.

(http://www.cleanenergyaction.org/sites/default/files/Coal_Supply_Constraints_CEA_021209.pdf, p. 47.)
For example, the average overburden on the existing Antelope Mine is 122 feet thick and the coal seam is 86 feet thick. Antelope’s operator has applied to expand the coal mine to the west. While there is plenty of recoverable coal at Antelope II, it will be less productive than the original mine, because of the combination of thinner coal seams (50-60 feet thick) and average overburden depths (260 to 280 feet). Thus, the stripping ratio of Antelope II will be significantly higher, as will production costs.
(http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/content/wy/en/info/NEPA/documents/cfo/West_Antelope_II.html)

It’s worth pointing out that the U.S. coal market does not operate in isolation of overseas trends and events, which lately have been propelling coal costs higher. One well-reported trend is increasing demand from China, which has moved from an exporter to an importer of coal. The New York Times (NYT) reported in November 2009 that the volume of Chinese coal imports will hit all-time highs going into 2011. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/business/energy-environment/30utilities.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=breaking%20away%20from%20coal&st=cse)
The catastrophic flooding in northeast Australia earlier this month is certain to apply upward pressure on coal prices globally. Torrential rains incapacitated 75% of the operating coal mines in Queensland, the world’s largest coal-producing region. Much of the coal there is exported to other Asian markets. It will take many months if not years to dewater the mines and restore them to active operation. Though Queensland’s mines supply coking coal for the most part, the damage inflicted to the mines, roads, railways and bridges will ripple through the thermal coal markets as well and lift prices in that sector. (http://www.energydigital.com/sectors/mining-and-aggregates/queensland-flooding-washes-away-millions-coal-revenue

In addition, electric utilities have not been able to lock in low cost coal prices over long-term contracts. A review of recent coal shipments to Wisconsin power stations reveals that most supply contracts will expire between now and January 2013. (EIA-423 available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia423.html)
The emergence of shorter-term contracts, coupled with the increasing tendency among Wisconsin utilities to rely on the spot market, increases the exposure of ratepayers to rising coal prices caused by (1) higher diesel fuel prices, (2) increased coal exports from North America to China, (3) the ongoing transition to lower-quality domestic coal sources, and (4) natural disasters and other perturbations in global supplies.
It should be noted that the current glut of generating capacity provides no insulation against rising fuel prices. The coal still has to be mined, loaded into unit cars, and transported across the Great Plains and the Mississippi River to reach Wisconsin generating units. Even if utility demand for coal diminishes incrementally during the planning period, whatever moderating effects that trend would induce are likely to be dwarfed by global factors, not least of which is Asia’s ravenous demand for coal, which domestic coal companies such as Peabody will be only too happy to feed.

With these challenges looming in plain sight, it will take a minor miracle to keep coal prices from rising above the 7% annualized rate of the previous 10 years.

Given the degree to which Wisconsin utilities are reliant on PBR coal supplies, RENEW recommends that the PSC track and monitor the emerging supply and cost issues associated with that resource. In their comments on the draft SEA, Citizens Utility Board and Clean Wisconsin recommend that the SEA include historic annual average fuel costs for all combustible fuels (including coal) and a projected annual average fuel cost for each year (including coal) for each year during the SEA period. RENEW supports that recommendation.

RENEW appreciates the opportunity to provide the Commission with these comments and recommendations. RENEW continues to believe in the wisdom of comprehensive long range planning of demand, supply and transmission resources to best meet Wisconsin’s electricity needs while balancing cost, reliability, environmental, risk and other factors.

Walker’s Wind Siting Proposal Strips Local Control

2011-01-18T11:06:00.002-06:00

For immediate release:
January 18, 2011

More information
Michael Vickerman
Executive Director
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Walker’s Wind Siting Proposal Strips Local Control

Mandating by statute an extreme setback distance for commercial wind turbines, Governor Scott Walker’s wind siting proposal would strip local governments of their ability to negotiate lesser setback distances with wind developers, according to RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide renewable energy advocacy group.

Walker’s proposal would require a setback distance between a turbine and neighboring property line of 1,800 feet, which can be shortened only by an agreement between the project owner and owners of adjoining properties, entirely bypassing towns and counties.

Walker’s proposal would eliminate the ability of local governments to attract wind developments that would generate revenues in lieu of taxes to help buffer the expected cuts to local governments in the upcoming state budget.

A story in the Fond du Lac Reporter on January 12 quoted town and county officials as saying the wind project revenue helped save on property taxes by filling the gap between rising municipal expenses and declining state-paid shared revenue dollars.

“We’ve seen five towns in Fond du Lac and Dodge counties enter into joint development agreements specifying reasonable setback distances because town officials wanted to capture the economic benefits of hosting wind projects larger than 50 megawatts,” Vickerman said.

The statewide siting rule, approved by the Public Service Commission (PSC) and set to take effect March 1, preserved local government authority to specify less restrictive conditions.

“This unreasonable proposal is a steamroller driven by anti-wind special interests, like realtors, bent on denying local governments the ability to decide what’s in their best interests,” said Vickerman.

END

Landowners and municipalities to reap millions from wind farm operations for 2010

2011-01-10T14:18:00.001-06:00

For immediate release
January 10, 2011

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

Landowners and Municipalities to Reap Millions from Wind Farm Operations for 2010

Owners of Wisconsin’s four largest wind energy projects will pay out approximately $2.8 million in rent to landowners hosting turbines and payments in lieu of taxes to local governments for 2010, according to figures compiled by RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide renewable energy advocacy organization.

Wind energy developers negotiate lease agreements with landowners to host turbines on their property. Payments can be as high as $7,000 per turbine per year. Estimated rental payments to all Fond du Lac and Dodge county landowners will total slightly more than $1.2 million in 2010.

Towns and counties do not collect property taxes from wind turbines but instead receive payments based on the generating capacity of each turbine, allocated under a formula adopted by the Legislature in 2003. Payments to those local governments will reach almost $1.6 million for 2010.

“These revenues help support farm families and rural Wisconsin communities.” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin. “It’s a much better deal for the state than sending dollars to Wyoming and West Virginia for the coal imported to Wisconsin to generate electricity.”

Gary Haltaufderheide, an employee of Madison-based Land Services Company, which negotiates land leases for large projects, like pipelines and wind turbines, says, “Farmers are smart business people and they’re very satisfied with the payments. One farmer saw the lease as a way to cover tuition payments for a child entering college.”

Four wind projects – Forward, Blue Sky Green Field, Cedar Ridge, and Butler Ridge – account for the payments to host landowners and local governments. Together these projects comprise nearly 90 percent of Wisconsin’s wind generation fleet.

When calculated over a 20-year contract period, total revenues should exceed $60 million, taking inflation into account.

Shirley Wind, the state’s newest wind power installation, will contributed another $80,000 a year, divided equally between Brown County, Town of Glenmore, local landowners, and neighbors within one-third of a mile of a turbine. The eight-turbine, 20-megawatt project began producing electricity in 2010.

Click tables to enlarge.

PSC approves final wind siting rule; improves clean energy outlook

2010-12-09T12:53:00.002-06:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 9, 2010

MORE INFORMATION
RENEW Wisconsin
Michael Vickerman
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Final Wind Siting Rule Improves Clean Energy Outlook

With the changes made at the Public Service Commission’s (PSC) open meeting today, wind developers in Wisconsin can look forward to a set of workable statewide permitting standards that will facilitate the development of well-designed wind projects.

At the meeting, the Commission adjusted the requirements on two issues of critical importance to the wind industry: set back distances and compensation to neighboring residents.

“Today’s decisions culminate a four-year effort to set Wisconsin’s permitting house in order,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide renewable energy advocacy organization.

“The final rules strike a reasonable balance between protecting public health and safety and advancing wind energy generation, a proven pathway for creating well-paying jobs and increasing revenues to local governments,” Vickerman said.

Initially, the rule did not specify a definite setback distance between turbines and residences and community buildings neighboring the host property.

“By setting a maximum setback distance of 1,250 feet, the rule would not impose economic burdens on wind developers seeking to install newer and larger wind turbines now available in the market, such as the 2.5 megawatt turbines being erected at the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County,” according to Vickerman.

Regarding compensation to non-participating residences, the commission decided to uncouple the annual compensation level instead of linking the size of the payments to the payment received by the host landowner. The commission’s move resolved the most problematic feature that had been in the rule.

“We thank the Commissioners for their hard work and their willingness to work through a number of very complicated and thorny issues that do not lend themselves to easy resolution,” Vickerman added.

The rules promulgated by the PSC are a product of landmark legislation adopted in 2009 to establish statewide siting standards for wind energy siting. Legislative committees will have 10 days to review the rules after formally receiving them. If they take no action, the rules take effect on January 1, 2011.

Wisconsin Cannot Afford to Ignore Rising Coal Prices

2010-12-01T14:18:00.000-06:00

For immediate release
December 1, 2010

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

Wisconsin Cannot Afford to Ignore Rising Coal Prices

Long-considered an inexpensive and reliable fuel source, coal has become subject to market and regulatory pressures that threaten to make it an expensive and risky way to generate electricity, according to national news reports and pertinent utility filings with the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC).

“The expectation of continued increases in coal prices reinforces the value of relying on Wisconsin’s own energy resources. If there’s an effort to find savings for utility customers, the logical move would be to shutter antiquated coal plants before they become more of a liability,” said Michael Vickerman, Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide, nonprofit renewable energy advocacy organization.

A key driver behind coal’s rising cost is China, which has moved from an exporter to an importer of coal. The New York Times (NYT) reported last week that Chinese coal imports will hit all-time highs for November and December of this year. Some of this coal is coming from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, the coal field that also supplies many Wisconsin power plants.¹

In the New York Times story, an executive from Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private coal company, predicted that his company will send larger and larger quantities of coal to China in the coming years.

Further adding to the upward price pressure on coal is the rising cost of diesel fuel. The PSC has estimated that half of the delivered cost of coal in Wisconsin is attributable to rail shipment, that is highly sensitive to the price of diesel fuel, which sells for 38 cents more per gallon than it did a year ago, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.² Tom Whipple, editor of the Peak Oil Review, expects diesel fuel supplies to tighten in 2011 as a consequence of flat production volumes and increasing demand from Asia.³ This phenomenon could affect Wisconsin electric utility rates as early as January 2011, according to Vickerman.

We Energies’ coal costs have escalated by $57 million, of which transportation costs account for almost $33 million, according to the utility’s most recent rate filing with the PSC. On top of that, We Energies expects to pay an additional $8 million in oil surcharge costs.⁴

Regulatory costs add pressure

Additionally, compliance with coming federal clean air regulations is certain to propel the cost of coal generation higher, especially if utilities install expensive pollution control equipment on their aging and increasingly costly generators.

Several U.S. utilities, including Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy, have decided to meet that upcoming regulatory challenge by shutting down old coal-fired units and replacing them with a combination of gas-fired and renewable generation. An Xcel executive told the Denver Post that it’s often more cost effective to shutter these plants than to retrofit them.⁵

“The only thing that keeps these clunkers going is the belief that coal will always be the cheapest resource available to utilities,” said Vickerman. “But it is now quite apparent that coal is no longer dirt cheap, and it’s time we in Wisconsin face that reality. When you add up the costs of mining, transportation, and cleaning up old power plants to meet new clean air standards, coal shapes up as an expensive anachronism, not the bargain fuel that it once was. Of course, the premium that utilities pay to keep burning coal will be passed along directly to utility customers.”

Wisconsin’s energy policies, which expressly favor conservation and renewable resources, have been exceptionally effective at diversifying and localizing the state’s energy mix, as well as generating thousands of family-supporting jobs here, said Vickerman.

1. Breaking Away From Coal, New York Times, November 30, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/business/energy-environment/30utilities.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=breaking%20away%20from%20coal&st=cse

2. Weekly Petroleum State Report

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/current/pdf/highlights.pdf

3. Peak Oil Review

http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2010/11/review-november-29-2010

4. We Energies’ Application for Reopening rate request docket

http://psc.wi.gov/apps35/ERF_view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=137970

5. Rising coal costs will be felt in electric bills, Denver Post, October 24, 2010

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_16412425

END

Permitting Turbines in Wisconsin: What We've Learned in 12 Years

2010-11-17T15:41:00.004-06:00

From a presentation by RENEW executive director Michael Vickerman at the November 15-16, 2010, in St. Paul, MN:

•Understand that demographics matter – there is a deep cultural divide between farm households and commuter households
•Developers who operate in a transparent, above-board, even-handed manner will eventually earn the community’s trust
•Maintain an active presence in the community – figure out a way to support youth groups and local charities
•How one responds to complaints in the first year of project operation will make a lasting impression
•While it not possible to please all the people all the time, strive to stay on the good side of the most influential residents
•Eventually, wind turbines will become an accepted part of the landscape
•Good neighbor payments are helpful, but they’re no panacea
45 dBa sound thresholds are here to stay
•Sensitivities to environmental impacts vary widely – how individuals may respond to environmental changes can’t be predicted accurately
•Opposition to wind energy capture is as old as Don Quixote
•Some individuals are intrinsically put off by tall structures and continuous motion
•Public acceptance of WI’s smallest projects has been very high

Shirley Wind: An Auspicious Debut for Emerging Energies

2010-11-10T15:54:00.002-06:00

Commentary
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
November 10, 2010

Earlier this week, I had the privilege of attending a celebration of Shirley Wind, Wisconsin’s newest commercial wind installation. Located in the Brown County township of Glenmore, a mere 15 miles southeast of Lambeau Field, the project consists of eight Nordex N100 turbines rated at 2.5 megawatts (MW) apiece. All eight turbines are fully erected and will be turned on individually as part of the commissioning process. Commercial operation should begin in a few weeks.

There are many features of this project that stand out. The most obvious one is the turbines themselves, which are the tallest in Wisconsin and are among the tallest in North America. The nacelle is perched on a 100-meter tower (330 feet). Attached to the rotor are three blades extending 50 meters (165 feet). For comparison purposes, the tower is more than 60 feet taller than the next largest turbine in Wisconsin, the Vestas V82, and the blades are about 30 feet longer. According to Michels Wind, the general contractor for Shirley Wind, the spread foundations supporting these turbines are the largest in North America.

Between their height and blade length, Shirley Wind’s eight turbines will be the most productive wind generators in the state. The power conversion zone of a Nordex N100 is one-third larger than those of the Vestas and GE turbines located in Fond du Lac and Dodge counties. The turbine’s productivity is enhanced by the favorable wind resource that flows over the relatively flat terrain in southeast Brown County. All told, Shirley Wind’s turbines should produce about 64 million kilowatt-hours of electricity each year, which will exceed the annual output from the 20 turbines at the 30 MW Montfort installation in Iowa County, now in its 10th year of operation.

Another praiseworthy feature of Shirley Wind is the degree of local participation in the manufacturing and construction of the project. The towers were fabricated in Manitowoc by Tower Tech Systems. Manitowoc Crane supplied the giant crane that assembled the turbines. Brownsville-based Michels Wind Energy, which was also the general contractor for the 86-turbine Forward Energy Center surrounding its headquarters, organized and oversaw all facets of project construction. Numerous Wisconsin-based subcontractors, consulting engineers and natural resource professionals also made significant contributions to Shirley Wind. And Emerging Energies, the enterprising developer that started prospecting in this area in 2004 and drove the project forward across the finish line six years, is a Wisconsin corporation whose principals have deep roots in the Badger State.

It is no accident that the Shirley Wind project sets a new standard for Wisconsin content and participation. From its inception, Emerging Energies sought to maximize the benefits of windpower development to two important constituencies: Wisconsin businesses and the local community. As it turned out, its decision to partner with Tower Tech was a money-saving proposition, due to the very short distances needed to haul 80-ton tower sections from Manitowoc to the project site 25 miles away.

To build support among local officials, Emerging Energies agreed to set aside a portion of their receipts for compensating local governments and project neighbors, even though such payments are not required on power plants under 50 MW. The developer devised an innovative arrangement that allocates one-third of this revenue pool to the Town of Glenmore, one-third to Brown County, and one-third to project neighbors living within a certain distance of a wind turbine. This commitment to equitable distribution of revenues was no doubt instrumental in helping Emerging Energies secure a conditional use permit from the township in March 2007. This was no mean feat for a seasoned wind developer, let alone a relative newcomer to the industry.

With permit in hand, Emerging Energies set out to find an entity with an appetite for renewable energy. Initially, the developer approached Wisconsin utilities, which are required under 2005 Act 141 to increase the renewable energy content of the electricity they sell. However, by the time Emerging Energies started knocking on their doors, the utilities were already moving forward with their own acquisition plans, which emphasized owning and operating renewable generation sources over purchasing renewable electricity from third parties.

However, the same state law created another entity that needed to acquire renewable energy, namely, the State of Wisconsin. Under Act 141, which was signed into law in March of 2006, the State is obligated to source, by 2011, 20% of the electricity it consumes, or 184 million kilowatt-hours per year, from renewable resources. For state government officials, the purchasing requirement presented an opportunity to back an in-state wind project that could showcase Wisconsin’s prowess in manufacturing and construction as well as bolster the local economy. As a modest-sized project that had assembled a highly capable project development team, Shirley Wind shaped up to be an ideal fit for the State’s aspirations.

Because only utilities can legally sell electricity at retail, the State of Wisconsin and Emerging Energies needed to engage Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, the local utility, in a purchasing agreement that could allow the project to move forward. This was accomplished under a novel arrangement that allows Wisconsin Public Service to purchase both electricity and renewable energy credits from Shirley Wind under a 20-year contract and resell the credits to the State of Wisconsin.

With this three-way arrangement in place, Emerging Energies then sold a 90% stake in Shirley Wind in late 2009 to an outside investor, Central Hudson Enterprise Corporation, a Poughkeepsie, N.Y.-based company. The other 10% of the project remains with Emerging Energies. Having consummated that investment, Shirley Wind cleared the last remaining preconstruction hurdle. Project construction commenced in April.

When fully operational, Shirley Wind will produce enough electricity to equal the annual consumption of approximately 8,000 households without discharging so much as an ounce of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. At the same time, the project as well as generate thousands of dollars each year in supplemental income to host landowners and their neighbors. At every step of this six-year endeavor, Emerging Energies pursued its vision of locally beneficial renewable energy development in a patient and transparent manner, which eventually bore fruit when the State of Wisconsin decided to apply the power of the public purse to seal the deal for Shirley Wind. Shirley Wind represents an auspicious debut for Emerging Energies. Hopefully, there will be more projects coming through that particular pipeline.

Michael Vickerman is executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a sustainable energy advocacy organization. RENEW Wisconsin hosts and updates the on-line Wisconsin Wind Information Center (http://www.wiwindinfo.net) and facilitates the Wisconsin Wind Working Group. These commentaries also posted on RENEW’s blog: http://renewwisconsinblog.org.

Meet Butler Ridge, Wisconsin’s Newest Wind Project

2010-10-04T12:08:00.002-05:00

By Michael Vickerman
September 30, 2010

On September 23, Alex DePillis and I hopped on board a tour bus filled with natural resource professionals and gave an overview of wind development in Wisconsin as we headed to the 54 MW Butler Ridge Wind Facility. The project is located in the Town of Herman in southeast Dodge County, a few miles west of State Highway 175. Most of the project’s 36 turbines are located south of State Highway 33.

The project was developed by Midwest Wind, which also developed the Cedar Ridge project owned by Alliant Energy. The project was sold to Babcock & Brown’s U.S. division, which then constructed the facility. The general contractor for that project was RES Americas. Butler Ridge was placed in commercial operation in March 2009. Right now, it is the newest utility-scale wind project in Wisconsin, but that distinction will only late this year, when Shirley Wind comes on-line.

In December 2009, NextEra Energy (formerly FPL Energy) bought Butler Ridge from Babcock and Brown. NextEra is also the owner of the Montfort project in Iowa County.

It turned out to be an excellent day to see wind generation in action. Thanks to a strengthening low pressure system to the west, there was a steady southerly air flow sweeping over southern Wisconsin that morning. Every flag we saw that morning was stiff as could be and pointing due north. Wind speeds at hub height ranged between 20 and 25 mph. The GE turbines were producing at about 75% of their rated capacity.

We stopped at Butler Ridge’s operations and maintenance center on Illinois Road. From the vantage point of the facility, we could see wind turbines in every direction. The closest turbine, at about 1,100 feet away, was audible but barely so.

All of the output from Butler Ridge is sold to WPPI Energy, which serves a number of municipal utilities in the area, including Hartford, Slinger, Hustisford, and Juneau.

Once at the O&M center, the group listened to Nate Crawford, Butler Ridge’s site manager for NextEra, and Julie Voeck, NextEra’s manager for regulatory affairs in the Midwest. Most of the questions from the group addressed environmental impacts. Nate explained that the some of the turbines were moved to the east to create a larger buffer zone between the project and the Neda Mine bat hibernaculum. We also talked about the new permitting rule, the flow of dollars into the local area, and the effects of turbines on radio and TV reception.

Nate said that there have been very few complaints from the neighbors, and they have been almost always about TV reception. NextEra is in the process of providing the affected households with satellite TV service that features Milwaukee stations.

Only one person has taken his complaints to the Herman Town Board. That person, Nate said, has been a vocal opponent of the project from the outset. The Town Board did not find any merit in that individual’s complaint. Nate characterized the local reaction as being very positive, and the Town Board seems very supportive of the installation.

The turbines generate $216,000 annually in utility local aids. Dodge County receives about $125,000 a year, with the remainder going to the Town of Herman.

Though compensating neighbors is not a standard feature of projects developed by NextEra Energy, neighbors of the Butler Ridge turbines do receive compensation. This is a hallmark of Midwest Wind Energy’s developments in Wisconsin.

The Q&A lasted through the allotted 25 minutes. Alex and I stayed a while after the tour bus left to look at the SCADA system and continue our conversation with Nate and Julie. The availability factor at Butler Ridge is very high, with numbers hovering around 99%. I asked Nate if he could recall a time when Butler Ridge was curtailed due to transmission congestion. He could not. But it has become a serious problem at several NextEra Energy projects in Iowa. Julie and I had been at a Wind on the Wires meeting earlier that week, where it was revealed that curtailments in the MISO region are expected to shave 5% off this year’s output from wind generation. There were several at the meeting, including Julie, who believe that the MISO estimate is too low.

All in all, the conservationists seemed to enjoy their visit to Butler Ridge. For me, it was my first visit to this project, and I came away thinking that this is an attractive and well-run facility. It is only an hour’s drive from Madison, and less so from Milwaukee. We are grateful to NextEra Energy for opening up their installation to us.

Touring this year’s renewable energy crop

2010-09-28T12:30:00.002-05:00

Commentary
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
September 27, 2010

One of the abiding pleasures of my job at RENEW Wisconsin is going out into the field to visit renewable energy installations. Many of the systems sprouting across the state owe their existence to state and federal policies that make these systems economically viable to their owners.

In turn, some of those policies owe their existence to RENEW, an advocacy organization that has elevated the Wisconsin renewable energy marketplace from a dreamy aspiration to a thriving marketplace employing hundreds of people and generating millions of dollars a year in local revenues.

Whenever I’m asked to describe our mission, I often say that we act as a catalyst for advancing a sustainable energy future in Wisconsin. Our vision of that future places small, entrepreneurial companies at the center of the transition toward clean, locally available energy resources that do not deplete over time.

RENEW endeavors to steer Wisconsin along this path through policy mechanisms that help renewable energy businesses establish themselves in an economy that for many decades has operated almost exclusively on fossil energy. Because of that dependence on concentrated energy sources like coal, natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons, which are still priced very cheaply, the shift to renewable energy has been an uphill battle. The incumbent energy sources are well-entrenched and will not hesitate to expend significant political capital to block policy initiatives aimed at putting renewable energy on a more equal playing field.

At RENEW’s urging, the State of Wisconsin has taken a few measured policy steps to carve out some room for renewable energy. The most important of these initiatives is a statewide incentives program (Focus on Energy) for small-scale renewable energy systems. Though most of Focus on Energy’s budget is set aside for energy conservation and efficiency, about $10 million a year is reserved for customer-sited renewable energy systems such as solar hot water, solar electric, biogas, biomass heating, and small wind.

This program, coupled with several voluntary utility initiatives, has elevated Wisconsin into a regional showcase for renewable energy systems serving dairy farms, cattle farms, orchards, greenhouses, breweries, cheese producers, corporate campuses, apartment buildings, municipal wastewater facilities, schools and technical colleges, and manufacturers.

The policy seeds planted 10 years ago are yielding an impressive crop of installations this year, broadly distributed throughout the state. As important as these policies are, however, these systems don’t get built unless someone decides to spend dollars today to receive a decades-long supply of energy tomorrow. We at RENEW would like to give a shout-out to the owners and installers of this year’s bumper crop of home-grown renewable energy, including:

 The City of Evansville, for hosting a 100 kilowatt (kW) Northwind turbine to serve its wastewater treatment plant. Installer: H &H Solar, Madison.
 Stonehouse Development, for building two Green Built apartment houses in the Madison area, each with 60 kilowatts of rooftop photovoltaic (PV) systems and solar water heating systems. Installers: Full Spectrum Solar, Madison (PV); Cardinal Solar, Sun Prairie, solar hot water.
 Random Lake School District, for hosting a 50 kW Endurance wind turbine on the high school grounds. Installer: Kettle View Renewable Energy, Random Lake.
 Fountain Prairie Inn and Farms, in Columbia County, for hosting a 50 kW Endurance wind turbine to serve its sustainable family farm. Installer: Seventh Generation Energy Systems, Madison.
 SCA Tissue, Menasha, for hosting four 20 kW Renewegy wind turbines at one of its facilities. Manufacturer and installer: Renewegy, Oshkosh.
 Milwaukee Area Technical College, for building the state’s largest PV system, to be used as a training center. The system is rated at 540 kW. Contractor: Johnson Controls, Milwaukee; Installer: Pieper Power, Milwaukee.
 Montchevré-Betin, Belmont, a producer of goat cheese, for upgrading its wastewater treatment capacity with an anaerobic digester and 335 kW generator. Contractor: Procorp, Milwaukee. System owner: Clear Horizons, Milwaukee.

I urge the citizens of Wisconsin to go out and see for themselves how fertile the territory is here for home-grown renewable energy. As you observe these installations out in the landscape, delivering clean energy year after year to the local area, you begin to appreciate the totality of benefits that these systems yield. If you talk to system owners or installers, you will feel their passion and soak in the positive energy that comes from being part of this growing community. They are, along with the installations themselves, the most persuasive advocates for extending and strengthening Wisconsin’s clean energy policies. They not only represent today’s jobs and business opportunities, but also tomorrow’s hope.

MGE Rate Filing Rewards Fossil Fuel Use, Penalizes Renewable Energy

2010-09-16T15:07:00.004-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 16, 2010

MORE INFORMATION
RENEW Wisconsin
Michael Vickerman
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

MGE Rate Filing Rewards Fossil Fuel Use, Penalizes Renewable Energy

RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide renewable energy advocacy organization, today called on Madison Gas and Electric (MGE) to scrap its pending request to substantially increase the cost of participation in its voluntary renewable energy subscription program.

RENEW contends that MGE does not need a higher renewable rate because the cost of energy supplying its award-winning Green Power Tomorrow program have not changed over the last 18 months and will not for the foreseeable future. The utility is seeking permission from the Public Service Commission (PSC) to increase the renewable energy rate from 1.25 cents to 2 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), a 60% increase.

If approved, the voluntary premium that MGE customers will pay for sponsoring more wind and solar electricity production will be significantly higher than what other Wisconsin utilities charge. In contrast, Milwaukee-Based We Energies charges a 1.38 cents/kWh premium to participate in its Energy for Tomorrow program. That rate, which received a slight upward adjustment in 2009, will remain in effect through 2011.

“Nothing about this price hike makes any sense,” said Michael Vickerman, Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin. “Program costs haven’t changed. Wind and solar energy is no more costly this year than it was in 2009, and next year it will be more of the same. Therefore, Green Power Tomorrow’s premium should remain where it is today.”

As part of the upcoming hearings on this proposal, RENEW Wisconsin will introduce a new approach to setting the purchase price of renewable energy, one that would insulate customers from the whiplash of fluctuating fossil energy prices. RENEW Wisconsin’s proposal is supported by the City of Madison, a large purchaser of renewable energy and a party in the PSC proceeding.

Vickerman pointed out that a price increase of this magnitude is certain to drive down customer participation levels, which MGE itself has acknowledged in its filings. In fact, MGE anticipates little to no increase in program revenues even if the 60% increase is approved.

In testimony filed at the PSC, Vickerman stated that Green Power Tomorrow expanded rapidly in 2008 and 2009 after reducing its premium from more than 2.6 cents to 1 cent/kWh. In that period, the customer participation rate climbed to nearly 10%, the third-highest ranking among all U.S. utilities, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. In 2009, the pool of voluntary renewable energy serving program subscribers was nearly as large as the supply of renewable energy required under Wisconsin’s Renewable Energy Standard, Vickerman said.

“Through their purchases, Green Power Tomorrow subscribers eliminated in 2009 the production of about 95,000 tons of carbon dioxide from fossil energy sources at no cost to nonparticipating ratepayers,” Vickerman said.

“Up until now, Green Power Tomorrow has been a relatively inexpensive way for customers to lower greenhouse gas emissions that come from burning coal,” Vickerman said. “But by doubling the cost of renewable energy in less than two years, MGE will effectively encourage customers to drop out of the program, and take possession of the unsold renewable energy credits for its own use. This is bound to alienate customers who wish to support renewable energy generation and reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions.”

The proposal to raise the renewable energy subscription rate, submitted as part of MGE’s application to raise overall retail rates by nearly 10%, will be the subject of hearings later in September. If approved, a typical customer subscribing at the 100% level in Green Power Tomorrow would pay $3.75 more a month beginning January 1, 2011.

--END--

RENEW Wisconsin is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives. More information on RENEW’s Web site at www.renewwisconsin.org.

RENEW opposes WPS' proposed green pricing increase and asks for small wind tariff

2010-08-20T13:02:00.002-05:00

From the testimony of Michael Vickerman in opposition to the request of Wisconsin Public Service Corporation to increase the cost of renewable energy purchased by customers in the NatureWise green-pricing program:

The purpose of my testimony is threefold: (1) to discuss how basing buyback rates on locational marginal pricing (LMP’s) penalizes low-risk renewable energy sources; (2) to encourage Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPS), with the support of the Commission, to establish a net energy billing tariff for small wind energy systems up to 100 kilowatts and (3) to urge the Commission to hold WPS’s NatureWise premium at 1.25 cents/kWh.

The Oil Spill and You

2010-07-12T11:59:00.001-05:00

Commentary
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
July 12, 2010

About 100 people gathered in downtown Madison in early July to take part in “Hands Across the Sands,” an internationally organized protest against continued oil drilling in and along the world’s coastal waters. Against the backdrop of the weed-choked waters of Lake Monona, they joined hands for 15 minutes to express their fervent desire to see a cleaner, less destructive energy future emerge from the liquid melanoma spreading across the Gulf of Mexico.

No doubt the protestors would like to do more, much more, than simply engage in ritualized protest in front of a few camera crews. But we live in a society that is organized around the expectation of a limitless supply of nonrenewable hydrocarbons feeding concentrated energy into our economic bloodstream. Most of us have not bothered to comprehend the yawning gulf that lies between our best intentions and our abject dependence on the wealth-producing properties of petroleum. Nor how this addiction fills us with delusions of godlike mastery over our environment while blinding us to the reality that we humans have grossly overshot our planet’s carrying capacity.

For those who read and still remember the science fiction classic Dune, the “spice” on Arrakis remains the quintessential literary analogy to the reality of Earth’s oil. Like our oil, the spice held a special place in that world as the ultimate prize worth waging wars and plundering hostile environments for.

To carry the analogy further, if oil has become the spice, as it were, of America, then America has become our planet’s House of Harkonnen. Each great power has been willing to deploy their military supremacy to launch pre-emptive strikes on distant lands to assert control over the most valuable resource in their domain. In Dune, the invasion of Arrakis began as a rout, but over time evolved into a wearying, treasury-sapping occupation that ultimately cost the House of Harkonnen its status as a great power. Sound familiar?

Extracting these highly prized resources is dangerous business. On Arrakis, careless spice miners wind up as snack food for giant sandworms coursing through the sands. On our fair planet, British Petroleum’s stumbling ways a mile below the sea surface let loose a lethal eruption and a tide of goo now washing over countless estuaries and coastal outposts dense with life.

Just as the universe in Dune revolves around the spice, petroleum sets the rhythms and beats that make up life in America. It powers our comings and goings, our getting and spending. It is the fuel that carries us and our possessions across continents and over oceans. It makes possible the transporting of lettuce grown in California to supermarkets in Florida, and enables an envelope picked up in Phoenix to be flown to Memphis and then to Seattle in under 24 hours.

In fact, petroleum is the fuel of fuels, powering diesel trains that pull 130 carfuls of Wyoming coal to electric generating stations in Wisconsin and Georgia. Diesel seems to be everywhere, in tankers carrying crude oil, in trucks hauling solar electric panels, and in cranes assembling 250-ton wind energy turbines.

It’s worth mentioning that all the boats that gather shrimp and oysters from the Louisiana coastline are equipped with engines that run on diesel fuel. Gone are the days when baymen reached their favored fishing grounds using muscle power and wind energy. Without petroleum, shrimping ceases to be the industrial enterprise it is today.

But while diesel is ubiquitous, crude oil is not. The big, shallow reservoirs have all been discovered and many of them are showing signs of exhaustion. But as long as the demand for petroleum remains at current levels, oil companies have no choice but to fan out to the most remote corners to find the next big strike. Yet because we have fashioned an economy that can’t operate “normally” without petroleum, it will be extremely challenging, if not downright impossible, to effect an organized program of reducing oil consumption through political channels. To the extent we’ll see any policy response to our energy predicament, it is highly unlikely that it will be anything more enlightened than what the House of Harkonnen cooked up under similar circumstances.

Americans from all walks of life believe that we can accomplish anything if we put our collective will and ingenuity to it. But invoking that appealing myth will not help us extricate ourselves from our present predicament. What we need instead is the capacity to envision a fulfilling and livable world without copious quantities of petroleum. Only then do we have a chance of breaking the spell that has put us in the thrall of this wondrous energy source.

Need I mention that once you begin to appreciate the finitude of the Earth’s endowment of petroleum, there’s nothing to stop you from taking immediate steps to curb your personal consumption of this irreplaceable fuel. Whatever you do to lessen your dependence on petroleum will turn out to be a much more satisfying and meaningful response to our energy predicament than any canned protest promoted through Facebook.
As for myself, I made two resolutions since the Macondo well erupted. The first is to go through this summer without activating the household air-conditioner. So far, so good, I can report. (Luckily, we were spared the triple-digit temperature swelterfest that gripped the East Coast last week). It wasn’t that long ago that life without air-conditioning was the norm rather than the exception. If we all resolved not to turn on air-conditioners, we could force the retirement of two to three coal-fired plants in this state.

The other change was to ratchet up my reliance on my bicycle and make it the default vehicle for all my local travels, irrespective of weather conditions. I have been a fair-weather bicycle commuter for many years, but after watching everyone on TV blame someone else for the catastrophe, I felt the need to push myself a little harder. My objective here is to regard my car as a luxury that one day I might do without.

Though the extra perspiration and the occasional dodging of raindrops may take some getting used to, you are going to sleep better at night. Trust me on this.

If the oil spill has prompted a similar response from you, feel free to describe them and send them to the moderator of our Peak Oil blog below. Thank you.

Michael Vickerman is executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a sustainable energy advocacy organization. For more information on the global and national petroleum and natural gas supply picture, visit "The End of Cheap Oil" section in RENEW Wisconsin's web site: www.renewwisconsin.org. These commentaries also posted on RENEW’s blog: http://renewwisconsinblog.org and Madison Peak Oil Group’s blog: http://www.madisonpeakoil-blog.blogspot.com

Stakeholders Cite Uniformity as Key to Wind Siting Success

2010-07-08T10:09:00.001-05:00

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 7, 2010

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Stakeholders Cite Uniformity as Key to Wind Siting Success

Collectively drawing upon the individual roadblocks that developers experienced in permitting wind energy projects in Wisconsin, a group of renewable energy stakeholders urged the Public Service Commission to adopt standards that can’t be undermined by additional restrictions imposed by local governments.

The comments, submitted on behalf of 38 signatories, addressed the draft siting rule published by the Commission in mid-May. The draft rule proposed standards applicable to all wind energy systems -- large and small -- erected in Wisconsin. In the next phase of this proceeding, the Commission will review the public comments before issuing a final rule in August.

The rule will specify, among other things, setback distances from neighbors, sound limits, shadow flicker durations, procedures for decommissioning inoperable turbines, and mitigating electronic signal interference.

Noting that local governments would have discretionary authority going beyond the legislation’s intentions, renewable energy supporters recommended specific changes to give developers a greater sense of certainty in the permitting process.

“We are willing to work collaboratively and cooperatively with political subdivisions to establish mutually agreeable provisions beyond the requirements of the rules,” the stakeholders said in their joint comments. “However, we cannot develop wind projects in Wisconsin if current uncertainty regarding political subdivision requirements continues.”

“Many worthy projects have been stalled by changes made to ordinances after the project application was filed,” said Michael Vickerman, Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin, a
renewable energy advocacy organization and a signatory to the joint comments. “We have to ensure that the rules don’t create opportunities for new restrictions that could bring wind energy development to a standstill.”

One example of such a restriction would be a requirement on developers to guarantee property values in the project area, Vickerman said. “Those kinds of conditions have nothing to do with protecting public health and safety, but would certainly increase wind development costs. Their real purpose would be to make wind energy an economic non-starter in whichever community that adopts those requirements.”

The comments submitted on behalf of renewable energy stakeholders can be retrieved at this link -- http://psc.wi.gov/apps35/ERF_view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=134452

END

RENEW Wisconsin (http://www.renewwisconsin.org/) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.

Village of Cascade Installs Two Wind Turbines at Wastewater Plant

2010-06-09T14:19:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 9, 2010

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
Executive Director
608.255.4044

Randy Faller
Project Manager
Kettle View Renewable Energy
920.994.9433

Eve Frankel
Northern Power Systems
Marketing Communications Manager
802.461.2935

Village of Cascade Installs Two Wind Turbines at Wastewater Plant

With the start-up of two 100-kilowatt (kW) wind turbines, the Village of Cascade became the first Wisconsin community to power its municipal wastewater treatment plant with 100 percent locally produced wind energy.

The impetus behind Cascade’s embrace of wind power was the avoided utility expenditures associated with operating a wastewater treatment plant. In the first year of operation, Cascade stands to save $30,000. With anticipated increases in electric rates, the Village of Cascade should save more than one million dollars over the thirty-year life of the turbines.

Additional revenue will come from the sale of excess power to We Energies.

“With these two turbines, the Village of Cascade has taken a giant step toward energy independence,” said Michael Vickerman. “Its prudent investment in wind energy will enable the community to control its energy budget, saving money for current and future residents.”

Kettle View Renewable Energy, LLC, a wind system installer located in nearby Random Lake, installed and commissioned Cascade’s turbines.

“We are proud that our local efforts on this project made this the first net-zero wastewater treatment plant in Wisconsin,” said project manager Randy Faller. “It speaks volumes to the commitment by the Village of Cascade to generate clean, domestic energy while saving their community money.”

These two turbines double the number of Northwind 100s operating in Wisconsin to four, all installed in the last 12 months. The first two installed turbines serve schools in Wausau and Fort Atkinson.

Northern Power Systems, the Vermont turbine manufacturer, “couldn’t be more pleased that our technologically advanced, American-made Northwind 100 turbines are delivering real energy solutions for municipalities, schools, businesses and farms across Wisconsin,” said Mr. Brett Pingree, Vice President of Americas at Northern Power Systems.

Grants from Milwaukee-based We Energies and Focus on Energy were instrumental in supplementing Cascade’s investment in the project.

END

RENEW Wisconsin: (http://www.renewwisconsin.org/) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.

Northern Power Systems: (http://www.northernpower.com/) Northern Power has over 30 years of experience in developing advanced, innovative wind turbines. The company’s next generation wind turbine technology is based on a vastly simplified architecture that utilizes a unique combination of permanent magnet generators and direct-drive design. This revolutionary new approach delivers higher energy capture, eliminates drive-train noise, and significantly reduces maintenance and downtime costs. Northern Power systems is a fully integrated company that designs, manufactures and sells wind turbines into the global marketplace from its headquarters in Vermont, USA.

Kettle View Renewable Energy LLC (http://www.kettleviewre.com/) provides consulting, site assessments, and installation services for wind energy systems.

DOE program recognizes Vickerman for wind advocacy

2010-06-04T14:36:00.001-05:00

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 4, 2010

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org
Wind Energy Advocacy Award Presented to RENEW Wisconsin Director
RENEW Wisconsin Executive Director Michael Vickerman was presented with an award by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Wind Powering America program. Vickerman received the Midwest Regional Wind Advocacy Award at the program’s annual state summit following the WINDPOWER 2010 Conference & Exhibition in Dallas, Texas. At this event, Wind Powering America recognized wind energy advocates in three regions across the country: East, West and Midwest.

The award cites Vickerman’s “vision and creative leadership in RENEW and his leadership of the Wisconsin Wind Working Group.” Under the auspices of Wind Powering America, RENEW Wisconsin has been facilitating the Wisconsin Wind Working Group since 2007.

“Recognition by one’s peers is a tremendous honor,” Vickerman said, “and it’s especially sweet coming from a national program that serves wind energy advocacy and education networks in 38 states.

“I am particularly pleased that the award specifically recognizes RENEW Wisconsin, which has been the state’s leading voice for strong renewable energy policies since 1991,” Vickerman said. “Wisconsin is a regional leader in many aspects involving renewable energy, and RENEW Wisconsin has been instrumental in making that happen.”

Wind Powering America is a national initiative to dramatically increase the use of wind energy in the United States. Through various partnerships and programs, it aspires to enhance power generation options as well as protect the local environment and increase our energy and national security.

“We in Wisconsin are indebted to Wind Powering America for providing us with the tools to put wind energy development in our state on a sustainable growth trajectory,” Vickerman said.

END

RENEW Wisconsin (www.renewwisconsin.org) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.

Canadian company’s first U.S. turbine spins plenty of power for cranberry farm

2010-05-24T14:26:00.001-05:00

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 24, 2010

MORE INFORMATION
Ry Thompson
Seventh Generation Energy Systems
608.467.0123
thompson@seventhgenergy.org

Alicia Leinberger
Seventh Generation Energy Systems
608-333-5375
alicia@seventhgenergy.org

Canadian company’s first U.S. turbine spins plenty of power for cranberry farm

Dentist Frederick Prehn, owner of Prehn Cranberry Marsh near Tomah, wanted the power that the cranberry farm paid for without having to pay the utility.

“The second order of business, I wanted a turbine that has a history of working in low wind speed,” said Prehn.

A 35-kilowatt (kW) Canadian turbine, perched on a 140-foot-tall tower, accomplishes both. The first of its model line ever manufactured by Endurance Wind Power, Prehn’s wind generator underwent five months of testing at the company’s Quebec manufacturing facility.

“Wind speeds are all relative,” Prehn said. “The wind speed in the cranberry bog isn’t as good as the Great Lakes, but I’m amazed. I’ve gone through all the data I can gather, and the turbine is producing pretty well.”

“The Endurance fits Wisconsin’s climate conditions,” according to Ry Thompson, a project manager with Seventh Generation Energy, Madison, which installed the turbine.

“We’ve been eager to install one of these,” Thompson said. “It’s a very well-designed, durable machine and the 30-foot long blades make it suitable to lower wind speed environments, as are common in Wisconsin,” Thompson said.

“This should be a very popular turbine among farmers, schools, small municipalities, and manufacturing facilities,” he added.

The generator begins to produce electricity when the wind blows just under 8 miles per hour (mph). With an estimated average wind speed of 12.5 mph at his location, Prehn expects to harvest as much as 85,000 kilowatt hours of electricity – more than 150 percent of the amount he needs. The turbine powers a shop, three homes, and two wells. The excess energy is sold to the Oakdale Electric Cooperative, the farm’s local utility.

In addition, Seventh Generation installed a 5 kW solar electric system at the farm. “Some days the turbine produces goose eggs, and the solar system continues to crank out the electricity, and there’s no maintenance,” Prehn said.

“This is a shining example of home-grown energy,” stated Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a nonprofit advocate for all types of renewable energy.

“Installations like these help reduce Wisconsin’s dependence on coal from Wyoming which is transported here using oil from the Gulf of Mexico,” Vickerman said.

Prehn apparently agrees. He already has a contract with Seventh Generation to install a second Endurance turbine that will be slightly larger than the first.

END

A Cruel Month for Clean Energy

2010-05-06T15:26:00.005-05:00

A commentary
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
May 4, 2010

Renewable energy businesses and activists entered the month of April with high hopes of seeing the State Legislature pass the Clean Energy Jobs Act (CEJA), a comprehensive bill designed to propel Wisconsin toward energy independence, along the way creating thousands of new jobs and strengthening the sustainable energy marketplace. This comprehensive bill would have raised the renewable energy content of electricity sold in Wisconsin, while stepping up ratepayer support for smaller-scale renewable energy installations throughout the state.

Unfortunately, on April 22, the State Senate adjourned for the year without taking action on the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill, effectively killing the measure and leaving hundreds of businesses and individuals who campaigned for the bill empty-handed.

If life imitates poetry, then the line that opens T.S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land—“April is the cruelest month”—aptly encapsulates the evolution of a campaign that overcame many obstacles in the final weeks only to be undermined by the unwillingness of Senate leaders to schedule a vote on the bill. The sense of anticipation that began the month was swept away by a combination of personal feuds, extreme partisanship, and increasingly polarized public attitudes toward climate change. That the bill’s demise coincided with the 40th anniversary of Earth Day was seen by supporters as an especially cruel twist of fate.

It certainly didn’t help matters that the some of the state’s most politically entrenched constituencies banded together to fight CEJA at every stage of the process. Among the hard-core opponents were Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the Paper Council and the Farm Bureau. Their vociferous opposition scuttled bipartisanship, eliminating the possibility that a Republican legislator would vote for the bill.

Working hand-in-glove with vitriolic right-wing radio talk show hosts, the opposition supplied their grassroots faithful with a smorgasbord of exaggerated claims, hyperbole, outright fantasy, and pseudoscience. Though the analysis purporting to document the opposition’s assertions set a new low in academic rigor, it succeeded in its aim, which was to plant the seeds of fear among certain legislators about the ultimate cost of this legislation before the bill was even introduced.

Working just as vigorously for the Clean Energy Jobs Act, a broad spectrum of interests answered the requests for help. Whether they were one-person solar installation businesses or Fortune 500 corporations like Milwaukee-based Johnson Controls, CEJA supporters wrote letters, made phone calls, and corralled their legislators at the Capitol on several days during March and April.

In dozens of face-to-face meetings with their representatives, CEJA supporters made the case for this bill by bringing out their own experiences as business owners, farmers, educators, builders, and skilled tradesmen. They presented a local and highly personal angle to the clean energy policy debate that many legislators had not appreciated before. Their passion and energy were instrumental in giving this bill a fighting chance for passage at the end of the session. Unfortunately, the campaign could not overcome the pique of the Senate Democrats.

One legislator who kept pushing this ambitious bill up the legislative hill until the very last day was Assembly representative Spencer Black, who was one of the four principal authors of the measure. CEJA supporters are indebted to Rep. Black for his vigorous leadership and his determined efforts to round up support among his compatriots for passing this bill.

Two rays of sunlight did manage to pierce through the heavy clouds at the close of April, prompted by the dedication of the two largest wind turbines owned by Wisconsin schools. In each case, the school erected a 100-kilowatt Northwind turbine manufactured by Vermont-based Northern Power Systems. One serves Wausau East High School while the other feeds power to the Madison Area Technical College’s Fort Atkinson branch. The turbines will offset a significant fraction of the electricity consumed at each school.

Located well within the city limits of Wausau and Fort Atkinson, these 155-foot-tall wind generators eloquently testify to the breadth and depth of public support for renewable energy across Wisconsin. Next January, the Legislature will witness the return of clean energy supporters with similar legislation for strengthening Wisconsin’s renewable energy marketplace. In the meantime, we will be working hard to achieve a very different outcome.

END

Michael Vickerman is the executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a sustainable energy advocacy organization headquartered in Madison. For more information on Wisconsin renewable energy policy, visit RENEW’s web site at: www.renewwisconsin.org.

Impressions of the Wind Siting Council’s Tour of Wind Development

2010-05-06T14:28:00.002-05:00

The Wind Siting Advisory Committee, created to advise the Public Service Commission on statewide wind siting standards, toured Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center and Forward Wind Center on May 4, 2010, to gain first hand knowledge of turbine impacts.

Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin's executive director, prepared the following commentary on his impressions of the tour:

Impressions of the Wind Siting Council’s Tour of Wind Development in Fond du Lac County
by Michael Vickerman
May 5, 2010

Stop 1 – Home of Larry Wunsch, council member, pilot, and wind project opponent

A member of the Wind Siting Council and a critic of windpower, Larry lives on a 60-acre parcel located on the northern edge of the Forward project along Hwy F. On his 60 acres you’ll find a six-year-old 2,200 square-foot house, a hangar, a airplane, an airstrip, and 50 acres of rentable ag land, all zoned agricultural. The property is for sale; the asking price is $600,000. You can take a digital tour of his property by visiting http://www.fdlairstrip.com. Observe that not a single turbine shows up in any of the images on his web site. As you will appreciate later on in this document, editing out the wind turbines was not an easy feat to pull off.

Fourteen of the 15 council members were present at Larry Wunsch’s house. Also gathering there were PSC staff, a film crew from WI Public Television, Bill Rakocy’s partners at Emerging Energies (Tim Osterberg and Jay Mundinger) a smattering of local wind critics (Gerry Meyer and Curt Kindschuh), two WINDCOWS representatives from Manitowoc County (Dave and Lynn Korinek), Lynda Barry from Rock County, furiously taking notes, and a few others whom I didn’t recognize.

I came a few minutes late, and missed some of Larry’s opening remarks. From what I gleaned from others, Larry mentioned that he poured much if not all of his personal savings into acquiring this property some 11 years ago. Between the appearance of his property and the tidbits of information he provided yesterday, I would characterize Larry’s parcel as investment property on which he built his dream house, which is set back about 100 yards from the road. The property tax levy on his 60-acre parcel is quite modest -- $5,400 per year. At some point in the future, his plan was to subdivide the ag land into residential properties.

The wind was blowing from the west-southwest. My educated guess is that the winds were clocking in about 10 – 14 miles/hour.

The closest turbine to Larry’s house is located practically due west at a distance of 1,100 feet. I honestly could not hear the wind turbine from where I stood, about 50 feet east of the house. I was surprised by this, because I had stopped at the Blue Sky Green Field operations center on the way to Larry’s house, and there I could clearly hear the Vestas V-82 turbine that is 1,100 feet away from the building entrance.

There was no shadow flicker to experience, due to the generally cloudy conditions at Forward as well as the time of day.

There was no missing the visual impact of the Forward project looking south from where we gathered, which was in front of Larry’s hangar. There were easily 50 turbines viewable from that vantage point. Moreover, off in the eastern horizon, the Cedar Ridge turbines were plainly visible, although their visual impact was slight compared to the panorama of Forward turbines from east to west. Since he owned the property before the wind turbines were constructed, the change in his south-facing viewshed must have been dramatic, to say the least.

No one had any difficulty hearing Larry or any other speaker during the tour stop. Maybe others were able to perceive sound coming from the turbines, but I certainly wasn’t. We were able to make out a plethora of other sounds while we were there, including a very loud plane flying overhead, occasional bird chatter, random mooing of cows and, at one point, a helicopter buzzing over the turbines. The bucolic sounds of the countryside were in no way disturbed or distorted by whooshing noise.

There was some talk attempting to distinguish the sound signature of a Vestas V-82 from that of a GE 1.5 MW. I would say that the Vestas turbines produce a more pronounced aerodynamic sound than the GE turbines. Compared with a Vestas V-82, the sounds from a GE turbine are more likely to emanate from inside the nacelle. Others may have a different take on this point.

Because she had a pressing engagement later in the morning, We Energies’ Tanya Holler-Muench also spoke to the group while it was assembled at Larry’s house. She provided details about the mitigation measures that We Energies employs in response to citizen complaints. For example, she mentioned that the most effective technique they use to minimize shadow flicker is a room-darkening cellulose window shade that blocks the shadow from penetrating into the interior. She also explained We Energies’ procedures for dealing with radio interference and TV signal interference.

Stop 2 – Blue Sky Green Field Operations Center

On the way to the operations center, the clouds broke up and the sun shone through. We assembled at the operations center, where We Energies’ Andy Hesselbach delivered a brief presentation on WE’s generation profile and the construction of the Blue Sky Green Field in 2007-2008, and its performance since. The turbines were achieving availability ratings of 99% or better. According to Andy, wind farm production was tracking close to preconstruction estimates, and that April had been a good month for wind. (An aside: it was a hell of a good month for solar too.)
Somebody asked Andy a question about the notorious Vestas safety manual, which wind opponents have used to justify their arguments that wind turbines should be no closer than 1,300 feet to a property line. Andy said that We Energies had obtained from Vestas a letter that clarifies some of the more confusing aspects of the manual. I asked Andy to circulate that letter to the entire Council.

Several other people working at the Operations Center also spoke, including Art Ondrejka, Vestas’ maintenance manager. Art presented a local face to the project. He was already living in the project zone when Vestas hired him. The house where he lives is within a quarter-mile (1,320 feet) of four turbines, but his family is not bothered by their proximity. He stressed that WE and Vestas use local contractors and vendors whenever possible.

The overall impression conveyed by the We Energies-Vestas team is that Blue Sky Green Field is a well-managed project and that We Energies is a responsible project owner, effectively balancing the objective of maximizing facility output with the obligation to be a good neighbor to area residents.

After the presentations were concluded, the group walked to the turbine closest to the operations center. As we approached the turbine we spotted two red-tailed hawks wheeling above the turbine, looking not the least bit alarmed. The wind started to pick up then. The turbine door was opened and a few Council members and PSC staff stepped inside. Others gathered about 200 feet from the turbine to talk. Even though everyone was quite conscious of the whooshing blades (and an audible chirping sound with each revolution), we were able to converse with each other without having to raise our voices or cup our ears. Not far away, one of the Council members, a wind opponent, was listening to messages on his mobile. No one, including the opponents, seemed troubled by our proximity to the turbine. Given how quick they are to misrepresent the contents of the Vestas safety manual, they seemed not at all worried about what harm might befall them being only 200 feet from a spinning industrial monster. The two WINDCOWS representatives were tagging along and they didn’t seem the least bit fazed either.

Renewable Energy Not Responsible for MGE Rate Increase

2010-04-27T13:21:00.001-05:00

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 27, 2010

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Renewable Energy Not Responsible for MGE Rate Increase

Higher costs associated with fossil fuel generation are driving Madison Gas & Electric’s costs higher, according to testimony submitted by company witnesses. The utility filed an application last week with the Public Service Commission (PSC) to collect an additional $32.2 million through a 9% increase in electric rates starting January 2011.

The bulk of the rate increase can be attributed to expenses associated with burning coal to generate electricity. A 22% owner of the 1,020-megawatt (MW) Columbia Generating Station near Portage, Madison Gas & Electric (MGE) and the owner plant owners plan to retrofit the 35-year-old facility to reduce airborne emissions. The cost of Columbia’s environmental retrofit is expected to total $640 million, of which MGE’s share is about $140 million.

MGE also owns an 8% share of the state’s newest coal-fired station, the 1,230-MW Elm Road Generating Station located in Oak Creek. A portion of the proposed rate hike would cover lease payments and other expenses at that plant.

MGE’s application does not attribute any portion of its proposed rate hike to renewable energy sources. However, MGE plans to increase the premium associated with its voluntary Green Power Tomorrow program from 1.25 cents per kilowatt-hour to 2 cents. RENEW estimates that the premium hike will collect more than $1 million in 2011 from the approximately 10,000 customers participating in the program.

According to the utility’s web site, 10% of MGE's electric customers purchase some or all of their electricity from renewable resources. Moreover, Green Power Tomorrow has the second highest participation rate of all investor-owned utilities in the country according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Not surprisingly, MGE anticipates subscribership in Green Power Tomorrow to decrease if the PSC approves the higher premium. Currently, the program accounts for about 5% of total electric sales. Program subscribers include the City of Madison, State of Wisconsin, Dane County Regional Airport, Madison West High School, Goodman Community Center and Home Savings Bank.

According to MGE, sinking fossil fuel prices have widened the difference between wholesale power costs and the cost of supplying customers with renewable energy. However, it is worth remembering that the cost of supplying power from MGE’s renewable energy assets, such as its Rosiere installation in Kewaunee County and Top of Iowa project, did not increase last year and will not increase in the foreseeable future.

“Even though the cost of MGE’s windpower supplies is not going up, Green Power Tomorrow customers will take a double hit if the PSC approves this rate increase and request for higher premiums,” said RENEW Wisconsin executive Director Michael Vickerman. “It’s a ‘heads-I-win-tails-you-lose’ proposition that will wind up rewarding customers who drop out of the renewable energy program because coal is cheaper.”

“It would be short-sighted to penalize renewable energy purchasers just because fossil fuel prices are in a temporary slump,” Vickerman said. “But if MGE is allowed to institute this penalty at the same time it imposes the cost of cleaning up an older coal-fired generator on all of its customers, including its Green Power Tomorrow subscribers, it would have a profoundly negative impact on the renewable energy marketplace going forward.”

“This is the wrong time to be throwing up barriers to renewable energy development. We at RENEW will fight proposals that reward fossil fuel use and penalize renewable energy,” Vickerman added.

END

RENEW Wisconsin calls for veto of waste-to-energy bill

2010-04-26T11:41:00.000-05:00

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 23, 2010

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

RENEW Wisconsin Calls for Veto of Waste-to-Energy Bill

RENEW Wisconsin called on Governor Jim Doyle to veto a bill that allows garbage to qualify as a renewable energy resource.

“The bill (Senate Bill 273), passed in the last hours of the final legislative session, would lead to a cutback in new clean-energy installations using solar, wind, biogas, and biomass,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide renewable energy advocacy organization.

The bill would credit electricity from gasification of garbage toward the amount of renewable energy each Wisconsin utility must supply under current law.

“By failing to pass the Clean Energy Jobs Act, the Legislature essentially froze the overall percentage of renewable energy that Wisconsin utilities must supply to customers,” said Vickerman.

“Adding solid waste to the list of eligible resources without raising the percentage above the current requirement will result in a reduction of electricity derived from truly sustainable renewable resources.”

“No way can anyone legitimately say that this bill expands renewable energy in Wisconsin.”

“All in all, this session will be remembered as a wasted opportunity for clean energy and job creation,” Vickerman said.

“When we entered the month of April, we had high hopes for the Clean Energy Jobs Act, a bill that would have forcefully sent Wisconsin down a path to energy independence while creating thousands of new jobs. Instead, the Legislature crammed garbage down the throats of utility customers.”

“No other legislative body in history has managed to trash Earth Day and the legacy of Wisconsin’s own Gaylord Nelson as completely as the Wisconsin Senate whose leaders wouldn’t allow a vote on the Clean Energy Jobs Act,” according to Vickerman.

“Governor Doyle can honor Gaylord Nelson by vetoing SB 273.”

END

We Energies Wins Praise for Support of Clean Energy Jobs Act

2010-04-22T09:13:00.000-05:00

A news release issued by RENEW Wisconsin:

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 21, 2010

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

We Energies Wins Praise for Support of Clean Energy Jobs Act

A leading renewable energy advocacy group praised Milwaukee-based We Energies for its support of the Clean Energy Jobs Act legislation (Assembly Bill 649).

On Tuesday (April 20), We Energies distributed a memo explaining its support to all members of the state Assembly.

We Energies’ memo followed a similar memo last week from Clean, Responsible Energy for Wisconsin’s Economy (CREWE), a coalition of businesses and utilities supporting the legislation. Other utility members of CREWE are Alliant Energy, Madison Gas & Electric, WPPI Energy, Xcel Energy, and American Transmission Company.

“We Energies deserves praise for stepping out and speaking up on its own,” said Michael Vickerman,” executive director of RENEW Wisconsin.

“We Energies expressed its positive vision for a renewable energy future and the jobs that come with it,” added Vickerman.

The memo from Joel Haubrich, We Energies, said:

We Energies urges support for AB 649.

Throughout the process we have supported moving from our current 10% by 2015 renewable mandate to the 25% by 2025 renewable mandate. It will be a massive effort to meet the requirements in the legislation but we will . . . work to achieve the goal when it becomes law.

Recently, we asked the authors for specific changes to the legislation. On Monday, April 19, we believe we resolved our concerns and now can support the bill.

The changes we believe the authors have agreed to include: 1) incorporating language on “utility rate of return,” 2) removing the ambiguity as to who can perform energy conservation work, 3) allowing efficiency to count from 2016 to 2020 and 4) changing nuclear findings to previously agreed upon language.

We Energies urges support for these amendments and urges support for AB 649. (Emphasis in the original.)

END

RENEW Wisconsin (HUwww.renewwisconsin.orgUH) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.

Legislators Fire Blanks at Clean Energy Jobs Act

2010-04-15T15:40:00.000-05:00

A commentary by Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin:

Immediate release
April 15, 2010

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

Statement of Michael Vickerman
Executive Director – RENEW Wisconsin

Legislators Fire Blanks at Clean Energy Jobs Act

In an April 13 statement, Reps. Mike Huebsch (R-West Salem), Phil Montgomery (R-Green Bay), and Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford) contend that the substitute amendment for the Clean Energy Jobs Act, released earlier this week, will drive up electric rates across Wisconsin. As ammunition for their argument, the representatives point to recent requests in Iowa to raise electric rates, which they attribute to the state’s renewable energy policy.

The argument advanced by these three lawmakers is truly absurd, given the facts of the situation. In the first place, Iowa’s Alternative Energy Production (AEP) law, which dates from 1983, requires the state’s two largest electric utilities to add a mere 105 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity between them. By 1997, both utilities had achieved full compliance with that law. That mandate has not been increased or modified since that time.

Fast forward to April 2010. Windpower capacity alone in Iowa now totals 3,670 MW, and the Hawkeye State is now the second largest producer of wind-generated electricity in the nation behind Texas. According to the Iowa Policy Project, windpower accounted for 14% of the state’s electric output in 2009. Additional information on windpower development in Iowa can be accessed here.

The vast majority of Iowa’s windpower capacity was built for reasons other than complying with the state’s renewable energy policy. Iowa utilities invested in windpower because it is the lowest cost generation option available to them. Here’s what MidAmerican Energy Company, Iowa’s largest investor-owned utility, says about its windpower assets.

MidAmerican began building wind turbines in 2004 and has made the investment without raising customers’ electric rates. The price of electricity per kilowatt-hour … for MidAmerican customers is lower today than it was in 1995, and the company has committed to not seek an electric rate increase to become effective until 2014, which is nearly 20 years without a rate increase.

Given MidAmerican’s experience with windpower, it is clear that the allegation from Reps. Huebsch, Montgomery and Gunderson was spun without any apparent connection to reality. The proper place to file a claim this ludicrous is in a manure digester, where it can be broken down into usable energy.

It’s worth pointing out that a significant percentage of Iowa’s wind capacity serves Wisconsin utilities, among them Madison Gas & Electric (MGE), which owns the 30 MW Top of Iowa 3 installation and purchases additional supplies of wind-generated electricity from independently owned facilities there. These facilities were constructed after 2006, the year Wisconsin’s current renewable energy standard was enacted. Yet MGE’s residential ratepayers have seen annual rate increases of only 1.5% in the last four years. Compared with other expenses, such as college tuition, health insurance premiums, and vehicle registration fees, electricity cost increases have barely been noticeable.

Windpower’s rapid growth in the Upper Midwest has also contributed to the reduction of fossil fuel consumption, resulting in lower natural gas prices. That benefit is passed through directly to Wisconsin energy users in the form of lower heating bills. Indeed, over the last 12 months, overall energy costs declined measurably for most Wisconsin households and businesses, thanks to the prolonged slump in natural gas prices.

There is no surer way to control energy bills than to reduce the state’s reliance on imported fossil fuels through increased conservation and substituting renewable resources wherever practical. The choice before the Legislature is clear cut and momentous. Either it can embrace a 15-year commitment to invigorate the state’s economy through sustained investment in clean energy or it can decide to coast along on current energy policies until they lapse several years from now and lose their force and effect.

We at RENEW believe the Clean Energy Jobs Act will propel the clean energy marketplace into an economic powerhouse that will generate jobs and help Wisconsin businesses remain competitive. We strongly support the passage of the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill as amended.

--END--

RENEW Wisconsin Backs Amended Clean Energy Jobs Act

2010-04-15T11:22:00.003-05:00

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 15, 2010

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

RENEW Backs Amended Clean Energy Jobs Act
The board of directors of RENEW Wisconsin approved, without dissent, the following resolution in support of the amended version of the Clean Energy Jobs Act, according to Michael Vickerman, RENEW’s executive director:

RENEW Wisconsin strongly supports passage of the Clean Energy Jobs Act. While RENEW recognizes that future legislative improve- ments will be needed, it is incumbent upon the State to extend and expand Wisconsin’s commitment to a clean energy infrastructure with associated clean energy job creation.

END
RENEW Wisconsin (www.renewwisconsin.org) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.

Costs of coal plants keep going up

2010-04-07T09:53:00.002-05:00

For Immediate Release
April 7, 2010

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

Costs of coal plants keep going up
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)

Revitalizing Wisconsin with Homegrown Renewable Energy

2010-03-26T11:06:00.004-05:00

From a PowerPoint presentation (posted as a PDF) by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Executive Director:

+ Where We Are Today
+ Renewable Energy Standard
+ Renewable Buyback Rates/Incentives
+ Outlook for Clean Energy Jobs Act bill

Of Molehills and Renewable Energy Purchases

2010-02-22T11:35:00.001-06:00

Commentary
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
February 22, 2010

As the Legislature mulls over the pending comprehensive energy bill known as the Clean Energy Jobs Act (SB 450/AB 649), both supporters and opponents have been keeping their artillery banks busy, peppering the airwaves and cyberspace with press releases, position papers, radio advertisements and economic impact studies. It’s a veritable war of words out there.

In pursuit of the larger objective of undermining public support for that bill, several opponents of the energy bill are attempting to manufacture a controversy out of the State of Wisconsin’s purchasing of renewable electricity, an outgrowth of the state’s current energy policy law (2005 Act 141). That law directed the State of Wisconsin to source 10% of its electrical usage from renewable resources by 2007 and 20% by 2011. In the initiative’s first year, the purchase of renewable energy added $1.4 million, or 1.7%, to the state’s overall electric bill.

The critics, led by Rep. Brett Davis (R-Oregon), contend that the state’s purchase is a budget-straining extravagance that taxpayers cannot afford at this time. In a letter sent to the Department of Administration, Davis insinuated that one of the energy purchase contracts amounts to a sweetheart deal for the utility provider, WPPI Energy, because it charged higher premiums than the other two utilities. Davis has asked the Legislative Audit Bureau to review the WPPI contract. WPPI, it should be noted, is a nonprofit wholesale energy provider serving more than 40 municipal electric utilities in Wisconsin.

Before we plunge into the politics behind this puffed-up molehill, a brief primer little on energy pricing is in order. First and foremost, the renewable energy in question is acquired by the state under long-term contracts that set forth a fixed price. Whether we’re talking about windpower, solar or biogas, the price of that resource remains steady over time. It does not yo-yo up and down the way certain fossil fuel prices do.

By contrast, an unregulated energy commodity like natural gas is especially susceptible to price volatility. Even though natural gas is primarily used as a heating fuel in Wisconsin, its price behavior strongly influences wholesale electricity costs at the margin.

Back when the State of Wisconsin signed its contracts with its renewable energy providers, natural gas prices were significantly elevated. After July 2008, they plummeted, which took the air out of wholesale electric markets. As a result, the cost differential between conventional energy and renewable energy widened going into 2009. But the renewable resources didn’t become more expensive; their costs stayed the same as it was two years ago.

The energy provided by WPPI Energy comes from the Forward Wind Energy Center located in Fond du Lac and Dodge counties. Keep in mind that the Forward project is a local energy source; no state dollars leave the state to procure the electricity. This 129-turbine installation pumps more than $1 million a year into the local economy in the form of land rental payments, local government revenues and maintenance crew salaries. Not a single dollar from the State of Wisconsin stays with WPPI Energy.

The State’s arrangement with WPPI Energy is nothing more than a standard hedge contract. This type of arrangement is common between suppliers of propane or fuel oil and their customers. Those businesses routinely offer their customers an opportunity to lock in a certain fuel price in advance of the heating season. Sometimes it works out for the customer, sometimes it doesn’t. But many customers and suppliers elect to enter into hedged contracts, because both parties can lock in their fuel expenses for the winter regardless of how the energy markets behave.

Yet, if wholesale electricity prices are slumping, then so is the cost of heating buildings with natural gas. According to a recent post by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Tom Content, residential and business customers are spending 15% to 30% less on heating bills this winter. The primary cause of the reduction in heating bills is the ongoing slump in the price of natural gas.

Content goes on to say that while electric rates rose at the beginning of this year, the savings on the heating side are neutralizing the impact on customer pocketbooks. If you and I and every other utility customer are seeing significant reductions in our heating bills, then it stands to reason that the State of Wisconsin is too. Put another way, the very dynamic that lifted renewable energy premiums last year also lowered energy bills statewide this winter.

Most people expect fossil fuel prices will rise again, and history will not disappoint them. Rep. Davis knows this too, which is why he and every other Republican legislator except one lone dissenter voted in favor of the state renewable energy purchasing initiative four years ago. But the Republicans were in the majority back in 2006, and thus took credit—deservedly so--for their leadership in passing Act 141.

In a further irony, the source of Davis’s ire was a pet policy of a fellow Republican legislator, former representative Scott Jensen. As a member of Gov. Doyle’s Task Force on Energy Efficiency and Renewables, Jensen championed the idea of the state acting as a “model customer,” whose leadership by example serves to educate other customers on the virtues of renewable energy.

But the real reason why Rep. Davis and others have sought to make a federal case out of this molehill is to blow up the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill before it can pass a Legislature that is, this time around, controlled by Democrats. Unlike their rivals four years ago, Republicans don’t see any electoral advantage to working with the majority party on this bill, even though it is clearly the most important economic development initiative that the Legislature will entertain this session.

During most of my 19 years as a renewable energy advocate, there has been an implicit recognition that both parties should share in the risks and rewards associated with something as fundamentally important as state energy policy. But times have certainly changed. Bipartisanship is completely MIA in this debate, as evidenced by the unnecessary and unconvincing posturing over the state’s renewable energy purchase. To echo the great Irish poet W.B. Yeats, the center is not holding.

Michael Vickerman is the executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a sustainable energy advocacy organization headquartered in Madison. For more information on the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill (SB450/AB649), visit RENEW’s web site at: www.renewwisconsin.org.

Letter to Sen. Miller & Rep. Black on rate impacts of ARTs

2010-02-17T10:39:00.006-06:00

February 12, 2010

Senator Mark Miller
State Capitol, Room 317 East
Madison, WI 53707

Representative Spencer Black
State Capitol, Room 210 North
Madison, WI 53708

Dear Senator Miller and Representative Black:

RENEW Wisconsin and our members appreciate the opportunities you created for public input into the Legislature’s deliberations on the Clean Energy Jobs Act legislation. Certainly, the more we can ground public discussion in fact, the better the final outcome.

To that end, RENEW is pleased to provide the enclosed copy of the narrative and appendix of tables from an economic analysis that we commissioned.

The analysis concludes that special buyback rates (sometimes called Advanced Renewable Tariffs) designed to stimulate small-scale renewable energy installations would have negligible impact on residential utility bills, averaging about $10 a year. That’s less a dollar a month for the typical customer. And it’s less than a household’s cost of purchasing the smallest block of green power from Madison Gas and Electric, for instance.

Compared with other forms of economic stimulus, promoting small-scale renewables through utility buyback rates would deliver a substantial and long-lasting economic punch with minimal impact on the Wisconsin citizen’s pocketbook.

Prepared by Spring Green-based L&S Technical Associates, the study modeled rate impacts from the legislation’s provisions for ARTs on the state’s five largest utilities. The modeling predicts cost impacts ranging from a low of $8.12 a year for a residential customer of Wisconsin Public Service to as high as $11.07 for a Wisconsin Power and Light (Alliant) customer. The projected impact would amount to $8.81 a year for a We Energies customer, $9.71 for a Madison Gas and Electric customer, and $10.11 for an Xcel Energy customer.

The projections assume that when each utility reaches its maximum threshold of 1.5 percent of total retail sales. In the aggregate, this percentage equates to 1/70th of total annual sales. That’s one billion kilowatt-hours a year, out of total annual sales of 70 billion kilowatt-hour.

Though the principals of L&S Technical Associates serve on RENEW’s board of directors, they have prepared numerous renewable energy studies for other clients, including the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Center of Wisconsin, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. L&S has also co-authored renewable energy potential studies in response to requests from the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.

The bill’s renewable energy buyback provisions would unleash a steady flow of investment that would lead to new economic activity and jobs while moving us toward energy independence – exactly what we all hope to accomplish by passage of the Clean Energy Jobs Act legislation.

Sincerely,

Michael Vickerman
Executive Director

Clearing up Wisconsin’s lakes with clean energy

2010-02-17T10:03:00.001-06:00

A Commentary
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
February 15, 2010

In the next six weeks the Legislature will make a truly momentous decision on the state’s energy future. Either it can embrace an ambitious 15-year commitment to invigorate the state’s economy through sustained investments in clean energy or decide to coast along on current energy policies until they lapse and lose their force and effect.

Arguably the most innovative feature in the Clean Energy Jobs Act, as it’s now called, is a proposed requirement on larger electric providers to acquire locally produced renewable electricity with Advanced Renewable Tariffs (ARTs). These are technology-specific buyback rates that provide a fixed purchase price for the electricity produced over a period of 10 to 20 years, set at levels sufficient to recover installation costs along with a modest profit. Now available in more than a dozen nations in Europe as well as the Province of Ontario, ARTs have proven to be singularly effective in stimulating considerable growth in small-scale production of distributed renewable electricity.

From what we’ve observed, Focus on Energy and federal incentives (the current mix of financial support) are not sufficient to drive significant installation activity when utility buyback rates are pegged to the cost of operating 40-year-old coal plants. It’s unrealistic to assume that a brand-new farm-sized renewable energy system, regardless of the resource used, can compete head-to-head with central station power plants that have been fully amortized.

However, when existing incentives and tax credits are supplemented with an additional source of financial support, such as higher buyback rates, installation activity picks up noticeably.

Consider the much-vaunted Dane County Cow Power Project, which should be operational before the end of the year. Using anaerobic digestion technology, this Waunakee-area installation will treat manure from three nearby dairy farms and produce biogas that will fuel a two-megawatt generator. This community digester project, the first of its kind in Wisconsin, will be built with private capital and a State of Wisconsin award to support a technology that reduces the flow of phosphorus into the Yahara Lakes. A second digester project is also planned for Dane County.

The key element that makes the financing of this project work is the special biogas buyback rate that Alliant Energy, the local utility, voluntarily put in place a year ago. With the higher rate, the project’s return on investment was sufficient to interest outside investors.
Unfortunately, once this initiative reached its predetermined capacity limit, Alliant discontinued the special biogas rate. This complicates matters for future digester installations, in that the other utilities that serve Dane County, including Madison Gas & Electric, do not offer special buyback rates to customers who generate electricity from biogas.

While voluntary initiatives are laudable, they are too small and sporadic in nature to make much of a dent in converting Wisconsin’s organic wastes into energy. Indeed, unless a policy is adopted statewide that requires utilities to increase their purchases of locally generated renewable electricity, there is no guarantee that Dane County will see a second digester project built.

If we are serious about neutralizing the algae blooms that turn the Yahara lakes green each year, we’ll need to adopt a clean energy policy, including ARTs, that facilitates the development of biodigesters in farm country.

Please communicate your support for this bill by writing letters to your state legislators and to your local newspaper. But time is of the essence -- we have only a few more weeks left in this legislative session.

Michael Vickerman is the executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a sustainable energy advocacy organization headquartered in Madison.

Testimony in support of Clean Energy Jobs Act bill

2010-02-02T14:36:00.001-06:00

Summary of Michael Vickerman’s (RENEW Wisconsin)
testimony before the
Assembly Special Committee on Clean Energy
February 2, 2010

RENEW Wisconsin strongly supports the provisions in SB450/AB649 to expand the state’s Renewable Energy Standard to 25% by 2025, which includes a 10% in-state renewable energy set-aside. RENEW has evaluated the availability of specific resources to reach that standard and has concluded that meeting such a target is technically feasible. If adopted, the in-state set-aside will become the most powerful engine for job development and capital investment over the next 15 years.

We expect such a requirement to be achieved through a combination of utility-scale power plants and smaller-scale generating units dispersed throughout Wisconsin. With respect to distributed renewable generation, we note the following:

1. The vast majority of the distributed renewable generating units installed in Wisconsin serve schools, dairy farms and other small businesses, churches and local governments.

2. Utilities are not in the business of installing these systems themselves.

3. In many cases the renewable energy installation went forward because there was a special buyback rate available to accelerate the recovery of the original investment made by the customer. Last week, I gave the example of the Dane County community anaerobic digester project that, once operational, will treat manure taken from several nearby dairy farms in the Waunakee area and produce two megawatts of electricity with it. The electricity will be purchased by Alliant Energy through a voluntary biogas tariff worth 9.3 cents/kWh. Unfortunately, Alliant’s biogas program is fully subscribed and is no longer available to other dairy farmers, food processing companies and wastewater treatment facilities served by Alliant.

4. Companies that install solar, wind and biogas energy systems are quintessentially small businesses, many of them family-owned. Renewable energy contractors and affiliated service providers constitute one of the few market sectors where young adults who have acquired the necessary skills to do the job well can find meaningful work at decent pay.

5. By its very nature, distributed renewable energy delivers nearly 100% of its economic punch to the local economy.

In stark contrast to other states, Wisconsin has a well developed market structure for supporting small-scale renewables. Through the ratepayer-funded Focus on Energy program, there is in Wisconsin a human infrastructure that trains and educates thousands of young people to work in the renewable energy arena. Indeed, Wisconsin is a leader in this area. Our expectation is that these workers will apply their skills in the state, fabricating and installing renewable energy equipment in a thoroughly professional manner.

But if we don’t take equal care to create and sustain demand for their skills and services, these workers are apt to leave the state for greener pastures, and Wisconsin’s investment in their education will have gone unpaid. This is why the issue of Advanced Renewable Tariffs is so important to RENEW members.

One final point: Last week several utility representatives recommended that the Legislature strip out the Advanced Renewables Tariff section. RENEW urges you not to heed their advice. While we would support a reworking of this section, including a program cap to limit rate impacts, we cannot support abandoning this initiative altogether and cannot further support a bill that is silent on policies to advance the distributed energy marketplace. That is a bottom-line priority with us.

Submitted by:
Michael Vickerman
Executive Director
RENEW Wisconsin
February 2, 2010

Hearing on Clean Energy Jobs Act bill trivialized Advanced Renewable Tariffs

2010-01-29T11:51:00.002-06:00

January 28, 2010

Senator Jeff Plale
Room 313 South, State Capitol
Madison, WI 53708

Senator Mark Miller
Room 317 East, State Capitol
Madison, WI 53708

Dear Senators Miller and Plale:

Thank you for holding a hearing yesterday of the Select Committee on Clean Energy on SB 450 (the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill). You heard a great deal of substantive commentary about much of the bill, particularly the sections dealing with energy efficiency and the expanded Renewable Energy Standard.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the discussion on the proposal to institute Advanced Renewable Tariffs in Wisconsin. Early in the hearing, a speaker framed the issue as “asking a little old lady in Cudahy to subsidize an expensive system in Mequon.” From that point, the discussion devolved into a kind of semi-orchestrated gang-tackling on this issue that continued unabated until I was called upon to speak, some seven hours and forty five minutes after the hearing began. While RENEW members who work for or with solar, wind and biogas energy installation companies were present during the hearing and had registered to speak, none were called prior to myself. All but two (Full Spectrum Solar and Ed Ritger) had to leave before the hearing ended.

Now, I don’t believe the first speaker, a labor leader, had intended to belittle the companies that install customer-sited renewable energy systems or dismiss their contribution to Wisconsin’s economy and environment. Nevertheless, the “little old lady from Cudahy” theme took a life of its own, and as a result, the very important issues of how to support these systems through utility rates and whether these rates should be mandated had become thoroughly trivialized by the end.

Allow me to repeat some of the points I made at yesterday’s hearing:

1. The vast majority of the distributed renewable generating units installed in Wisconsin serve schools, dairy farms and other small businesses, churches and local governments.

2. Utilities are not in the business of installing these systems themselves.

3. In many cases the renewable energy installation went forward because there was a special buyback rate available to accelerate the recovery of the original investment made by the customer. Yesterday, I gave the example of the Dane County community anaerobic digester project that, once operational, will treat manure taken from several nearby dairy farms in the Waunakee area and produce two megawatts of electricity with it. The electricity will be purchased by Alliant Energy through a voluntary biogas tariff worth 9.3 cents/kWh. Unfortunately, Alliant’s biogas program is fully subscribed and is no longer available to other dairy farmers, food processing companies and wastewater treatment facilities served by Alliant.

4. Companies that install solar, wind and biogas energy systems are quintessentially small businesses, many of them family-owned. Renewable energy contractors and affiliated service providers constitute one of the few market sectors where young adults who have acquired the necessary skills to do the job well can find meaningful work at decent pay.

5. By its very nature, distributed renewable energy delivers nearly 100% of its economic punch to the local economy.

In stark contrast to other states, Wisconsin has a well developed market structure for supporting small-scale renewables. Through the ratepayer-funded Focus on Energy program, there is in Wisconsin a human infrastructure that trains and educates thousands of young people to work in the renewable energy arena. Indeed, Wisconsin is a leader in this area. Our expectation is that these workers will apply their skills in the state, fabricating and installing renewable energy equipment in a thoroughly professional manner.

But if we don’t take equal care to create and sustain demand for their skills and services, these workers are apt to leave the state for greener pastures, and Wisconsin’s investment in their education will have gone unpaid. This is why the issue of Advanced Renewable Tariffs is so important to RENEW members.

The question of how to sustain and broaden the distributed generation marketplace is a serious matter that deserves careful consideration by the Legislature. As I mentioned yesterday, RENEW Wisconsin has a wealth of experience and expertise in designing forward-looking renewable energy policies, examples being the Act 141 renewable energy standard and We Energies’ voluntary renewable energy program, the most ambitious and innovative of its kind in the state.

We at RENEW would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and suggest some alternative approaches in the Advanced Renewable tariffs section that we believe would end the impasse between utilities and clean energy advocates and put the distributed energy sector on a sustainable growth trajectory. We would like very much the opportunity to discuss our alternative approach and provide any assistance you require in forging an acceptable compromise with the utilities.

One final point: yesterday you heard several utilities recommend that the Legislature strip out the Advanced Renewables Tariff section. RENEW urges you not to heed their advice. While we would support a reworking of this section, we cannot support abandoning this initiative altogether and cannot further support a bill that is silent on policies to advance the distributed energy marketplace. That is a bottom-line priority with us.

Sincerely,

Michael Vickerman
Executive Director

RENEW denounces WMC’s “fact-free flip-flop” in radio ad on energy bill

2010-01-21T14:43:00.002-06:00

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 21, 2010

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

RENEW denounces WMC’s “fact-free flip-flop” in radio ad on energy bill
RENEW Wisconsin’s Executive Director Michael Vickerman assailed the credibility of a new radio ad launched by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) that characterizes the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill as an unaffordable extravagance.

“WMC executed an astonishing fact-free flip-flop with its claim that the legislation (AB 649/SB 450) would raise an average family’s electricity bill by more than $1,000 a year. What’s astonishing about it that WMC is conveniently forgetting existing ratepayer protections, which it endorsed – and claimed credit for -- when similar legislation passed in 2006,” Vickerman said.

When the state’s current renewable portfolio standard (RPS) was passed (which directed utilities to source 10 percent of their electricity from renewable generation by 2015), WMC ran an article on its website with the headline “’Energy Efficiency and Renewables Act’ Will Protect Ratepayer Dollars.” That article can be accessed at http://www.wmc.org/display.cfm?ID=1256.

The article says that WMC was instrumental in ensuring that “ratepayer groups will have a clear opportunity to seek delays in the implementation of new renewable portfolio standards, should they have an unreasonable effect on electric rates.”

The Clean Energy Job Act bill would continue those ratepayer protections enacted in 2005 Act 141. So far no utility or energy advocacy group has requested an implementation delay under the current renewable energy standard.

In order for an average family’s bill to increase $1,000 a year, according to Vickerman, electric rates would have to double.

“That will never happen because groups like WMC, Citizens Utility Board, and the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group would intervene aggressively on behalf of their member using the existing ratepayer protections,” Vickerman stated.

Since the adoption of Act 141’s renewable energy requirements, Madison Gas and Electric’s residential ratepayers have seen annual increases of only 0.8 percent through 2009, even though the utility is already in compliance with the 2015 standard, added Vickerman.

“This outrageous claim is just another example of WMC’s decision to lob grenades instead of working constructively to forge a responsible partnership with all parties to create family-supporting jobs in the clean energy sector,” Vickerman said.

“It’s clear that WMC made up its mind to oppose the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill long before its contents were even known to the public,” Vickerman stated.

“There is no more obvious proof of this than WMC’s sponsorship of a so-called study by the Wisconsin Pubic Research Institute (WPRI) that claims that the bill’s provisions to expand renewable energy supplies would cost utilities $16 billion.”

RENEW previously critiqued the WPRI report in a report titled “Think Tank Flunks Renewable Energy Analysis.” (http://renewmediacenter.blogspot.com/2009/12/think-tank-flunks-renewable-energy_22.html)

“WPRI’s assertions demonstrate yet again that if you torture your economic models long enough, they will confess to anything,” Vickerman said.

END
RENEW Wisconsin is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.

Wind Project Approval Will Recharge State’s Economy

2010-01-11T15:44:00.003-06:00

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 11, 2010

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Wind Project Approval Will Recharge State’s Economy
RENEW Wisconsin hailed today the Public Service Commission’s approval of what will become the state’s largest wind farm to be built in Columbia County.

Known as Glacier Hills, the proposed 90-turbine project will produce approximately 400 million kilowatt hours of clean renewable electricity annually, while directing $648,000 a year in local aid payments to Columbia County and the townships of Randolph and Scott.

“This project is certain to deliver a shot in the arm to wind-energy equipment suppliers, skilled laborers, and construction contractors throughout the state, not to mention area landowners and local governments,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide membership organization that advocates for renewable energy.

If We Energies’ experience with its previous wind project is any guide, this project will account for more than 400,000 labor hours during construction, according to Vickerman.

The state’s 10% renewable energy standard is the main policy driver behind this project, he said.

Vickerman said: “To be certain that Glacier Hills will not be the last large wind project constructed in Wisconsin, the Legislature must raise the current renewable-energy standard on utilities. The provisions in the recently introduced Clean Energy Jobs Act, which we strongly support, would lift that requirement to 25% by 2025.”

“The state can lock in additional jobs and revenue streams to localities by passing the Clean Energy Jobs Act this winter,” Vickerman said.
END
RENEW Wisconsin (www.renewwisconsin.org) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.

Think Tank Flunks Renewable Energy Analysis

2009-12-22T16:27:00.002-06:00

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 22, 2009

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Madison, WI (December 22, 2009) In response to a recent report from the Wisconsin Public Research Institute (WPRI) concluding that policies to increase renewable energy production would be prohibitively expensive, RENEW Wisconsin, a leading sustainable energy advocacy organization, today issued a critique documenting the faulty assumptions and methodological errors that undermine the credibility of that finding.

WPRI’s report, titled “The Economics of Climate Change Proposals in Wisconsin,” reviewed the proposal in the Governor’s Global Warming Task Force to increase the state’s renewable energy requirements on electric utilities to 25% by 2025, and estimated a total cost in excess $16 billion. RENEW’s analysis, which is online, uncovered a disturbing pattern of “methodological sleight-of-hand, assumptions from outer space, and selective ignoring of facts” that render WPRI’s cost estimate to be completely unreliable.

“It appears that WPRI’s $16 billion number was pulled out of thin air, and that its analysis is nothing more than a tortured effort at reverse-engineering the numbers to fit the preordained conclusion,” said Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin executive director.

Specifically, RENEW identified four significant errors in WPRI’s analytical approach. The critique says:

+ It relies on a grossly inflated electricity sales forecast that is completely detached from current realities.
+ The final cost estimate includes all the generation built to comply with the current renewable energy standard, a clear-cut case of double-counting.
+ The authors fail to account for existing renewable generation capacity that is not currently being applied to a state renewable energy standard.
+ There is a high likelihood that the savings from the renewable energy standard are undervalued, because the authors fail to model plant retirements in their analysis.

“In the final analysis, it would be too generous to describe the analytical approach taken here as incompetent or slipshod,” Vickerman said. “What we have here instead is disinformation, pure and simple, and it should be called out as such, especially as the Legislature begins consideration of arguably the most important economic development and environmental protection initiative in many years.”
END
RENEW Wisconsin (www.renewwisconsin.org) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.

Think Tank Flunks Renewable Energy Analysis

2009-12-22T11:08:00.000-06:00

An Examination of Wisconsin Policy Research Institute’s Bogus Methodology

Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
December 22, 2009

A report put out in November by the Wisconsin Public Research Institute contains a number of specious assertions intended to advance the proposition that a number of proposals endorsed by the Governor’s Global Warming Task Force in 2008 would be exorbitantly expensive. One particularly dubious finding in the report1, titled “The Economics of Climate Change Proposals in Wisconsin,” is its estimate of the net cost of the 25% Renewable Energy Standard (RES) proposed in the climate change bill. The “trained economists”—WPRI’s term, not mine--who worked on the report contend that the capital and operating costs of the capacity needed to meet the proposed RES would exceed $16 billion by 2025. Mindful that this estimate could become a “headline” number in the coming months, I thought it might be useful to dive into WPRI’s economic analysis and verify the methodology and assumptions that were used to reach this conclusion.

Having done this, I would like to take this opportunity to catalog the faulty forecasts, transparent double-counting and other methodological errors that enabled WPRI to arrive at this absurdly inflated cost estimate. What I’ve documented below leads me to conclude that WPRI’s $16 billion number was pulled out of thin air, and that its analysis is nothing more than a tortured effort at reverse-engineering the numbers to fit the preordained conclusion.

1. The electric sales forecast is grossly inflated. The report authors assume that annual electricity sales in Wisconsin will climb from its current level (70 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 2008) to 92 billion kilowatt-hours in 2025. Right now, electric load is shrinking, not growing, and 2009 sales will come in somewhere at about four billion kWh below the all-time high set in 2007. So, if we’re headed into 2010 with an electric load somewhere between 67 - 68 billion kWh/year, clearly a miracle must occur in order to lift that that number by 26% to reach the 92 billion level in 2025, especially if this climate change bill passes, which it must in order to set the new RES at 25% by 2025. My view is that the state’s electric sales will remain flat for the foreseeable future, due to a combination of continued improvements in energy efficiency coupled with subpar economic performance. So if electricity sales remain stable over the next 15 years, then the total supply of renewable energy needed to satisfy the 2025 target would be 17.5 billion kWh/year. This is considerably less than the 28.3 billion kWh of renewable generation which the report writers claim will be occasioned by the RES (See Table 4 in the report).2

The table below presents the cumulative impact of current and proposed renewable energy policy requirements using more realistic sales forecasts and
capacity requirement estimates. When the sales forecast is adjusted to mirror today’s load numbers, the capacity cost falls to $13.5 billion, using the rest of the WPRI methodology, which is clearly flawed, as we shall see.

Cumulative impact of Proposed RE standard in climate change bill

Category 2004 Baseline 2013/2015 2025
RE Percentage 3.3% 10% 25%
Total kWh Sales 68 billion/year 70 billion/year 70 billion/year
Total RE kWh supply (gross) 2.5 billion kWh/year 7 billion kWh/year 17.5 billion kWh/year
New RE kWh supply (net of 2004) -- 4.5 billion/year 15 billion/year
New RE capacity (net of 2004) -- 1,650 MW* 5,400 MW*

* Assumes 90% wind/10% biomass mix; combined capacity factor 32%

2. WPRI’s cost estimate inexplicably incorporates the cost of the current Renewable Energy Standard into the total price tag. The WPRI report purports to characterize the incremental cost of increasing the RES above current levels. However, the cost estimates used by WPRI lump in the renewable capacity that will be added to comply with the existing requirements under Act 141. It would appear that WPRI decided to include these costs because the bill would move the compliance date of Act 141’s requirement forward to 2013. This is sophistry of the highest order. The 10% renewable content target that Wisconsin utilities must attain is embedded in current law. To avoid the double-counting we see here, the authors of this report should have treated all Act 141-compliant projects as sunk costs, not as new costs. As evidenced by the table below, treating all Act 141 renewable energy acquisitions as sunk costs reduces the incremental addition of renewable generating capacity down to 3,750 MW, compared with the 6,480 MW figure that WPRI cites.

Incremental Impact of Proposed RE standard (net of Act 141)

Net RE increase 15%
New RE supply 10.5 billion kWh /year
New RE capacity 3,750 MW

When the double-counting of Act 141 generation is eliminated, the capacity costs associated with a successor RES decline to a range between $9 and $9.5 billion, compared with the $16 billion figure cited by WPRI. Implicit in that cost range is the assumption that the every kilowatt-hour that is applied toward a successor RES will be generated from a facility that hasn’t been built yet. As we shall see in the next section, that is a faulty assumption.

3. WPRI’s analysis ignores currently available renewable generating capacity that can be used to meet an RES. WPRI’s analysis assumes that all of the renewable capacity needed to meet the 2025 target will be built some time in the future. That assumption fails to account for all the existing wind capacity in the Upper Midwest that is not generating RES-compliant electricity, whether for Wisconsin or another state. Wisconsin one has one such facility--Butler Ridge in Dodge County--that has uncommitted capacity. Though it has a capacity rating of 54 MW, only 20 MW is dedicated under a long-term contract to a Wisconsin electric provider (WPPI Energy). The remaining portion of the project produces energy that is sold into the wholesale market and renewable energy credits (RECs) that the facility owner will sell to anyone wishing to acquire them. There is nothing to stop a Wisconsin utility from acquiring the REC’s from Butler Ridge’s 34 MW of uncommitted capacity and applying them to its Act 141 requirements and any successor RES.

An REC corresponds to a megawatt-hour (MWH) of electric generation, or 1,000 kWh. How is an REC worth? Over the last two years, REC’s have averaged between $5 and $10 per MWH, or from half a penny to a penny per kWh. Assuming a 30% capacity factor for Butler Ridge, the cost to a Wisconsin utility of acquiring that facility’s annual output of REC’s would range from $45,000 (at a half a penny per kWh) to $90,000 (at one penny per kWh).

As the table below indicates, Iowa is far and way the regional leader in wind generating capacity. Yet Iowa’s renewable energy standard is very modest compared with other state RES percentages, including that of Wisconsin. A significant portion of that capacity falls into one of two categories: (1) owned by an Iowa utility but not committed to that state’s RES or (2) owned by an independent power producer (e.g., NextEra Energy, Horizon Wind Energy, berdrola USA, etc.) that does not have a long-term contract with an electric provider). Furthermore, most of the wind turbines in those categories were placed in service after January 1, 2004, and as such are eligible for complying with Wisconsin’s RES. My conservative estimate of existing Iowa wind capacity that could be applied to Wisconsin’s RES, over and above those turbines that are either owned by Wisconsin utilities or producing power for Wisconsin utilities, is 750 MW. This quantity of “spare” wind capacity could significantly reduce the quantity of generation needed to be constructed to meet a 25% standard need to manufacture and install produce As with the example of Butler Ridge, any Wisconsin utility can elect to acquire the REC’s from these Iowa installations and apply them to current and future RES requirements.

It should be mentioned that more than 100 MW of existing Iowa wind capacity (e.g., Barton, Endeavor 2, Top of Iowa 2) supply Wisconsin utilities with REC’s that are dedicated to their voluntary renewable energy programs, an example being Madison Gas & Electric’s Green Power Tomorrow. Because these REC’s are being resold to a subset of utility customers at a premium, they cannot be applied to their RES requirements. However, there may come a day when these utilities decide that it would be more cost-effective to apply those REC’s to any additional RES requirement rather than build new capacity specifically for RES compliance purposes.

If we were to subtract 750 MW from our running total, the net increase would come to 3,000 MW, which would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $7.5 billion, less than half of WPRI’s estimate.

Snapshot - Midwest Windpower Development Activity
December 2009

State Operating capacity
(in MW) Under construction (in MW)
Iowa 3253+ 199
Minnesota 1805 60
Illinois 1123 979
Indiana 730† 404
Wisconsin 449 --
Michigan 129 16

+ Total includes Alliant Energy’s 200 MW Whispering Willow project
† Total includes Horizon Wind’s 200 MW Meadow Lake project

Sources: American Wind Energy Association, Alliant Energy

4. WPRI uses the wrong metric to calculate savings from the proposed successor RES. In Table 3 of the WPRI report, the authors present the gross capacity costs of the new renewable generation and subtract the cost of avoided conventional generation to arrive at a net cost. In this case, the authors assumed that the new renewable generation would offset the construction of natural gas-fired peaking units. This formulation is reasonable in places where loads are growing and the need to build new generating capacity is well-established. However, those circumstances are no longer operative in Wisconsin, which, as noted above, has experienced a decline in retail sales, due principally to significant consumption cutbacks in the industrial sector. According to the Energy Information Agency’s latest Electric Power Monthly report, in-state generation output is running more than 2 billion kWh below last year’s totals (through August 2009). Moreover, in consideration of additional efforts by high demand customers to curb electricity usage3, a near-term rebound in overall electricity consumption is simply not in the cards. With a capacity reserve margin that is likely to approach 25% in 2010, the likelihood of a Wisconsin utility proposing to build a gas-fired peaker in the next 10 years is nil.

In light of the growing capacity overhang in Wisconsin, I believe that a more appropriate candidate for measuring savings from the proposed RES would be plant retirements. There are a number of older fossil steam generating units that require the installation of scrubbers and other pollution control technology to bring them into compliance with federal Clean Air Act regulations. There are likely to be instances where a retrofit would not be cost-effective. In those situations, the utility can either sell the generating unit to another entity, as We Energies is attempting to do with its share of Edgewater 5, or retire it.4 The savings that would accrue with retiring less efficient fossil steam units would come in two forms: an avoided capital expenditure and a reduction in operating expenses. A utility that times its renewable energy acquisitions to correspond with planned fossil plant shutdowns would accomplish two objectives. The first would be to maximize the reliability value of the renewable generation it acquires. The second would be to stabilize the asset value of its generation portfolio even as it removes an older unit off its system. Moreover, such a strategy would result in a more efficient accumulation of CO2 offsets, which, one need hardly add, is the ultimate goal of this legislation.

Other Problems

The report makes a number of other assertions that fly in the face of reality. One is that all of the new renewable generating capacity will be located in Wisconsin. No support is provided for that patently ludicrous claim. The authors are clearly oblivious of the many out-of-state wind projects that are either owned by Wisconsin utilities or are generating electricity under contract to Wisconsin utilities. As is indicated in the table below, Wisconsin utilities have not been reticent about building--or taking power from—wind energy installations located in other states.

The RES cost analysis also assumes that Wisconsin utilities will be the sole owners and operators of all post-2013 renewable generating facilities. How the report authors came to that conclusion is utterly mystifying, given the existence of such nonutility-owned installations as Butler Ridge, Forward Energy Center and Montfort in Wisconsin, not to mention the projects owned by NextEra Energy and Iberdrola Renewables listed above.

Out-of-State Windpower Projects Owned by or Under Contract to Wisconsin Utilities
(In-service dates 2004 and later)

County (State) Project Owner MW Utility Offtaker Name
(In-service date)
Worth (IA) Iberdrola Renewables 80 WPPI (50 MW)
MGE (30 MW) Top of Iowa 2 (2007)
Worth (IA) MGE 30 MGE Top of Iowa 3 (2008)
Osceola (IA) NextEra Energy 50 MGE Endeavor 2 (2008)
Hancock (IA) NextEra Energy 150 Alliant-WPL (100 MW) Crystal Lake (2008)
Worth (IA) Iberdrola Renewables 30 WPPI
Barton 1 (2009)
Howard (IA) WPS 99 WPS Crane Creek (2009 est.)
Freeborn (MN) Alliant-WP&L 200 Alliant-WP&L Bent Tree (2010 est.)

Summary

The report’s attempt to characterize the incremental cost impacts of a successor 25% renewable energy standard is fatally flawed in the following ways:

 It relies on a grossly inflated electricity sales forecast that is completely detached from current realities.
 The final cost estimate includes all the generation built to comply with the current renewable energy standard, a clear-cut case of double-counting.
 The authors fail to account for existing renewable generation capacity that is not currently being applied to a state renewable energy standard.
 There is a high likelihood that the savings from the renewable energy standard are undervalued, because the authors fail to model plant retirements in their analysis.

In the final analysis, the convergence of methodological sleight of hand, unsupportable assumptions, and computational errors in this section is telling. The attempt to double-count existing renewable generation toward the incremental costs of a successor RES is especially egregious, and plainly gives away the authors’ real intent here, which is to portray the policy in the most negative light they could conjure. It would be too generous to describe the analytical approach taken here as incompetent or slipshod. What we have here instead is disinformation, pure and simple, and it should be called out as such, especially as the Legislature begins consideration of arguably the most important economic development and environmental protection initiative in many years.

Notes:

1 http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume22/Vol22No7/Vol22No7.html

2 There seems to be computational error in Table 4 of the WPRI report. If the estimate of total electricity sales in 2025 is 94.116 billion kWh, then 25% of that number is 23.529 billion kWh, not 28.235 billion kWh as indicated in the table.

3 http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/78527027.html, “Nine state factories pledge to cut energy use,” Dec. 4, 2009.

4 http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/78724417.html, “We Energies may sell stake in Sheboygan coal plant,” Dec. 8, 2009.

News releases

2009-12-22T04:25:00.035-06:00

2011
10.13.11 RENEW Puts Solar Hot Water on the Wisconsin Map
09.27.2011 Montfort Wind Farm Marks 10th Anniversary
08.08.11 Statement of Michael Vickerman on Alliant's Iowa Wind Energy Project
07.20.11 RENEW Debuts Wisconsin Renewable Energy Map
07.18.11 National Study Vindicates Wisconsin's Clean Energy Policies
07.05.11 Funding Hiatus Darkens Outlook for In-State Renewables
05.13.11 We Energies Terminates Its Renewable Energy Program
04.15.11 Rising Diesel Prices Fuel Higher Electric Rates
03.30.11 Second Wind Developer Foresakes Wisconsin for Greener Pastures
03.27.11 Hostile Regulatory Climate Sinks Brown County Wind Project.
03.01.11 Suspension of Wind Siting Rule endangers state’s economic future
01.18.11 Walker's wind siting proposal strips local control
01.10.11 Landowners and municipalities to reap millions from wind farm operations for 2010

2010
12.09.10 PSC Approves Final Wind Siting Rule; Improve Clean Energy Outlook
12.01.10 Wisconsin Cannot Afford to Ignore Rising Cost of Coal
09.16.10 MGE Rate Filing Rewards Fossil Fuel Use, Penalizes Renewable Energy
07.07.10 Uniformity Cited as Key to Wind Siting Success
06.09.10 Village of Cascade Installs Two Wind Turbines at Wastewater Plant
06.04.10 DOE program recognizes Vickerman for wind advocacy
05.24.10 Canadian company’s first U.S. turbine spins plenty of power for cranberry farm
04.27.10 Renewable Energy Not Responsible for MGE Rate Increase
04.23.10 RENEW Wisconsin Calls for Veto of Waste-to-energy bill
04.21.10 We Energies Wins Praise for Support of Clean Energies Job Act
04.15.10 RENEW Wisconsin Backs Amended Clean Energy Jobs Act
01.29.10 Hearing on Clean Energy Jobs Act bill trivialized Advanced Renewable Tariffs
01.21.10 RENEW denounces WMC's "fact-free flip-flop" on energy bill
01.11.10 Wind project approval will recharge state's economy

2009
12.22.09 Think tank flunks renewable energy analysis
12.15.09 Report: Wind turbines cause no human harm
10.30.09 PSC Approval of Bay Front Project Advances Wood Over Coal
10.23.09 Solar Outlook Set to Dim in 2010
09.15.09 State Senate strongly backs new rules for wind projects
08.27.09 PSC opens door for more in-state renewable installations
07.09.09 Statement on PSC approval of Alliant's Bent Tree project
05.08.09 State snares federal dollars for renewable energy work
01.22.09 Manitowoc County Says “No Can Do” to Windpower Project

2008
12.03.08 RENEW, Farmers Union, and partners launch Homegrown Renewable Energy Campaign
11.17.08 RENEW, Clean Wisconsin endorse Manitowoc wind project
11.11.08 RENEW's reaction to PSC rejection of Cassville coal plant
01.16.08 Calumet County morass blocks wind projects again

2007
12.18.07 Trempealeau sharply limits wind service

Energizing Fort Atkinson’s Schools from the Sun and Earth

2009-12-18T16:09:00.001-06:00

By Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin

As a result of educating themselves on the connection between energy use and atmospheric pollution, several school districts in Wisconsin are taking increasingly aggressive steps to conserve energy as well as produce a portion of what they use on-site. Some have embraced ground source heat pump systems (Fond du Lac High School), while others have installed solar hot water systems (Osceola Middle School) and solar electric systems (Paul Olson elementary school in Madison). Not to be outdone, Wausau East High School recently installed a 100 kilowatt (kW) Northwind turbine, which is now the largest wind generator attached to a school building in Wisconsin.

Yet if one measures success by substantial reductions in energy expenditures and emissions reductions, there is one school district in Wisconsin that stands head and shoulders above its peers: Fort Atkinson. Serving 2,700 school-age children in a community of 12,000, the Fort Atkinson School District operates six buildings: four elementary schools, one middle school and a high school. School officials have made no secret of their aspiration to make Fort Atkinson the most energy-efficient and self-sufficient K-12 district in the state.

Since 2005, Fort Atkinson has rigorously pursued a sustainable energy agenda that integrates, in a systematic and complementary fashion, continuous monitoring of consumption, aggressive building efficiency measures, and renewable energy capture. As articulated in its 2009 energy plan, the district’s principal goals for 2010 are nothing if not ambitious:
 Pare energy costs by 20% from 2005 levels;
 Lower carbon emissions by 25% from 2005 levels;
 Obtain EnergyStar certification for all six schools; and
 Install on-site renewable production at all six schools.

Virtually every renewable energy technology or efficiency measure available to a Wisconsin K-12 district has already been or is about to be deployed somewhere in Fort Atkinson. This lengthy list includes ground source heat pumps, solar hot water systems, lighting retrofits, tankless water heaters, retro-commissioning, occupancy sensors, window replacement, and roof insulation. On the district’s 2010 installation list are a 50 kW wind generator at the high school and a 20 kW solar electric system at Purdy elementary school.

The integrated approach pursued by Fort Atkinson leads to lower operating expenses, which in turn frees up capital for renewable technologies that have higher up-front costs but will deliver energy to the school buildings long after the initial investment is paid off. At the same time, converting sunlight and wind into useful energy sources enable building owners to reduce the variability of their utility costs. For a school district, that means not having to worry about the effect of a colder-than-normal winter on next year’s budget for textbooks.

The solar water heating systems serving the high school and the middle school neatly illustrate this benefit. The radiant energy striking the rooftop panels year-round is efficiently collected and taken inside to preheat the swimming pools in each building. Except during the winter months, the incoming solar energy is sufficient to maintain pool temperatures at 84°F. Even in January, however, the savings that a solar hot water system yields simply by preheating a pool to 70°F is substantial when multiplied over several decades.

The capital required to heat a swimming pool with solar energy is not trivial. For the 48-panel system atop the high school, the installed cost totaled $192,000, while the 32-panel installation serving the middle school came in at $115,000. Dennis Kuchenmeister, who manages the district’s buildings and grounds, estimates a 5% return on investment (ROI) for the high school’s system and an 11% ROI on the middle school’s system. According to Kuchenmeister, the hot water systems will supply about 60% of the heat going into the pools, displacing the equivalent of nearly 9,000 therms a year. The district expects to save $18,000 in avoided fuel costs per year.

Kuchenmeister’s economic estimates factor in incentives from Focus on Energy covering up to 35% of the total installed cost and matching incentives from We Energies, the local utility serving the school district. By taking full advantage of available incentive dollars, the school district was able to reduce the out-of-pocket portion of installation costs by more than 50%.

Because the annual harvest of solar energy striking a particular spot rarely fluctuates by more than 10%, a building owner can be reasonably confident of how much conventional energy an installation will displace. In contrast, the cost of heating a pool with natural gas can easily triple during a 12-month period even when usage remains constant. This in fact happened to Fort Atkinson in the 12 months preceding the installation of its two solar hot water systems in the fall of 2008.

Thus, the real value of Fort Atkinson’s solar hot water installations is in minimizing the district’s exposure to the price volatility associated with unregulated fossil fuels like natural gas. And while it’s true that natural gas prices are presently at five-year lows, they could easily bounce back to 2008 levels in a year or two, depending on events over which end-users have no control. However, by installing a renewable technology that preheats their swimming pools, Fort Atkinson has effectively insured itself against a repeat appearance of the fossil fuel rollercoaster ride that most school districts would just as soon forget.

There are two other reasons why school buildings are well-matched for solar energy installations. First, the buildings themselves are dedicated to a public function that is expected to last for several generations. In such settings it is easier to justify the additional up-fronts costs, especially if the installation also communicates a valuable lesson in sustainability to the entire community. Second, most schools, especially newer ones, have an abundance of flat, unshaded roof space that can support large arrays, irrespective of building orientation.

Real-time production data from both installations can be accessed online by visiting www.fatspaniel.net and searching for the live sites listed under We Energies. The district also uses Energy Watchdog, a web-based program provided by Focus on Energy to track energy usage. This program enables Fort Atkinson to document the energy and cost reductions from measures specified in its energy plan.

The middle school is also one of four schools in Fort Atkinson equipped with ground source heat pump systems that heat and cool the buildings year-round using the nearly constant temperatures in the ground. These systems heat buildings in the winter and cool them in the summer. Ground source heat pump systems are electrically powered; no heating fuel like natural gas or propane is needed to heat the four schools.

“We essentially cut the gas line to our schools,” said Kuchenmeister during a presentation on his district’s sustainable energy initiative last November in Milwaukee.

The operational costs of ground source heat pumps are substantially lower than the HVAC systems they replace. As a result of their renovation, the three elementary schools have seen their energy intensity drop by more than one-half, even though they now have air-conditioning in the classrooms. School officials estimate that all four ground source heat pump systems will save the district $90,000 annually in fuel costs.

As with solar hot water systems, Focus on Energy provides incentives for ground source heat pumps to schools, businesses and residences. The program awarded more than $96,000 towards the four systems installed in Fort Atkinson.

According to a Focus on Energy fact sheet, “a ground source heat pump system is arguably the most efficient technology for heating and cooling Wisconsin homes and businesses.” Given its embrace of that technology and others deployed in its buildings, Fort Atkinson has become, in terms of energy sustainability, arguably the most forward-thinking school district in the state.

RENEW Wisconsin (www.renewwisconsin.org) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization based in Madison that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives. Michael Vickerman has been the organization’s executive director since 1991.

Solar Hot Water Systems - Fact Sheet
Fort Atkinson School District

Full Service Installers
Andy DeRocher
Mark O’Neal
Full Spectrum Solar
100 South Baldwin Street, Suite 101
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: 608.284.9495
info@fullspectrumsolar.com
www.fullspectrumsolar.com

Types of system installations:
Solar hot water, solar electric

Service Territory:
150 miles

At-A-Glance – High School SHW System
Collector space: 1,920 sq. ft (48 4'x10' panels)
Panel manufacturer: Heliodyne Gobi
Tilt angle: 45 degrees
Annual fuel savings: 8,539 therms assuming 80% efficient gas boilers
Avoided CO2 emissions: 47 tons/year
Pool Size: 4,200 sq. ft.
Preheated water volume: 188,227 gallons
Pool operating temperature: 80°F
Incoming water temperature: 55°F
Installation cost: $192,000
Focus on Energy Incentive: $50,000
We Energies match: $50,000
System payback: 10 ¾ years
Installation date: Fall 2008

At-A-Glance – Middle School SHW System
Collector space: 1,280 sq. ft (32 4'x10' panels)
Panel manufacturer: Heliodyne Gobi
Tilt angle: 45 degrees
Annual fuel savings: 8,763 therms assuming 60% efficient gas boiler
Avoided CO2 emissions: 49 tons/year
Pool Size: 2,635 sq. ft.
Preheated water volume: 96,921 gallons
Pool operating temperature: 84°F
Incoming water temperature: 55°F
Installation cost: $115,000
Focus on Energy Incentive: $40,400
We Energies match: $40,400
System payback: 4 years
Installation date: Fall 2008

Report: Wind Turbines Cause No Human Harm

2009-12-15T13:44:00.003-06:00

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 15, 2009

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Report: Wind Turbines Cause No Human Harm
Consistent with 10-plus years of commercial wind generation operations in Wisconsin, a national report issued today concluded that the sounds produced by wind turbines are not harmful to human health, according to the state’s leading renewable energy advocacy group.

Comprised of medical doctors, audiologists, and acoustical professionals from the United States, Canada, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, the panel of reviewers undertook extensive analysis and discussion of the large body of peer-reviewed literature, specifically with regard to sound coming from wind turbines.

The panel was established by the American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA).

“This report corroborates testimony that RENEW presented in the ongoing Glacier Hills Wind Park hearings at the Wisconsin Public Service Commission,” according to Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin. In that proceeding, We Energies is seeking approval to construct a 90-turbine 162 megawatt wind park in northeast Columbia County.

“If there were a human health impact with wind generation, why are communities such as Rosiere in Kewaunee County and Montfort in Iowa County so supportive of the wind installations nearby?” commented Vickerman.

“The experience suggests that nearby residents gradually overcome any initial misgivings and accept the turbines for what they are: clean, visible, and environmentally benign producers of renewable energy,” he continued.

According to Dr. Robert J. McCunney, one of the authors of the national multi-disciplinary study and an occupational/environmental medicine physician and research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), "There is no evidence that the sounds, nor the sub-audible vibrations, emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects on humans."

Another member of the panel, Dr. Geoff Leventhall, an acoustical consultant on sound and health for more than 40 years, testified during recent regulatory proceedings on the proposed 162 megawatt Glacier Hills Wind Park in Columbia County.

“Attempts to claim that illnesses result from inaudible wind turbine noise do not stand up to simple analyses of the very low forces and pressures produced by the sound from wind turbines,” said Leventhall in sworn testimony.

The national study’s top findings include:
• "The sounds emitted by wind turbines are not unique. There is no reason to believe, based on the levels and frequencies of the sounds, that they could plausibly have direct adverse physiological effects."
• If sound levels from wind turbines were harmful, it would be impossible to live in a city given the sound levels normally present in urban environments.
• "Sub-audible, low frequency sound and infrasound from wind turbines do not present a risk to human health."
• "Some people may be annoyed at the presence of sound from wind turbines. Annoyance is not a pathological entity."

An executive summary of the report can be accessed here (PDF, 81KB). The full report can be accessed here (PDF, 440KB).

Energizing Fort Atkinson’s schools from the sun and earth

2009-12-07T15:58:00.014-06:00

The solar water heating systems serve Fort Atkinson high school and the middle school. The radiant energy striking the rooftop panels year-round is efficiently collected and taken inside to preheat the swimming pools inside each structure. Except during the winter months, the incoming solar energy is sufficient to maintain pool temperatures at 84°F. Even in January, however, the savings that a solar hot water system yields simply by preheating a pool to 70°F is substantial when multiplied over several decades.

As a result of educating themselves on the connection between energy use and atmospheric pollution, several school districts in Wisconsin are taking increasingly aggressive steps to conserve energy as well as produce a portion of what they use on-site. Some have embraced ground source heat pump systems (Fond du Lac High School), while others have installed solar hot water systems (Osceola Middle School) and solar electric systems (Paul Olson elementary school in Madison). Not to be outdone, Wausau East High School recently installed a 100 kW Northwind turbine, which is now the largest wind generator attached to a school building in Wisconsin.

Yet if one measures success by substantial reductions in energy expenditures and emissions reductions, there is one school district in Wisconsin that stands head and shoulders above its peers: Fort Atkinson. Serving 2,700 school-age children in a community of 12,000, the Fort Atkinson School District operates six buildings: four elementary schools, one middle school and a high school. School officials have made no secret of their aspiration to make Fort Atkinson the most energy-efficient and self-sufficient K-12 district in the state.

Since 2005, Fort Atkinson has rigorously pursued a sustainable energy agenda that integrates, in a systematic and complementary fashion, continuous monitoring of consumption, aggressive building efficiency measures, and renewable energy capture. As articulated in its 2009 energy plan, the district, the district’s principal goals for 2010 are nothing if not ambitious:

+ Pare energy costs by 20% from 2005 levels;
+ Lower carbon emissions by 25% from 2005 levels;
+ Obtain EnergyStar certification for all six schools; and
+ Install on-site renewable production at all six schools.

Virtually every renewable energy technology or efficiency measure available to a Wisconsin K-12 district has already been or is about to be deployed somewhere in Fort Atkinson. This lengthy list includes ground source heat pumps, solar hot water systems, lighting retrofits, tankless water heaters, retro-commissioning, occupancy sensors, window replacement, and roof insulation. The most recent system to be installed, a 50 kilowatt wind turbine at the high school, will be operational by Christmas 2009.

The integrated approach pursued by Fort Atkinson leads to lower operating expenses, which in turn frees up capital for renewable technologies that have higher up-front costs but will deliver energy to the school buildings long after the initial investment is paid off. At the same time, converting sunlight and wind into useful energy sources enable building owners to reduce the variability of their utility costs. For a school district, that means not having to worry about the effect of a colder-than-normal winter on next year’s budget for textbooks.

The solar water heating systems serving the high school and the middle school neatly illustrate this benefit. The radiant energy striking the rooftop panels year-round is efficiently collected and taken inside to preheat the swimming pools inside each structure. Except during the winter months, the incoming solar energy is sufficient to maintain pool temperatures at 84°F. Even in January, however, the savings that a solar hot water system yields simply by preheating a pool to 70°F is substantial when multiplied over several decades.

The capital required to heat a swimming pool with solar energy is not trivial. For the 48-panel system atop the high school, the installed cost totaled $198,000, while the 32-panel installation serving the middle school came in at $115,000. Dennis Kuchenmeister, who manages the district’s buildings and grounds, estimates a 5% return on investment (ROI) for the high school’s system and an 11% ROI on the middle school’s system. According to Kuchenmeister, the hot water systems will supply about 60% of the heat going into the pools, displacing the equivalent of nearly 9,000 therms a year. The district expects to save $18,000 in avoided fuel costs per year.

Kuchenmeister’s economic estimates factor in incentives from Focus on Energy covering up to 35% of the total installed cost and matching incentives from We Energies, the local utility serving the school district. By taking full advantage of available incentive dollars, the school district was able to reduce the out-of-pocket portion of installation costs by more than 50%.

Because the annual harvest of solar energy striking a particular spot rarely fluctuates by more than 10%, a building owner can be reasonably confident of how much conventional energy an installation will displace. In contrast, the cost of heating a pool with natural gas can easily triple during a 12-month period even when usage remains constant. This in fact happened to Fort Atkinson in the 12 months preceding the installation of its two solar hot water systems in the fall of 2008.

Thus, the real value of Fort Atkinson’s solar hot water installations is in minimizing the district’s exposure to the price volatility associated with unregulated fossil fuels like natural gas. And while it’s true that natural gas prices are presently at five-year lows, they could easily bounce back to 2008 levels in a year or two, depending on events over which end-users have no control. However, by installing a renewable technology that preheats their swimming pools, the Fort Atkinson has effectively insured itself against a repeat appearance of the fossil fuel rollercoaster ride that most school districts would just as soon forget.

There are two other reasons why school buildings are well-matched for solar energy installations. First, the buildings themselves are dedicated to a public function that is expected to last for several generations. In such settings it is easier to justify the additional up-fronts costs, especially if the installation also communicates a valuable lesson in sustainability to the entire community. Second, most schools, especially newer ones, have an abundance of flat, unshaded roof space that can support large arrays, irrespective of building orientation.

Real-time production data from both installations can be accessed online by visiting www.fatspaniel.net and searching for the live sites listed under We Energies. The district also uses Energy Watchdog, a web-based program provided by Focus on Energy to track energy usage. This program enables Fort Atkinson to document the energy and cost reductions from measures specified in its energy plan.

The middle school is also one of four schools in Fort Atkinson equipped with ground source heat pump systems that heat and cool the buildings year-round using the nearly constant temperatures in the ground. These systems heat buildings in the winter and cool them in the summer. Ground source heat pump systems are electrically powered; no heating fuel like natural gas or propane is needed to heat the four schools.

“We essentially cut the gas line to our schools,” said Kuchenmeister during a presentation on his district’s sustainable energy initiative last November in Milwaukee.

The operational costs of ground source heat pumps are substantially lower than the HVAC systems they replace. As a result of their renovation, the three elementary schools have seen their energy intensity drop by more than one-half, even though they now have air-conditioning in the classrooms. School officials estimate that all four ground source heat pump systems will save the district $30,000 annually in fuel costs.

As with solar hot water systems, Focus on Energy provides incentives for ground source heat pumps to schools, businesses and residences. The program awarded more than $96,000 towards the four systems installed in Fort Atkinson.

According to a Focus on Energy fact sheet, “a ground source heat pump system is arguably the most efficient technology for heating and cooling Wisconsin homes and businesses.” Given its embrace of that technology and others deployed in its buildings, Fort Atkinson has become, in terms of energy sustainability, arguably the most forward-thinking school district in the state.

Fact sheet: Renewable energy buyback rates

2009-11-20T16:09:00.002-06:00

From a fact sheet issued by the Homegrown Renewable Energy Campaign:

An innovative way to encourage more smaller-scale renewable energy systems by paying premiums to customers for wind, solar, biogas or biomass electric generation.

How are they different from standard utility buyback rates?
Unlike standard buyback rates, Renewable Energy Buyback Rates provide a fixed purchase price for the electricity produced over a period of 10 to 20 years. They are set at levels sufficient to fully recover installation costs along with a modest profit. Because the purchase price is guaranteed over a long period, Renewable Energy Buyback Rates make it easy for customers to obtain financing for their generation projects.

Why don’t utilities pursue these small-scale renewable projects themselves?
In general, the smaller the generating facility, the less likely it is owned by a utility. Utilities tend to favor bulk generation facilities that employ economies of scale to produce electricity at a lower cost. Renewable power plants owned by
utilities—such as large wind projects—are sized to serve their entire territory, not just a particular distribution area. For that reason utilities have shown little appetite for owning and operating distributed generation facilities powered with
solar, biogas, wind, and hydro.

If utilities won’t invest in small-scale renewable projects, how will they get built?
Clearly, the capital needed to build smaller-scale renewable projects has to come from independent sources—either customers or third parties. There is no shortage of investor interest in these systems, and sufficient capital is available. What’s needed to finance these projects is a predictable, long-term purchasing arrangement that assures full capital recovery if the project performs according to expectations. That’s where Renewable Energy Payments come into play.

Sun Harvest Farm: Solar hot water and more

2009-11-12T12:27:00.005-06:00

The Koerner's installed the domestic hot water system (right)in March 2006. It also provides a portion of the heat for the house.

Sun Harvest Farm, owned by Jerry and Penny Kroener, Ridgeway, WI
Renewable Energy Projects
September 2009 Update

General:
In 2005 we embarked on major renovations and additions to our old farmhouse. This included working with Focus on Energy to have site assessments performed for Solar Photovoltaic, Solar Thermal and Wind Turbine Systems. We also investigated wood burning systems because we have substantial quantities of firewood on our property. Our decisions included the following:
1. Add additional insulation, all new windows and new doors.
2. Replace our old oil burning furnace with a high efficiency propane boiler (our little Munchkin).
3. Install a Solar Photovoltaic grid-connected system to produce electricity.
4. Install a Solar Thermal (hot water) system to preheat domestic hot water and provide some house heat.
5. Install a counter-flow masonry heater fireplace using our own limestone for the masonry cladding.
6. In 2008 we built and installed a hot air collector to provide some heat in our barn workshop.
7. In 2009 we installed our 2nd Photovoltaic grid-connected system.
8. In 2009 we also upgraded our solar hot water storage tank.

Improving Efficiency
Our first goal was to improve the efficiency of the areas in the old part of the farmhouse, and to include very high efficiency within the new addition. We installed new Pella windows and doors throughout. Additional insulation was added where possible and a moisture/air barrier under new fiber cement siding, which was installed on the entire house. The new construction included R-21 insulation in the walls and blown-in R-50 in the ceiling. We removed the old oil-fired hot water heater and the oil burner from the warm air furnace. A high efficiency propane gas boiler (Munchkin T-50) was installed to be our back up for heating and the new domestic hot water tank. We also installed radiant under floor heating in the new great room area and plan to install additional radiant heating in certain of the old house areas. The existing warm air furnace was retained, with the addition of a water-to-air heat exchanger, which allowed us keep the central AC unit and also to provide warm air heating to the upstairs area. We have also installed compact fluorescent light bulbs throughout the entire house and in the barn workshop area.

Solar Thermal Hot Water System
Our system as designed to provide domestic hot water and a portion of the house heating and was put into operation in March 2006. It includes:
+ Eight 4 ft x 10 ft Heliodyne Gobi 410 collectors, ground-mounted at a 60 degree tilt angle
+ 1000 gallon concrete hot water storage tank, with EPDM rubber liner
+ Approximately 600 ft of 1 inch copper tubing made into coils for heat exchangers
+ Pump, valves, expansion tanks, controller, copper piping, propylene glycol, insulation, etc.

We performed a considerable amount of the work to install the system including:
+ Installing the concrete tank and liner
+ Bending the tubing into coils and installing them in the tank
+ Installing 14 concrete pillars
+ Digging trenches and installing piping from collectors into basement
+ Erecting the framework and the collectors

We worked with Light Energy Systems of Madison (now Full Spectrum Solar) to design the system and to provide the parts and some of the labor. The total system cost was approximately $20,000, but we received a Focus on Energy grant of $3,000 and a Federal Tax Credit of $2,000 so our out-of-pocket costs were about $15,000.

During 2009 we decided to replace the concrete tank due to excessive moisture problems in the basement area. We demolished the tank piece by piece and carried it out of the basement. We replaced it with a tank made by STSS Co. Inc from Mechanicsburg PA. The new tank is collapsible so it can be moved through regular sized doorways. When in place it will be 80 round and 4 high with all penetrations installed at the factory according to our heat exchanger specifications. It is sealed, insulated and with hold up to 822 gallons of water. We reused the copper heat exchangers that we had made for the old tank. We also installed a heat dump under the solar collectors, which was made of 24 ft of Slant Fin baseboard hydronic registers. The purpose of the heat dump is to dissipate excess heat produced during the summer when we only use the hot water for pre-heating the domestic hot water. The total costs for the new tank, including demolishing the old tank, were about $3,500.

Masonry Heater Fireplace
We investigated wood-burning systems and decided to build a masonry heater fireplace in order to take advantage of renewable resources on our property. We have an ample supply of trees on our property that we harvest by cutting dead trees. We constructed a woodshed that dries and stores about 10 cords of split firewood.

The fireplace is specially designed to be efficient and environmentally friendly because the combustion chamber burns at between 1500-2000 degrees F. The fire burns for 2-3 hours but the large amount of masonry mass stores and radiates the heat for 12-24 hours. Our fireplace is centrally located so it radiates heat over a large area of our kitchen and great room. Two stainless steel U-Tube heat exchangers are also built into the core to capture some heat, which is circulated to the solar storage tank in the basement.

The core of our heater was designed by Heat-Kit of Canada, but originated centuries ago from designs in Europe and Russia. Gimme Shelter Construction of Amherst, WI constructed the core.

We decided to use natural limestone and sandstone from our property for the masonry cladding. Some of the stones were recovered from the foundation of our old summer kitchen. We performed the masonry work ourselves, which saved us $20,000+ in labor costs. Our cost for the core, chimney materials and mortar for the limestone was approximately $12,000.

Solar Photovoltaic Electric System # 1
This system was designed to produce about half of our annual electricity needs and was put into operation in April 2006. We chose a grid-tied system that sends excess electricity to the Alliant Energy power grid. We have a net-metering agreement where we are compensated for the power we produce at the same rate as we pay for electricity. During the first full year of operation our PV system produced 4,700 kilowatt-hours, which was 43% of our total usage of 11,100 kWh.

The PV system includes the following components:
+ 16 Kyocera 170 watt modules for a total output of 2.7 kW
+ Wattsun dual axis tracker system (the system follows the sun morning until night)
+ SMA Sunny Boy 2500 inverter/controller (converts DC voltage to AC for the grid)
+ Concrete foundation (5 yds with rebar), steel post & framework
+ Disconnect switches, wires, conduit, and other miscellaneous electrical items

Our system produces between 200-600 volts (DC current) when the sun shines. It is facing east when the sun rises and follows the sun all day so it is facing west when the sun goes down. The DC current comes into the basement, goes through a disconnect switch and into the Sunny Boy inverter/controller. This device changes the DC current into AC current and controls how the power goes out into the grid. The current goes outside through a disconnect switch, back through our main breaker panel, and then out through the meter to the grid. The best days are when we are not using much power and the meter is actually going backward!

We worked with Light Energy Systems of Madison (now Full Spectrum Solar) to design the system and to provide the parts and some of the labor.

The total cost of the system was about $25,000, but we received a Focus on Energy grant of $8,700 and a Federal Tax Credit of $2,000, so out out-of-pocket costs were about $14,000.

Solar Photovoltaic Electric System # 2
In 2009 we installed our second PV system. We took advantage of a special program from Alliant Energy where we have contracted for 10 years to sell all of the power produced by the system for 25 cents per kWh. It did require us to install a new meter pedestal, at a cost of $1,100 so that the electricity from the new system could be metered separately. We also have to pay about 41 cents/day for the new meter charge, as well as sign up for the Alliant Second Nature program (where we pay a small premium for our energy purchased, which will be from renewable sources). Our total cost for the system was $31,168, and we did some of the work ourselves (digging, concrete, trenching, wire, etc). We will get a 25% Focus on Energy grant of about $7,800 and a 30% Federal tax credit in 2010 of about $9,300. Therefore, our out of pocket costs will be about $14,000. This system has the potential to produce about an 11% annual rate of return.

We purchased the main part of the system from DH Solar. Their system uses a tracking system that they adapted from their experience with commercial satellite tracking systems. The system has 16 Suncast PV panels, each of which is rated at 210 watts, or a total of 3.36 kW. The inverter is a SMA Sunny Boy 3000US.

Barn Workshop Hot Air Collector System
In 2008 we designed, built and installed a hot air collector system on the south side of the old milkhouse. The collector was made from tempered glass, aluminum expandable tubes, painted black, and solid foil-faced insulation. The 6 outlet and inlet piping contains a bi-metallic sensor/control relay and a small in-duct fan to pipe the heat into the barn workshop. The total cost of this system was about $600. A woodstove in the milk house provides backup heat on cloudy days, which is piped with the same piping system into the barn. This is a trial and error system. It looks like we might have to reposition the system to more directly face south to maximize the heat output.

PSC Approval of Bay Front Project Advances Wood Over Coal

2009-10-30T16:55:00.001-05:00

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 30, 2009

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Madison, WI (October 30, 2009) RENEW Wisconsin today hailed the decision by the Public Service Commission to approve a utility’s plan to repower an aging northern Wisconsin coal-fired plant with locally available wood fuel.

The approval allows Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin (NSPW), a subsidiary of Xcel Energy, to install the state’s first biomass gasifier. The system will produce synthetic gas from a variety of wood sources to produce electricity at the company’s Bay Front Power Plant in Ashland, Wisconsin.

“This project will yield multiple dividends to the utility’s ratepayers and the local economy in and around Ashland,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide advocacy group for renewable energy.

“Capital projects are few and far between in northern Wisconsin. Rather than closing down an inefficient plant that relies on imported fossil fuel, NSPW is extending its life and improving its environmental performance with this switch to a sustainable energy source,” Vickerman said.

“This proposal is an excellent resource fit for this part of the state. The money spent to acquire wood fuel will remain in the local area, instead of being exported to western coal states,” Vickerman said.
END
RENEW Wisconsin (www.renewwisconsin.org) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.

Solar outlook set to dim in 2010

2009-10-23T12:47:00.000-05:00

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 23, 2009

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Utilities’ voluntary incentives hit limits

(Madison, WI – October 23, 2009) In contrast to the rapid growth experienced in the last three years, a leading state renewable energy advocacy group expects a sharp decline in installed solar electric capacity in 2010.

In statements directed to the Public Service Commission (PSC), three utilities – Wisconsin Electric Power (WE), Wisconsin Power and Light (WPL), and Wisconsin Public Service (WPS) – acknowledged yesterday that their voluntary solar incentive programs will be discontinued for new customers. All three had offered, on a limited basis, a special buyback rate for the generated electricity, which effectively cut in half the payback period for the systems.

“These three incentive programs spurred homeowners and businesses to install nearly 2.5 megawatts of solar electric capacity,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin. “But for those incentives, we wouldn’t not have reached the milestone that PSC Chair Eric Callisto recently celebrated at the installation of a system serving the Town of Menasha.”

“Though voluntary initiatives are certainly welcome, they cannot by themselves sustain a vibrant solar marketplace. By far the most effective way to maintain solar’s momentum is for the Legislature to require utilities to purchase a set amount of renewable energy from their own customers at a reasonable price,” said Vickerman.

Going into 2010, the only investor-owned utility that has a special buyback rate is Madison Gas and Electric (MG&E), which pays its customers 25 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity generated from their solar systems. MG&E’s voluntary program still has room for another 600 kilowatts of customer-owned solar.

Until their voluntary initiatives had reached capacity, both WPS and WPL had been paying the same rate as MG&E, while WE had offered a 22.5 cents for each kilowatt-hour generated.

“If renewable energy is to drive job growth in Wisconsin, lawmakers must create favorable marketplace conditions to support new installations going forward. No policy will accomplish that goal more effectively than a state initiative to establish higher buyback rates,” Vickerman said.
END

Comments in opposition to PSC staff recommendation to raise rates in MGE's Energy for Tomorrow program

2009-10-22T09:31:00.004-05:00

COMMENTS FILED ELECTRONICALLY IN

Application of Madison Gas and Electric Company for Authority to Change Electric and Natural Gas Rates 3270-UR-116

Commentor Information:
Name: Michael Vickerman
Address: 509 Elmside Blvd.
City: Madison State:WI Zip:53704
E-mail: mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

To the Commission:

I would like to comment on the recommendations from PSC staff (witnesses John Feit and Jerry Albrecht) to increase the premium charged to Green Power Tomorrow subscribers. I approach this issue from a multiple of perspectives: (1) as a professional renewable energy advocate; (2) as a 100% program subscriber (since 1999); and (3) as a proud owner of a 1.7 kW solar electric system that was installed after Madison Gas and Electric launched its Clean Power Partners program in 2008.

All of MGE's Clean Power Partners, (including me) sell the output from our solar systems to Green Power Tomorrow program subscribers through a 25 cents/kWh buyback rate. Among these customer-producers of clean energy are TDS Custom Construction, Goodman Community Center, City of Madison, Dane County Regional Airport, Madison No Fear Dentistry, and Isthmus Engineering.

The solar buyback rate is supported through voluntary purchases of renewable electricity. When the Clean Power Partners program was announced, MGE envisioned a 300 kilowatt ceiling on solar energy purchases through the special tariff. All Clean Power Partners must subscribe to Green Power Tomorrow. At the same time Clean Power Partners was launched, MGE reduced the subscription premium to a penny per kWh. The declining premium sparked a significant upsurge in subscribership, which enabled MGE to carve out a larger space for solar electric production supported by the program. The ceiling on the Clean Power Partners program is now one megawatt.

I mention Clean Power Partners to highlight the link between subscription volume and solar electric production. The larger the volume of electricity flowing through Green Power Tomorrow, the greater the amount of solar generation that the program can support. The reverse, however, is also true.

The participation rate of these programs is very sensitive to premium amounts. According to research compiled by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the median premium price of voluntary programs nationwide is about a penny per kWh. Programs with higher premiums have a significantly smaller participation rates than Green Power Tomorrow. Forcing MGE to increase its renewable energy premium would trigger a falloff in participation, which in turn would very likely result in higher rates to nonparticipating ratepayers. Moreover, a contraction in subscribership may very well force MGE to curtail its Clean Power Partners program due to insufficient program revenues.

Clearly, the special buyback rates offered by MGE, Wisconsin Power & Light and We Energies have delivered a positive jolt to Wisconsin's solar electric marketplace. Wisconsin is actually a regional leader in solar electric capacity. No other Midwestern state comes close to where Wisconsin is right now. Given the significant progress made in the last three years, how does it benefit the state to choke off the one enabling policy that makes solar generation a reasonable value proposition to responsible energy users?

Shifting gears somewhat, there is an implicit understanding among program subscribers that they are committing to energy resources whose costs are fixed through long-term contracts. Many of these subscribers are likely to react negatively to a higher premium, because they know that the renewable resources leveraged through Green Power Tomorrow are not going up in price. They are likely to interpret an increased premium as expressing a public policy preference for burning more fossil fuel to take advantage of temporary dips in coal and gas prices. Is that really the message the PSC wishes to convey?

Let's summarize the consequences of a higher premium:

1) Decline in program participation rate, due to a combination of economic impacts and negative reinforcement.
2) Decline in program revenues, forcing MGE to compensate through higher rates on all customers.
3) Premature seizing up of the solar electric marketplace in the Madison area.

It is highly ironic that the PSC would consider inflicting such a cascading sequence of perverse outcomes to a nationally recognized renewable energy program like Green Power Tomorrow. Just last month, MGE's renewable energy program received the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Utility Green Power Program of the Year Award. The award was announced at the Green Power Leadership Awards banquet in Atlanta, Georgia. The honor bestowed to MGE was well-deserved, as evidenced by the letter I wrote in support of its program (see below).

Let's not wreck a good thing. Please refrain from forcing MGE to raise its premium on current and future renewable energy subscribers. Thank you.

Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
222 S. Hamilton Street
Madison, WI 53703

Home address:
509 Elmside Blvd.
Madison, WI 53704
+++++++++++++++++

June 5, 2009

Mr. Courtney Welch
Green Power Leadership Awards
Navarro Research & Engineering for
U.S. DOE Golden Field Office
1617 Cole Blvd, MS 1501
Golden, CO 80401

Dear Mr. Welch:

It is with great pleasure that I submit this letter of support on behalf of Green Power Tomorrow, the highly popular renewable energy subscription program offered by Madison Gas & Electric. I offer this letter of support not only in my capacity as a professional renewable energy advocate, but also as a customer purchasing 100% of household electrical use through this program.

By any objective standard, MG&E's program is a hit with its customers. As reported in NREL's annual assessment of leading green power programs, Green Power Tomorrow has the second-highest customer participation rate (9.7%) among investor-owned utilities in the United States. The program ranks sixth among all utilities in sales as a percentage of total retail electricity sold (3.8%). Through a judicious blend of wind projects from the region, MG&E was able to lower its premium to one cent/kWh, which set the stage for the upsurge in customer participation in 2008. Many a Madison landmark, from the State Capitol to Monona Terrace Convention Center, is powered in part through Green Power Tomorrow.

Notwithstanding its modest premium, the program also supports customer-owned photovoltaic systems through a special buyback rate fixed at $0.25/kWh for 10 years. Called Clean Power Partners, this initiative has motivated dozens of customers to install PV on the residence or business. Last August, I became a Clean Power Partner, when the electricity from the newly installed 1.7 kW system on our house began flowing into the grid. With this installation we now produce nearly emission-free 2,000 kWh/year on top of the 4,000 kWh/yr of emission-free electricity we buy from MG&E. In the 18 months since Clean Power Partners was launched, customer participation has surpassed MG&E's initial expectations, prompting the utility to increase the ceiling on this initiative from 300 kW to one megawatt.

More than a renewable energy program, Green Power Tomorrow is a community-based sustainability initiative that supports about 50 MW of windpower that otherwise would not have been part of MGEâ€™s resource portfolio. Instead of settling for small, incremental growth for its program, MGE elected to pursue a more ambitious path that would be appealing and affordable to a broad cross-section of its customer base, and the results are impressive. In my estimation, it is an outstanding candidate for this year's Utility Green Power Program of the Year.

Sincerely,

Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin

Educating Schools on Solar Air Heating

2009-10-19T13:00:00.004-05:00

by Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
October 2009

After reviewing several proposals, Focus on Energy selected two locations for showcasing this particular solar energy application.

One of the Focus on Energy-funded demonstration sites is the Cooperative Educational Service Agency, located in Chippewa Falls.

Better known as CESA 10, this agency provides energy management services to 30 school districts in northwest Wisconsin. A low-rise building with plenty of unshaded roof space, the CESA 10 office presents an ideal setting to test a solar application that could very well be a good technology fi t for the schools served by this agency.
“We hope this installation will enable us to practice what we preach,” said Todd Wanous, an energy manager at CESA 10 and the driving force behind this demonstration. Placed in service in August 2009, CESA 10’s innovative installation features Wisconsin’s first example of a modular rooftop air heating system called SolarDuct®.

On the roof are three banks of corrugated collector panels, each connected to the building’s air handling system. The dark-colored panels are covered with ventilation holes that draw in outside air. Sunlight striking the panels warms the air passing through the holes. Through the ducts running behind the arrays, ventilation fans draw the preheated air into the building’s air handling system.

CESA 10’s SolarDuct® unit is designed to supplement, not replace, the natural gas furnaces that used to be the sole source of space heat.

However, this system does not necessitate additional fans or blowers to move the preheated air throughout the building. As a result, there is no parasitic energy loss to factor in.

Continued.

This article first appeared in Sustainable Times, October 2009

Catching Wind

2009-10-14T10:56:00.018-05:00

2011
June 2011
+ State’s Hostility Toward Renewables Escalates
+ “Leaders” Lag Citizenry on Wind Support

April 2011
+ Siting Rule Suspension Rocks Wind Industry
+ Glenmore Wind Survives Raucous Opposition

February 2011
+ Walker, Legislature Open Fire on Siting Rule
+ Site Puts WI Wind Facts at Your Fingertips

2010
September 2010
+ Stringent Siting Rule Heads to Legislature (summary of proposed rule's provisions)

May 2010
+ PSC Sets Hearings for Turbine Siting Rules
+ Tall Turbines Set to Breeze into Green Bay Area
+ Schools Roll Out Northwind 100 Turbines

February 2010
+ PSC Gives Go-Ahead to Glacier Hills Project
+ From PSC's Order on Glacier Hills
+ Milwaukee Reels in 270 Jobs With New Wind Generator Manufacturing

2009
December 2009
+ Decision Nears on Glacier Hills Wind Park
+ Excerpts from WEPCO Witnesses on "Wind Turbine Syndrome"

October 2009
+ Wind Permitting Bill Becomes Law of the Land
+ Final Environmental Impact Statement Released for Glacier Hills Wind Park, including "Glacier Hills at a Glance" and a list of parties to the technical hearing.

Plain English explanation of wind siting reform law

2009-10-12T08:26:00.002-05:00

2009 ACT 40
A Description of Wisconsin’s Law Creating Statewide Standards for Permitting Wind Energy Systems
The enactment of 2009 Act 40 (Act 40) does not establish rules for permitting a wind energy system, but rather requires the Public Service Commission (PSC) to establish those rules within two years. Current law (ss. 66.0401) states that wind energy projects can be stopped if the restriction does the one or more of the following:
• Serves to preserve or protect the public health or safety.
• Does not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency.
• Can prove that a system of comparable cost and efficiency is possible.
Under current law, a political subdivision has permitting authority over wind energy facilities up to 100 megawatts (MW) in total capacity. Wind energy facilities that are 100 MW or larger must be reviewed and approved by the PSC.

Overview
While not modifying that specific provision of ss. 66.0401 cited above, Act 40 creates a framework to allow limited and generally uniform local regulation of wind energy systems. Note that, while the current law addresses both wind and solar energy systems, the framework created by Act 40 applies only to wind energy systems.

Under Act 40, the PSC is granted authority to set standards for the subdivisions to use when regulating the wind systems in their area. If a local political subdivision chooses to write its own ordinance, the provisions contained therein cannot be more restrictive than those the PSC determines. For example, Act 40 states that a local government cannot prohibit a company from testing a site to see if it is a good place for turbines, or the opposite, to make them test so much that the goal is to effectively delay or run up costs. Any currently permitted projects will not have to repeat the process with the new guidelines and are effectively grandfathered under Act 40.

Legal challenges to wind energy facilities have typically centered on public health and safety issues. With this in mind, the PSC is required to establish minimum setback distances that provide reasonable protection against health effects, such as sound emissions and moving shadows associated with wind energy facilities. The agency must also set rules on decommissioning turbines, addressing both removal of the physical infrastructure and site restoration. In addition to the above, the PSC is authorized to establish rules on various contentious subjects including visual appearance, lighting, electrical connections to the power grid, maximum audible sound levels, proper means of measuring sound, and signal interference.

Limitations on Municipal Regulation of Wind Energy Systems
Act 40 directs the PSC to promulgate rules that specify the maximum restrictions that a municipality (referred to as a “political subdivision” in the law) may impose on the installation or use of a wind energy system. It specifies that the subject matter of the rules must include setback requirements that provide reasonable protection from health effects of wind energy systems and decommissioning; it specifies that the subject matter may also include visual appearance, lighting, electrical connections to the power grid, setback distances, maximum audible sound levels, shadow flicker, proper means of measuring noise, interference with radio, television, and telephone signals, or other matters.

Act 40 specifies that a municipality: (1) may not regulate wind energy systems unless it adopts an ordinance that is no more restrictive than the PSC rules; and (2) may not impose any restriction on a wind energy system that is more restrictive than the PSC rules.

Act 40 essentially “grandfathers” previously approved wind energy systems. It specifies that, if a municipality adopts an ordinance in conformance with the PSC rules, it may not apply that ordinance, or require approvals under that ordinance, to a wind energy system that it had already approved under a previous ordinance or under a development agreement. This language appears to apply to an amendment to a previous ordinance, as well as to a totally new ordinance, as that amendment itself is an ordinance.

Act 40 also specifies that a municipality may not prohibit or restrict testing activities to determine whether a site is suitable for the placement of a wind energy system. It provides that a municipality objecting to such testing may petition the PSC to impose reasonable restrictions on the testing.

Smart Growth Law
Act 40 authorizes a municipality to deny an application for approval of a wind energy system with an operating capacity of at least one megawatt if the proposed site of the system is in an area primarily designated for future residential or commercial development, as shown in a map that is adopted as part of a comprehensive plan under the Smart Growth law before June 2, 2009, or as shown in such maps after December 31, 2015, as part of a comprehensive plan that is updated as required under the Smart Growth law. An applicant whose application is denied under this provision may appeal the denial to the PSC, which may grant the appeal, notwithstanding the inconsistency of the application with the planned residential or commercial development, if the PSC determines that granting the appeal is consistent with the public interest.

Municipal Procedures
Act 40 specifies procedures that a municipality must follow in reviewing an application for a permit to install a wind energy system. In brief, a municipality must determine whether an application is complete within 45 days of receiving it and must take final action on the application within 90 days of determining that it is complete. A municipality may request additional information from an applicant, and is allowed 45 days from the receipt of that information to determine whether the application is then complete. A municipality may extend its 90-day review period for any of several specified reasons, but not for more than a total of 90 days. If a municipality does not have an ordinance in effect when it receives an application, the deadlines are delayed by approximately three months. If a municipality fails to make a determination of the completeness of an application within the 45-day limit, the application is considered to be complete; if it fails to take final action within the 90-day review period, the application is considered to be approved.

Act 40 specifies that, when reviewing an application for approval of a wind energy system, a municipality must create a record of its proceedings, including recordings of public hearings and copies of all related documents. The municipality must base its decision on an application on written findings of fact supported by evidence in the record.

The Act 40 directs the PSC to promulgate rules further elaborating these and other procedural requirements and requires municipalities to conform their procedures to the PSC rules.

Review of Municipal Actions
The Act 40 specifies two options that an aggrieved party may use to appeal a municipality’s actions on an application for approval to construct a wind energy system or to appeal a municipality’s enforcement action relative to a wind energy system. Under the first option, the party may appeal the decision or action in the municipality’s administrative review process. If still aggrieved following this review, the party may then appeal to the PSC. The further appeal must be made within 30 days of completion of the municipal review. If a municipality has not completed its review within 90 days, the party may then appeal to the PSC. Under the second option, an aggrieved party may appeal directly to the PSC.

When a case is appealed to the PSC, the municipality is required to provide the complete record of its proceeding to the PSC. The PSC may confine its review to the record developed or it may expand the record it reviews. Act 40 requires the PSC to complete its review in 90 days, but allows the PSC to extend that time for good cause. If the PSC determines that the municipality’s action did not comply with the PSC’s rules or is otherwise unreasonable, the PSC’s decision supersedes that of the municipality and the PSC may order an appropriate remedy.

Act 40 specifies that these are the only options allowed for review of a municipality’s actions. Under either option, judicial review is not available until the PSC has completed a review of the case. Upon appeal to circuit court, Act 40 directs the court to review the PSC’s decision, rather than that of the municipality.

Applicability
Act 40 applies to all wind energy systems, regardless of size (as does current law). Note, however, that a person who proposes to build an electric generating facility with an operating capacity of at least 100 megawatts, including a wind farm with this collective capacity, must first apply to the PSC for, and receive, a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN). Act 40 specifies that, in reviewing a CPCN application for a wind energy system, the PSC must consider whether installation or use of the system is consistent with the standards specified in the PSC’s rules.

Under current law, municipal ordinances may not preclude or impede the construction of an electric generating facility for which the PSC has issued a CPCN. Thus, effectively, Act 40 applies to wind energy systems with an operating capacity less than 100 megawatts.

Public Hearings
Act 40 directs the PSC to hold at least two public hearings prior to promulgating its rules on wind energy systems. At least one of the hearings must be held in Monroe County and at least one must be held in an area outside of Dane County and Monroe County in which developers have proposed wind energy systems.

Decommissioning
Act 40 directs the PSC to promulgate rules that require the owner of a wind energy system with an operating capacity of at least one megawatt to maintain proof of financial responsibility ensuring the availability of funds for decommissioning of the system upon discontinuance of its use.

Wind Siting Council
Under the auspices of the PSC, a wind siting council will be formed to survey peer-reviewed scientific research on the health impacts of windpower facilities as well as national and state regulations affecting their siting. The council is directed to submit a report to the Legislature addressing health-related research and related regulatory developments. This report may include recommendations for legislative actions based on the research and regulations surveyed. The initial report is to be submitted within five years of the law’s effective date, and every five years thereafter.

The council will also advise the Commission on such matters as completeness of application and the record of decision, review procedure, and enforcement procedures.

The wind siting council will consist of 15 members representing various interests and perspectives. The breakdown of membership in this body will be as follows:

 Two members representing windpower developers;
 One member representing towns
 One member representing counties;
 Two members representing the energy industry;
 Two members representing environmental groups;
 Two members representing realtors;
 Two members who are landowners living adjacent to or in the vicinity of a windpower facility and who have not received compensation by or on behalf of the facility’s owners, operators or developers;
 Two public members; and
 One member who is a University of Wisconsin System faculty member with expertise regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems.

Department of Natural Resources Duties
Act 40 directs the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to identify areas in the state where wind turbines, if placed in those areas, may have a significant adverse effect on bat and migratory bird populations. The DNR must maintain an Internet website that provides this information to the public and includes a map of the identified areas.

Act 40 directs the DNR to prepare a study to determine whether the agency has sufficient legal authority to protect the environment, including wildlife, from the physical impacts of wind generating systems. The report is to be submitted to the Legislature no later than 13 months after the law takes effect. If the DNR concludes that it lacks sufficient authority to adequately protect the environment from the adverse impacts of wind generating systems, the report must also contain recommendations for a legislative remedy.

Prepared RENEW Wisconsin
October 2009

Sources: Wisconsin Legislative Council, Wind for Wisconsin

Anti-wind article damages Isthmus credibility

2009-09-28T13:05:00.000-05:00

To the Editor of Isthmus:

There’s a word to describe the unexamined regurgitation of antiwind talking points sprinkled throughout Brian McCombie’s article “The War Over Wind,” September 11, 2009), but journalism isn’t it. Stenography is much closer to the mark.

But this one-sided article raises an unsettling question: why did the reporter, and by extension Isthmus, leave out so much counterbalancing material in its haste to present windpower in an unambiguously negative light?

Why, for example, was there no mention of Madison Gas & Electric’s Kewaunee County wind energy project? This 17-turbine installation has produced emission-free electricity since 1999. Much of its output feeds MGE’s hugely successful Green Power Tomorrow program. Earlier this year, the two townships hosting the project approved an extension of the project’s conditional use permits without any debate or discussion whatsoever. Considering how controversial the project was 11 years ago, when the townships voted on MGE’s application, this is a remarkable change of attitude. This suggests that the local residents have managed to adapt to life among wind turbines, even though some of the neighbors can hear the whooshing sounds at times.

In another material omission, the reporter failed to mention a recent Court of Appeals decision that overturned Calumet County’s arbitrarily restrictive wind energy ordinance. Taking note of Wisconsin’s 15-year-old wind energy siting law, the Court ruled in July that local units of government lack the power to adopt permitting standards of general applicability on wind energy systems. The ruling effectively dismantled the legal foundation supporting blanket restrictions on wind development that had been adopted by a dozen or so counties and towns. By overlooking this critically important bit of judicial history, the reporter effectively implied that the bills supported by the Wind for Wisconsin coalition constituted a naked power grab, when in fact the Court found that local governments had been overstepping their authority all along.

The fact-checking that went into this article appears to be non-existent. (Example No. 1: Invenergy, not Alliant, built and operates the 86-turbine project near Horicon Marsh. Example No. 2: Wisconsin has a legislatively mandated renewable energy goal of 10% by 2015, not the 25% by 2025 claimed in the article.) However, these examples of slipshod reporting seem positively benign when compared with the frothy brew of distortions, innuendo, omissions of fact, unfounded speculation and outright hysteria served up by your reporter.

Indeed, with this one article, you managed to toss into the dumpster whatever credibility your publication had built up over the years in the area of environmental reporting.

Michael Vickerman
Executive Director
RENEW Wisconsin
222 S. Hamilton St.
Madison, WI 53703

CWESt’s Report Adds Noise to Wind Debate

2009-09-25T10:12:00.002-05:00

Commentary by
Peter Maldonado
RENEW Wisconsin
September 25, 2009

A document released by the wind opposition group Coalition for Wisconsin’s Environmental Stewardship (CWESt) claims to find a cause-effect link between wind turbines and reduced property values, but the self-described study fails to provide significant statistical data supporting its contention. The document, titled “Wind Turbine Impact Study,” also contains a “literature review” that turns out to be nothing more than a Google search trawling through opposition web sites for subject matter.

Given CWESt’s opposition to expanding wind generating facilities in Wisconsin, one can understand the organization’s decision to release a preliminary draft of this paper only a few days before the Legislature’s vote on Senate Bill 185, a bill directing the Public Service Commission to develop uniform permitting standards for wind energy systems. As stated in the cover page, the author, Appraisal Group One (AGO), specializes in “forensic appraisal, eminent domain, stigmatized properties and valuation research.” Our aim here is not to criticize the stated purpose of the report, merely to assess the validity of its methods and results. As the old adage goes, “garbage in, garbage out.”

The first part of the study is an opinion survey of realtors including salespeople, brokers, appraisers, and land developers. The study lists the number of titles represented, not the actual number of people surveyed, and therefore the number sounds inflated. “Licensed Real estate salesperson” comprised the largest group at 34, yet a later figure shows that only 18 respondents actually listed and sold a property with a view of turbines. This survey records every realtor’s opinion on this matter even though only half of them have had direct experience with properties near wind turbines.

The problem posed by a sparse sample size has a more profound effect on the ensuing study of property values. The paper looks at transactions near the Blue Sky Green Field (Fond du Lac County) and Forward (Fond du Lac and Dodge counties) wind farms and compares them with areas without wind turbines. Curiously, Alliant’s Cedar Ridge project was not assessed due to lack of data, so the paper states, even though that project also went on line in 2008. There were only six sales of properties recorded within the area of each wind farm. AGO’s graphs point out how far below the curve the values of the properties within the wind farm are, but six is hardly a significant number to sample. The samples of out-of-area sales that form the curves for Blue Sky Green Field and Forward are small in their own right (62 and 28, respectively). Compare those small data sets with the 811 transactions within Kewaunee County alone that factor into the forthcoming Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) analysis at ten different sites nationwide.

The final section, the literature review, attacks wind turbines from all angles, straying from the paper’s ostensible purpose of analyzing property values. In a nutshell, this section surveys a broad range of impacts, including health, safety, wildlife, land use, quality of life, technological performance, tax policy and local economic effects. We tried an experiment and found that most of the bibliography contents can be located by using Google and searching for “property value impact wind turbine.” Not surprising, most of the web sites that appear in the search results are operated by groups opposed to wind development, presumably to support additional restrictions on windpower development. Nearly all of the citations can be found on these websites. To the extent the references include studies that were not negative to windpower development, they are dismissed in the CWESt paper as examples of propaganda underwritten by the wind industry. Moreover, one of the studies that found no significant impacts was brushed off as a masters thesis of an environmental science graduate student, a detail that might lead a reader to question the credibility of the source material.

As it turns out, the graduate student in question is Ben Hoen, whose novel and methodologically rigorous study of wind turbine impacts in New York state took into account viewshed effects. This approach is one of three tests incorporated in the aforementioned LBNL study. One line of research examines to what effect distance from turbines may have on property values after the facility was constructed. Another compares viewshed impacts on home sales and property values. The third test attempts to detect nuisance effects on property values. Expected to be released later this year, the LBNL report shapes up to be the most rigorous study on the subject of property values and wind turbines. Compared with the robustness of this forthcoming report, bolstered by 811 transactions in Wisconsin, the CWESt paper is weak tea, light on data and lacking in scientific integrity. Even though the data collection and analysis process is complete, LBNL will not publish its report until its findings have been thoroughly peer-reviewed. Until CWESt’s paper goes through a similarly rigorous review process, its findings should be taken with a grain of salt.

Peter Maldonado is a volunteer for RENEW Wisconsin, a sustainable energy advocacy organization. Peter holds a B.A. in Environmental Policy from Lawrence University. These commentaries also posted on RENEW’s blog: http://renewwisconsinblog.org

Public Service Commission Testimony & Filings

2009-09-22T09:35:00.010-05:00

2011
08.22.11 RENEW asks PSC to stop We Energies' termination of renewable program
01.28.11 Comments of RENEW on the draft Strategic Energy Assessment

2010
09.08.10 RENEW opposes MGE's proposed green-pricing increase and ask for small-win tariff
08.20.10 RENEW opposes WPS' proposed green-pricing increase and asks for small-wind tariff

2009
10.22.09 RENEW's comments in opposition to recommendation to raise MGE's green power rate
10.06.09 RENEW supports Glacier Hills wind energy center; testimony of Michael Vickerman
10.06.09 RENEW supports Glacier Hills wind energy center; testimony of Mick Sagrillo
09.11.09 RENEW reaffirms support for coal plant conversion to wood
07.20.09 RENEW testimony supports Excel conversion of plant to wood
06.15.09 Comments of Clean Wisconsin and RENEW Wisconsin on the briefing memorandum on advanced renewable tariff development
02.17.09 Comments of RENEW Wisconsin and Clean Wisconsin in support of higher buy-back rates

2008
09.08.08 WPS' rate case, asking for a docket to set uniform buy-back rates across utilities

08.11.08 Alliant Energy's Cassville Plant: Plenty of Wind, Not Much Biomass

08.08.08 Alliant Energy's rate case; testimony asking for higher buy-back rates

State Senate strongly backs new rules for wind projects

2009-09-15T14:33:00.001-05:00

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 15, 2009

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

In a show of bipartisan support, the State Senate approved legislation that will open the door to new wind energy projects in Wisconsin.

Under the Wind for Wisconsin umbrella, more than 60 organizations as diverse as unions, trade associations, environmental advocates, health groups, and renewable energy manufacturers sought uniform permitting standards for future wind developments.

Six Republicans joined 17 Democrats to pass Senate Bill 185. The legislation directs the Public Service Commission to begin a rulemaking process that will lead to greater certainty and predictability in siting wind generation facilities.

“The Senate’s vote is critical to reviving the development of a high priority renewable energy resource in accordance with Wisconsin energy policy,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a nonprofit sustainable energy advocacy organization.

“We believe that the wind energy suppliers will see the action as an invitation to locate and do business in Wisconsin. Our economy will benefit from the investment and jobs in a sustainable energy future,” Vickerman said.

“RENEW Wisconsin and its members thank the bill’s primary authors, Senator Jeff Plale (D-South Milwaukee) and Senator Randy Hopper (R-Fond du Lac), the leadership of both parties, and all of the state senators who recognized the need for a statewide approach to permitting windpower installations,” Vickerman added .

The Assembly will vote on the companion bill later this week. Then it will go to the governor.

RENEW reaffirms support coal plant conversion to wood

2009-09-13T09:59:00.005-05:00

From the testimony of Michael Vickerman in support of the installation of a biomass gasification system that would produce biomass-derived synthetic gas (“syngas”) for serving Northern States Power’s Bay Front Unit #5.

We note the following public policy objectives that would be advanced if the proposal submitted by Northern States Power Corporation (“NSPW”) were approved. These objectives include:
1) Meeting Wisconsin’s current Renewable Energy Standard;
2) Eliminating a source of coal-fired power from its system;
3) Using a locally available renewable energy resource;
4) Reducing carbon dioxide emissions and other gaseous pollutants;
5) Maintaining a strong generation source in northern Wisconsin; and
6) Investing Wisconsin capital in a renewable energy generating facility power plant within its borders.

PSC opens door for more in-state renewable installations

2009-08-27T15:15:00.002-05:00

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 27, 2009

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
Executive Director
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

PSC opens door for more in-state renewable installations

At its open meeting today, the Public Service Commission (PSC) called for the expansion of voluntary utility programs that offer premium rates for in-state sources of renewable energy. Today’s discussion marked the first time the PSC took up the issue of premium renewable energy buyback rates since it opened a docket in January to investigate the viability of a statewide policy governing utility purchases of solar, wind and biogas energy generated by their customers.

“While we would have preferred a policy-driven approach to making homegrown renewable energy a bigger part of Wisconsin’s energy future, we are heartened that the PSC will direct utilities to produce plans for encouraging more customer investments in this market sector,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a Madison-based sustainable energy advocacy organization.

During the PSC’s investigation, RENEW Wisconsin submitted comments advocating for the establishment of fixed-rate, technology-specific payments pegged at the production cost of the facility. Where offered, these premiums—also known as Advanced Renewable Tariffs—have significantly increased private investment in distributed sources of renewable energy. Earlier this year, the State of Vermont passed a law mandating premium rates for renewable energy, the first in the nation to do so.

Several years ago, RENEW and other organizations helped We Energies design and launch a voluntary program for encouraging customer ownership of renewable energy systems, including the state’s first premium solar rate. “We hope the state’s utilities will take advantage of our experience in this area and work collaboratively to develop renewable energy premium plans that will work,” Vickerman said.

END
RENEW Wisconsin
RENEW Wisconsin is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives. More information on RENEW’s Web site at www.renewwisconsin.org.

Previous press statements, newsletters, and other materials are posted at
http://renewmediacenter.blogspot.com.

Pursuing Sustainability Through Economic Adversity

2009-08-25T14:52:00.001-05:00

A commentary by
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
August 11, 2009

Continuing a trend that began in 2008, America’s energy appetite will continue to decline through 2009, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA). The reductions are cutting across all primary energy sources: petroleum, coal, and natural gas. These projections appear in the July edition of EIA’s Short-Term Energy Outlook.

In the same document, EIA anticipates a 2% decline in this year’s electricity use, following a 1.6% dip in 2008. The ongoing reduction in electricity demand is having a particularly pronounced effect on coal consumption, which is projected to drop by 5.2% from year-earlier totals. Between the sharp pullback in industrial demand for electricity and low natural gas prices, the current market for coal is very weak.

Needless to say, as fossil fuel consumption goes, so go carbon dioxide emissions. Given EIA’s expectations that the ongoing pullback in energy demand will persist through this year, there should be a continued slackening in greenhouse gases discharged into the atmosphere. If you add this year’s projected reductions to last year’s recorded decline, the overall drop in annual CO2 emissions from 2007 could be as much as 5%. That’s a far larger reduction than what would be accomplished under any of the various cap-and-trade proposals being debated in Congress.

While energy efficiency spending and stricter building codes are good policies for moderating demand, their effects are modest compared with the consequences of a full-blown economic downturn. The current situation raises an important question: what is the value of displacing a ton of CO2 when economic conditions are sufficiently bleak to guarantee future declines in emissions regardless of new climate change policy initiatives?

From a climate change perspective then, current economic conditions present a kind of a good news-bad news situation. On the plus side, Americans are driving less, flying less, buying fewer disposable items made in foreign countries, and building fewer energy sinks like houses, hotels, and megamalls. This slowdown provides us with an opportunity to conserve fossil fuel supplies over a longer period of time, reduce our vulnerability to traumatic events occasioned by human disturbance of the atmosphere, and deploy capital to build up more localized and less high-maintenance economic arrangements that can be sustained over the long haul.

Indeed, out of this contraction could emerge a slower-paced and more sustainable America, one less dependent on the kindness of Middle East petrostates and hail Mary legislation from Congress. A broad-based movement to invest in community-based sustainable energy would in turn have a far more positive and lasting effect on our energy economy than would a Green New Deal that extends the presumption that the American way of life is non-negotiable, as former Vice President Dick Cheney would have us believe. Energy sustainability is an easier goal to achieve when everyone takes part in the project.

But there’s no denying the substantial loss of investment capital available for sustainable energy development. As spending is curtailed and debt is paid down, dollars that could underwrite wind, solar and bioenergy installations are bring taken out of circulation. Moreover, the prices of competing fuels like coal, natural gas and liquid propane have fallen substantially from their 2008 highs, as has the wholesale price of electricity. Many of the renewable energy proposals that looked good on paper 12 months ago are now in hiatus, waiting for the economic headwinds to subside.

These headwinds notwithstanding, there remain a few businesses that are pressing forward with projects that will enable them to reduce their energy overhead and/or diversify their revenue sources. One of the more intrepid of these companies is Organic Valley Family of Farms, which recently installed three pole-mounted photovoltaic arrays in front of their $4 million headquarters building in LaFarge.

For this farmer-owned cooperative, the idea of capturing renewable energy on-site to serve its main building was a logical extension of their commitment to organic agriculture and environmental stewardship. The 8.4 kilowatt installation is expected to produce about 14,200 kilowatt-hours a year, which is about one-and-a-half times the electricity that a typical Wisconsin residence uses per year.

But Organic Valley’s sustainable energy agenda does not stop there. The cooperative is investigating the feasibility of a solar hot water system to serve its cheese-packing facility, also in LaFarge. Even more ambitious is the community wind energy project that Organic Valley and two La Crosse-area partners--Western Technical College and Gundersen Lutheran--have been working to get off the ground. These three entities have formed a for-profit limited liability corporation for the purpose of owning and operating a two-turbine project near Organic Valley’s distribution center in Cashton.

Measurements taken so far indicate that the Cashton location is one of the windiest areas in western Wisconsin.

Even though Organic Valley is a profitable enterprise, it is doubtful that any of these investments in sustainable energy would be going forward without state and federal incentives. As a for-profit cooperative in a rural area, Organic Valley is uniquely positioned to tap into two sources of federal funds: the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Renewable Energy in America Program and the solar Investment Tax Credit. Complementing these funding sources is Focus on Energy, which is co-funding a portion of Organic Valley’s solar electric array and its wind monitoring expenses.

The combination of these funding sources enables businesses like Organic Valley to pursue a proactive approach towards sustainability and invest in systems that will pay off over the long haul. As long as these public policy initiatives remain in effect, rural Wisconsin businesses can grow while conserving fossil fuel use and reducing their impact on the atmosphere, even in these trying times.

Michael Vickerman is the executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a sustainable energy advocacy organization headquartered in Madison. For more information on what Wisconsin is doing to advance sustainable energy, visit RENEW’s web site at: www.renewwisconsin.org and RENEW’s blog at: http://renewwisconsinblog.org.

RENEW testimony supports Excel conversion of generation plant to wood

2009-07-20T16:24:00.004-05:00

From the direct testimony of Michael Vickerman on behalf of RENEW Wisconsin:

Q. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A. The purpose of my testimony is to communicate our organization’s support for the installation of a biomass gasification system that would produce biomass-derived synthetic gas (“syngas”) for serving Northern States Power’s Bay Front Unit #5.

Q. Why does RENEW support this particular application?
A. We note the following public policy objectives that would be advanced if the proposal submitted by Northern States Power Corporation (“NSPW”) were approved. These objectives include:
1) Meeting Wisconsin’s current Renewable Energy Standard;
2) Eliminating a source of coal-fired power from its system;
3) Using a locally available renewable energy resource;
4) Reducing carbon dioxide emissions and other gaseous pollutants;
5) Maintaining a strong generation source in northern Wisconsin; and
6) Investing Wisconsin capital in a renewable energy generating facility power plant within its borders.

It’s Time to Bring Renewable Energy Home

2009-07-13T11:59:00.009-05:00

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 12, 2009 (Updated August 24, 2009)

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman, Executive Director
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

It’s Time to Bring Renewable Energy Home
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
July 12, 2009
In a unanimous vote, the Public Service Commission (PSC) recently cleared the way for Alliant Energy’s Wisconsin utility to construct a 200 megawatt (MW) windpower plant project in southern Minnesota. Once operational, the Bent Tree project, costing upwards of $450 million, will be a productive source of renewable energy that will provide lasting benefits to Minnesota’s economy and environment. Since it will be Alliant’s Wisconsin customers who foot the bill, however, it is reasonable to inquire whether the current utility practice of outsourcing renewable energy production to other states is a good thing for Wisconsin’s economy.

Because we can’t see it, taste it, hear it or smell it, we tend to lose sight of the fact that electricity is a manufactured product. To make it, capital is amassed and expended on machinery that convert raw resources like coal, flowing water, and wind into this highly useful form of energy. The electricity is then transported via networks of wires to power factories, illuminate residences and streets, propel commuter trains, and energize the complex communications systems that allows to store vast quantities of instantly retrievable information. It is hard to name a manufactured product that adds more value to an industrialized society than electricity.

Yet electricity’s impact on the economy is not defined solely by the activities it supports. There is as well the intense amount of economic activity that goes into building the power plants themselves. In the case of Bent Tree, the capital used to manufacture, transport and erect 122 wind turbines will unleash a year-long burst of construction work in Freeborn County employing hundreds of skilled laborers and technicians. The work will also ripple through nearby component manufacturers involved with the project, as well as ports and other transfer points where components are unloaded and loaded onto special vehicles and hauled to the project zone.

But the economic stimulus doesn’t end there. The Bent Tree turbines, once operational, will produce a stream of revenues to local governments over the life of the project. These dollars will be used to support police and fire protection, recycling and emergency medical services in the host communities. Area landowners will also receive payments that will supplement their existing income. In times of distress, these payments enable farmers to stay current on their taxes and keep their farms going. Last, the turbines will also support a crew of technicians and windsmiths to operate the facility and maintain it over a minimum of three decades.

There is no question that this project will energize Freeborn County’s economy for many years to come. But it also begs the question: how much of Bent Tree’s first-order and second-order economic benefits will trickle into Wisconsin? Answer: Virtually none.

Alliant’s decision to invest in a Minnesota wind project comes at a time when Wisconsin is struggling to keep its manufacturing sector intact. In light of the ongoing economic contraction, now would not be a propitious time to outsource energy production to neighboring states and export Wisconsin capital and skilled labor to build valuable infrastructure that could easily be located in our own state.

Imagine, if you will, the uproar that would surely erupt if citizens learned that federal stimulus dollars were going over into Canada to build factories owned by U.S. companies. However, what Alliant received permission to do--dedicate nearly $500 million in Wisconsin ratepayer dollars to build a brand-new windpower plant in Minnesota--is, at bottom, no different.

Granted, Bent Tree is the not the first wind project owned by a Wisconsin utility to be located in another state. This trend began with Madison Gas & Electric’s 30 MW Top of Iowa facility, costing $62 million, which started operation in early 2008. Also in Iowa, construction is underway on Wisconsin Public Service’s 99 MW Crane Creek project, which is expected to tally about $250 million when completed. But with the approval of Bent Tree, what started out as a trickle has turned into an outright flood of utility capital flowing out-of-state. Keep in mind too that Bent Tree will be three times the size of Cedar Ridge, the only Alliant-owned windpower facility in Wisconsin.

It is true that windpower projects in Iowa and Minnesota are lower-cost sources of electricity than those in Wisconsin. But shouldn’t there be more to the decision calculus than just the unit price of electricity? For example, locating a Bent Tree-sized facility in Wisconsin would generate $800,000 a year in local government revenues and about $600,000 a year in lease payments to landowners. Building it here would also create hundreds of jobs for operating engineers, ironworkers, electricians, specialty haulers, wind energy technicians, and other skilled laborers. What is the basis for giving these impacts so little weight in a power plant proceeding?

Regrettably, under today’s standards of review for permitting utility-owned power plants, the PSC had no choice but to approve Alliant’s application. Alliant had adequately demonstrated that it needed another source of renewable energy to comply with Wisconsin energy policy, and that Bent Tree was the least expensive option on a per-megawatt-hour basis.

It’s worth noting that there are several independently owned prospects that don’t require PSC approval could be up and running in 18 to 24 months, and two of them—Horizon’s in Lafayette County and Iberdrola’s in Columbia County--are in Alliant’s Wisconsin territory. Yet they languish for want of a power purchase agreement with an electric provider. Furthermore, given the current utility preference to own wind generating assets rather than buying wind electricity, there is no assurance that these prospects will ever get built.

True, the current economic contraction has taken a bite out of the wind industry, but that hasn’t put the brakes on wind development elsewhere in the Midwest (see table below). And while local opposition to wind energy has stalled a half-dozen proposed wind plants across the state, that doesn’t explain why fully permitted projects are not proceeding to construction.

No, there is another reason why wind development in Wisconsin is at a complete standstill, and it’s the double whammy described above—the utility preference for out-of-state wind energy coupled with their unwillingness to buy wind energy from independent developers.

In a weakening economy, we can ill-afford to let utilities continue investing Wisconsin capital in out-of-state renewable energy production while simultaneously throwing up barriers to companies seeking to situate renewable generation sources in Wisconsin. The longer utilities go on building projects that benefit the host state more than their home state, the greater the risk of seeing Wisconsin’s construction and manufacturing prowess, along with our highly skilled workforce, migrate to those states with the most viable renewable energy markets. Beyond a certain point, such utility preferences and practices will also cause harm to their customer base. How would that serve the public interest?

If Wisconsin truly desires to provide a home to a viable renewable energy economy, it will have to redefine the public interest standards that govern the expenditure of ratepayer dollars. This means giving such economic benefits as job creation, component manufacturing, workforce participation, increased tax receipts to local and state government, and reduced dependence on future transmission upgrades as much due consideration as cost per megawatt-hour. Granted, this is a form of industrial policy. However, if state policymakers don’t take steps to build a solid market structure for generating more renewable electricity here at home, Wisconsin’s ability to compete for good jobs and business opportunities could become hopelessly compromised.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Snapshot
Midwest Windpower Development Activity (all figures in MW)
July 2009

Iowa
Operating capacity -- 3043
Under construction -- 409*
Minnesota
Operating capacity -- 1937
Under construction -- 40
Illinois
Operating capacity -- 1016**
Under construction -- 92**
Indiana
Operating capacity -- 531
Under construction -- 505
Wisconsin
Operating capacity -- 449
Under construction -- None
Michigan
Operating capacity -- 129
Under construction -- 14

* Total includes WPS’s 99 MW Crane Creek project
** Total includes EcoEnergy’s 100.5 MW EcoGrove project
*** Total includes Iberdrola’s 300 MW Streator Cayuga Ridge South project

Source: American Wind Energy Association, RENEW

RENEW Wisconsin (www.renewwisconsin.org) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization based in Madison that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.

RENEW statement on approval of Alliant's Bent Tree project

2009-07-09T15:29:00.002-05:00

Immediate release
July 9, 2009

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

Statement by Michael Vickerman, Executive Director, RENEW Wisconsin, on Public Service Commission approval of the Bent Tree Windpower Plant

The Public Service Commission today cleared the way for Alliant Energy’s Wisconsin utility to construct a 200 MW windpower plant project in southern Minnesota. Once operational, the Bent Tree project will be a productive source of renewable energy that will provide lasting benefits to Minnesota’s economy and environment. Since it will be Alliant’s Wisconsin customers who foot the bill, however, it is reasonable to inquire whether the current utility practice of outsourcing renewable energy production to other states is a good thing for Wisconsin’s economy.

It is true that windpower projects in Iowa and Minnesota are lower-cost sources of electricity than those in Wisconsin. However, when a Wisconsin utility locates a renewable energy project in another state, Wisconsin loses the economic boost from building and operating that project—construction and maintenance jobs, component manufacturing, tax receipts to local governments, landowner payments, etc.

In a weakening economy, we should question the wisdom of outsourcing renewable energy production to other states. A Bent Tree-sized facility in Wisconsin would generate $800,000 a year in local government revenues and about $700,000 a year in lease payments to landowners. It would also create hundreds of jobs for operating engineers, ironworkers, electricians, specialty haulers, and wind energy technicians. Is cheaper electricity from distant sources a reasonable trade-off for lost employment opportunities and revenues to state and local governments? RENEW does not believe so.

Legislative approval of state-wide uniform siting standards for wind energy projects would certainly help reduce the regulatory risks involved in utility development of projects in Wisconsin.

END

RENEW Wisconsin (www.renewwisconsin.org) is an independent, nonprofit 501
(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sect

Revitalizing Ourselves Through Renewable Energy

2009-06-23T16:57:00.000-05:00

From the presentation by RENEW's Michael Vickerman on June 21, 2009, at the Energy Fair of the Midwest Renewable Energy Association, Custer, WI:

Energy Policy Must Recognize Energy Realities
+ Supplies of liquid fuels peaked in 2008
+ Capital is disappearing before our very eyes
+ Energy and food are the original currencies
+ The shift from stores to flows is inevitable
+ Current economy is highly energy-intensive
+ Energy return on energy invested (EROEI) must inform decision-making
+ We can’t afford to prop up existing energy sinks or engage in wealth-draining military adventures

Three paths to choose
+ Business as usual
+ Clean green technology
+ Curtailment and community

Wind and Baseload Power Planning

2009-06-05T15:54:00.000-05:00

In a presentation to the Wisconsin Public Utility Institute, RENEW Wisconsin's executive director Michael Vickerman reviewed wind generation's role in baseload planning. He also reviewed the perspective on baseload of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA):

+ Baseload power is an obsolete concept
+ Both baseload plants and windpower are primarily energy resources
+ From a flexibility perspective, wind is superior
+ Curtailing windpower to allow inflexible baseload plants to keep operating is inefficient, wasteful and damaging to the environment.

Windpower: A Stabilizing Force in an Economic Downturn

2009-06-03T12:23:00.004-05:00

Commentary by
Michael Vickerman
Executive Director, RENEW Wisconsin
June 2, 2009

Much to no one’s surprise, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions fell sharply in 2008 from previous year levels. The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), which has been tracking greenhouse gas emissions since 1990, attributes the 2.8% decline to a combination of high energy prices in spring 2008 and the global economic contraction that picked up strength during the second half of the year.

This was certainly the largest year-over-year decline ever reported by the agency. However, even with 2008’s substantial decline, greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. sources have risen 16.9% since 2000. The results, which are preliminary and are likely to be adjusted this fall, can be viewed at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/flash.html.

The most dramatic reductions occurred in the transportation sector, which fell by more than 5%. Jet fuel consumption is down 9.1%, from this time last year, while demand for diesel fuel consumption is off by 9.9%, reflecting a substantial reduction in truck traffic and rail tonnage. Though it seems like ancient history, the price of diesel fuel on Memorial Day 2008 was $4.72 per gallon, $2.45 higher than current prices.

Even the electric power sector, one of the faster-growing sources of emissions in recent years, was not spared from this trend. According to EIA, about half of the 2.1% reduction in CO2 emissions in the electric power sector can be attributed to declining electricity output. But another contributing factor was the extraordinary growth in installed wind generation capacity last year. A record-shattering 8,500 MW of new wind projects was placed in service in 2008, capping a four-year boom that has nearly quadrupled total installed capacity in the United States.

Bucking the downturn, wind project construction has been one of the very few bright spots in the domestic economy. Nowhere was the pace of activity more feverish than in Iowa, now the No. 2 state in installed wind capacity, trailing only Texas. More than 900 utility-scale turbines started operation in 2008, doubling the state’s wind generating capacity. This year, the Iowa Policy Project expects wind energy to account for 15% of the state’s total generation. In no other state has wind energy penetration even reached double-digit figures.

Last year’s frenetic construction pace is starting to ebb, however, as wholesale electric prices sink to historic lows. As declining demand for electricity exerts downward pressure on coal and natural gas prices, wind energy developers will struggle to attract financing for their projects. Right now, the signals from the power markets strongly discourage new plant construction of any type, be it wind, coal or natural gas.

The pain administered by the economic downdraft has been especially acute at Alliant Energy, whose Wisconsin subsidiary is located in Madison. Having lost two very large customers due to plant closures, including the mammoth General Motors plant in Janesville, Alliant is aggressively cutting costs to prepare for a forecasted 10% decline in sales to industrial customers. These measures include a suspension of contributions to employee 401(k) plans, layoffs affecting all management levels, the closure of redundant power stations and the postponement of planned power plant upgrades.

Ironically, even though it is scaling back operations elsewhere, Alliant’s Wisconsin subsidiary is moving forward with a 200 MW (133 turbine) wind project in southern Minnesota called Bent Tree. If approved, Bent Tree would be the largest wind project owned by a Wisconsin utility.

Alliant’s desire to build Bent Tree is a direct consequence of Wisconsin’s energy policy, the centerpiece of which is a requirement on utilities to increase the renewable energy content of electricity sold to their customers. Between now and 2015, Alliant must acquire additional sources of renewable energy to satisfy that mandate. Given where the economy is headed, Wisconsin’s renewable electricity standard may be the only thing that’s keeping Alliant in the power plant building business.

If Alliant’s windpower plans stay on track, the utility will meet its 2015 target several years in advance. Last December, Alliant commenced operations at its 68 MW (41 turbine) Cedar Ridge plant southeast of Fond du Lac, in the heart of Wisconsin’s wind belt.

Between the nasty economic weather out there and the state’s pro-renewable energy policy, I expect greenhouse gas emissions here to fall even more dramatically in 2009.

Sources:

“Alliant eliminates 60 jobs in state” (May 28, 2009)
“Beloit power plant to shut down by year-end” (May 26, 2009)
“Alliant decisions on plants on hold” (May 24, 2009)
“Like economy, greenhouse has emissions fell in ‘08” (May 22, 2009)
“Rate watch: CEO calls rate hikes ‘most unwelcome’ (May 14, 2009)
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/pluggedin.html (Tom Content’s blog for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

Michael Vickerman is the executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a sustainable energy advocacy organization headquartered in Madison. For more information on what Wisconsin is doing to advance sustainable energy, visit RENEW’s web site at: www.renewwisconsin.org and RENEW’s blog at: http://renewwisconsinblog.org. RENEW also operates Madison Peak Oil Group’s blog: http://www.madisonpeakoil-blog.blogspot.com

Wind in Wisconsin - Permitting Crisis

2009-05-12T10:07:00.004-05:00

Excerpts from the testimony of Michael Vickerman, executive director, RENEW Wisconsin in support of identical companion bills (Senate Bill 185 and Assembly Bill 256) which direct the Wisconsin Public Service Commission to begin a process to set state-wide permitting standards:

By 2010, more than one-half of the wind energy serving Wisconsin utilities will come from neighboring states.

Crane Creek, a 99 MW project located in Iowa that Green Bay-based WPS will own, was permitted in 2008 and will be operating by 12/31/09.

Twin Creeks, a 98 MW project located in Manitowoc County in WPS territory, received a permit in 2005. Due to a combination of litigation and ordinance changes, ground was never broken. Under the current ordinance, it is highly unlikely that the Twin Creeks project will be built, even though it has a permit.

If Twin Creeks is not built:

+ Local governments lose $392,000/year in future revenues.
+ Local landowners lose $294,000/year in future rents.
+ A local component manufacturer loses a 98 MW order to build towers
+ Construction jobs are outsourced to Iowa.

If we don’t initiate a process to establish uniform permitting standards, it will be difficult for utilities to comply with an increased Renewable Energy Standard at any level above current law.

State snares federal dollars for wind energy work

2009-05-08T12:31:00.007-05:00

FIRST RELEASED May 8, 2009
REVISED May 12, 2009

MORE INFORMATION
Ed Blume
608.819.0748
eblume@renewwisconsin.org

State snares federal dollars for renewable energy work
In the most recent round of federal renewable energy grants, Wisconsin led all states in capturing project dollars to address market and development challenges associated with wind energy.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced that a Wisconsin non-profit organization and three post-secondary schools captured more than $1 million for projects to promote market acceptance and workforce development, two challenges identified in a 2008 DOE report.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison will receive nearly $600,000, while the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee will receive just over $300,000 and Lakeshore Technical College (Cleveland, WI) a little less than $200,000.

“Our success in receiving these awards is a reflection of the State of Wisconsin's strong commitment to expanding the wind energy marketplace here,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide renewable energy advocacy organization.

RENEW Wisconsin proposed in its grant application to develop a one-stop online source of information for wind developers, state and local policymakers and regulators, and the general public.

The web site will include documents and links to relevant state and federal statutes and rules, facts sheets on everything from aesthetics to court decisions, zoning, and other resources, as well as a calendar of upcoming workshops, seminars, training, briefings, grant opportunities, RFPs, and other relevant events and opportunities.

The other grants will promote workforce development. The UW-Madison will provide short courses in wind power plant design, construction and operations and develop curriculum to integrate wind energy systems curriculum into power engineering education programs; the UW-Milwaukee intends to create a wind energy educational collaborative in southeastern Wisconsin; and Lakeshore Technical College will develop additional partnerships to boosts its ongoing wind technician training programs.

DOE Awards in Market Acceptance:
• RENEW Wisconsin (Madison, WI) - Sowing the Seeds for a Bountiful Harvest: Shaping the Rules and Creating the Tools for Wisconsin’s Next Generation of Wind Farms - $93,348

DOE Awards in Workforce Development
• The Board of Regents of the UW System (Madison, WI) - A Continuing Education Short Course and Engineering Curriculum to Accelerate Workforce Development in Wind Power Plant Design, Construction, and Operations - $119,135
• Lakeshore Technical College (Cleveland, WI) - POWER - Purposeful Partnerships Coordinating Wind Education Resources - $199,236
• University of Wisconsin (Madison, WI) - Integration of Wind Energy Systems into Power Engineering Education Programs at UW-Madison - $399,931
• University Wisconsin-Milwaukee (Milwaukee, WI) - Southeast Wisconsin Wind Energy Educational Collaborative - $330,184

Full list of awards and DOE news release at http://www.energy.gov/news2009/print2009/7381.htm.

--END--
RENEW Wisconsin is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives. More information on RENEW’s Web site at www.renewwisconsin.org.

Sock maker steps up to solar hot water

2009-05-01T12:15:00.001-05:00

From a solar hot water profile written by RENEW’s Michael Vickerman and Ed Blume for Focus on Energy:

“We wanted to do something genuine, not phony,” said Bob Chesebro, president of family-owned Wigwam Mills, Sheboygan, about his company’s decision to install a solar energy system.

Initially, Chesebro wasn’t sure which kind of solar energy system to go with. But the more he delved into the question, the more he came to believe that solar hot water would provide the best fit for the 103-year-old company.

Placed in service in February 2008, Wigwam’s 27 solar collectors supply 47 percent of the hot water used by the company to shrink, bleach, antimicrobial treat, wash and soften 40,000 pairs of socks each day. . . .

Wind in Wisconsin: Permitting Crisis

2009-04-30T15:09:00.002-05:00

From a presentation on wind permitting in Wisconsin by Michael Vickerman, executive director, RENEW Wisconsin:

Why are so many wind projects serving WI utilities located out of state?

1. The wind resource is stronger in states to our west, which reduces the per/MWH cost of development.
2. It is proving exceptionally challenging to secure a permit to build wind projects in Wisconsin, especially those under 100 MW.

Solar hot water—straight from the garden

2009-04-21T12:05:00.000-05:00

Ben and Nancy Collins weren’t only thinking about energy savings when they installed a solar hot water system at their Platteville residence to serve their family of six. They also wanted to influence their children’s attitudes toward
renewable energy use.

Says Nancy Collins: “We want our children to grow up thinking that it’s normal for families to harvest solar energy.”

Continued.

Solar-heated pool passes the test at Osceola school

2009-04-21T11:02:00.000-05:00

If you’re wondering if a solar hot water system can also be an effective teaching tool for students and community residents alike, look no further than Osceola Middle School. Since going online in August, 2008, Osceola’s solar installation has done double duty, quietly heating three indoor pools and the building’s domestic water while demonstrating to school children how renewable energy can be harnessed and put to productive use.

Continued.

Solar hot water systems for multifamily

2009-04-21T10:50:00.000-05:00

Water heating can be a significant cost in the operation of multifamily residential buildings. On average, water heaters account for between 15 and 25 percent of the energy consumed by residents in multifamily dwellings, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the independent statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy. For some multifamily residences, a solar water heating system, which uses the sun’s energy to preheat water entering an existing gas or electric water heater, may be a cost effective means to reduce monthly heating bills.

Continued.

Solar hot water douses rising energy costs at Madison's fire stations

2009-04-21T10:33:00.001-05:00

When Madison set out in 2004 to become what Mayor David Cieslewicz called a “green capital city,” not one municipal property had yet taken advantage of solar hot water. Four years later, each of Madison’s 11 firehouses is equipped with a solar hot water system, serving anywhere from 45 percent to 60 percent of the buildings’ collective hot water loads and offsetting 205 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions each year. It’s fair to say that no other city in the country has been as aggressive or as successful as Madison in incorporating solar water heating into its municipal buildings.

Continued.

Installation profiles

2009-04-19T10:44:00.016-05:00

Solar hot water
+ Energizing Fort Atkinson’s Schools with the Sun and Earth, Fort Atkinson, WI
+ Sun Harvest Farm: Solar hot water and more, Ridgeway, WI
+ Sock maker steps up to solar hot water - Wigwam Socks, Sheboygan, WI
+ Solar hot water douses rising energy costs at Madison Fire stations - Fire stations, Madison, WI
+ Solar hot water systems for multifamily buildings - Park Central Apartments, Madison, WI
+ Solar-heated pool passes the test at Osceola school - Osceloa High School, Osceola, WI
+ Solar hot water—straight from the garden - Private residence, Platteville, WI

The Importance of Doing the Math

2009-04-06T09:34:00.002-05:00

Commentary
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
April 6, 2009

The average American adult exhibits some proficiency with basic arithmetic--the adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing of numbers. With these tools we are able to calculate a baseball player’s batting average, the amount of interest income earned on a three-month certificate of deposit, the service tip on a $50 dinner, and the duration of a driving trip from Madison to Minneapolis. Very few motorists need a calculator to figure out the total cost of a fill-up when the per-gallon price of gasoline goes up by a dime.

Yet, when the subject turns to America’s energy future, a subject where some facility with number-crunching is essential for understanding the issues at stake, our native competence seems to desert us. How else to explain the preponderance of newspaper articles, radio and television programs and Internet sites that either fumble the numbers that represent reality, or simply ignore them altogether.

If, as participants in a democratic process, we believe in the concept of informed consent, it is incumbent on ourselves to acquire some familiarity with the numbers that matter. Absent a grounding in the realm of quantities, durations and physical properties, public discussions on energy cannot help but devolve into exercises in magical thinking.

Consider a recent article in The New York Times titled “Cost Works Against Alternative and Renewable Energy Sources in Time of Recession.” In that article, reporter Matthew Wald states that solar and wind electric generating capacity sources are more expensive than new coal, natural gas or nuclear power plants. The yardstick Wald uses to compare the cost-effectiveness of different energy sources is their estimated kilowatt-hour cost, which is the same measure used to calculate the monthly electric bill.

However, Wald makes no mention of the size of the generating stations that are being compared, a critical omission. Coal and gas are relatively inexpensive fuels if an electric utility is looking to build one large power plant, say, 500 megawatts (MW). But what if the utility only needs 100 MW of additional capacity? In those situations, the large size of a typical coal plant becomes an economic liability, unlike a wind power plant, which can be easily adjusted to fill any gap up to 200 MW.

This isn’t rocket science, just simple math. Even if a kilowatt-hour (kWh) generated at new wind power plant costs 40% more than one produced by a new coal plant four times the size, the wind project will put less pressure on electric rates because the utility spent less money overall to build it. This is an important benefit from relying on a resource that comes in multiples of 2 MW increments instead of one 500 MW unit.

In this era of trillion-dollar bailouts, it is impossible to overstate the risk of building too much capacity that’s not needed. Utility loads have leveled off in the last nine months, caused by the economic contraction that has wreaked havoc in the industrial sector. In some utility territories with large industrial loads, the demand for electricity is falling. Indeed, the recent shutdowns of the General Motors plant in Janesville and the Domtar paper mill in Wisconsin Rapids are certain to depress this year’s sales at Alliant Energy’s Wisconsin utility below last year’s totals.

Given the above, one has to wonder if Alliant is still disappointed with the Public Service Commission’s decision in late 2008 not to let it build a new coal-fired plant in southwest Wisconsin. I dare say it would not have been possible to amortize the $2 billion project over a shrinking revenue base without asking for permission to raise rates. Perhaps Alliant will thank the agency later for stopping this undertaking before ground was broken. But perhaps I have too rich a fantasy life.

The Commission’s rejection of Alliant’s Nelson Dewey 3 project demonstrated the value of asking questions and burrowing into the quantitative details of a particular issue. Instead of simply accepting Alliant’s representations at face value, the agency challenged the underlying assumptions and studied alternative resource acquisition scenarios that were at least as plausible and certainly less expensive than what the utility wanted to pursue. As a result of the agency’s inquiries and the decision it reached, it’s fair to say that adding new central station generators is the furthest thing from a Wisconsin utility’s mind right now.

That Alliant’s ratepayers would be vulnerable to a carbon tax or a ceiling on carbon dioxide emissions also figured prominently in the Commission’s decision-making calculus. Though electric utilities can legally discharge CO2 into the atmosphere and not suffer any economic penalty for it, the agency was not willing to assume that such an arrangement will last in perpetuity. Avoiding a substantial downstream liability is a cost individuals and companies routinely absorb today as long as it is labeled “insurance.”

In contrast, Wald’s article assumes that the future will follow the trajectory of the immediate past. The reporter never tested his assumptions on future load growth, environmental regulation, financial risks and fuel prices, nor did he present any other arguments for increasing renewable energy production besides the environmental ones.

For example, one searches in vain for any reference to the financial risks avoided by pursuing zero-fuel cost resources that do not deplete over time. Compared with coal, nuclear and even natural gas, solar and wind energy are the energy world’s equivalent of Treasury bills—a safe haven offering steady and reliable returns. Much recent economic carnage would have been avoided if the trillions of dollars that were heedlessly plowed into McMansions and zero-interest car loans had been redirected instead into renewable energy production.

Another issue unaddressed in Wald’s article is job creation. Part of the reason renewable energy costs more is that the labor comprises a larger share of the expense. The economies of scale that come with central station generation results in fewer job-hours per kWh generated. Nations like Germany, however, have deliberately tailored their energy policies to support solar electric, community-scale wind power and on-farm methane digesters. For what reason, one may ask? To build up a renewable energy economy employing hundreds of thousands of people.

Last week, over 600 people, many of them small manufacturers and commodity suppliers, crowded into a hotel ballroom in Appleton to take part in a one-day seminar on the wind energy supply chain. The turnout surpassed the seminar organizers’ most optimistic expectations. What were the attendees looking for? A chance to establish a business relationship with an industry with reasonable prospects for long-term vitality, in contrast to the automobile sector.

All these lines of inquiry and avenues of research could have been explored in the course of writing this article. Instead of digging into the details and doing the math, Wald chose to skim along the surface and frame this story around the talking points that were prevalent 10 years ago. The result is stale journalism that neither enlightens or edifies. No wonder the print journalism industry is losing money hand over fist—they can’t seem to do the math.

Sources:

“Cost Works Against Alternative and Renewable Energy Sources in Time of Recession.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/business/energy-environment/29renew.html?_r=3&ref=business

“The Gray Lady Stumbles Over Wind Facts”
http://www.awea.org/blog/?mode=viewdate&date_no=1&month_no=4&year=2009

“Wisconsin Gov. Doyle Talks Up Wind at Workshop”
http://www.awea.org/blog/?mode=viewdate&date_no=31&month_no=3&year=2009

- - - - - - - -

Michael Vickerman is executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a sustainable energy advocacy organization. For more information on the global and national petroleum and natural gas supply picture, visit "The End of Cheap Oil" section in RENEW Wisconsin's web site: www.renewwisconsin.org. These commentaries also posted on RENEW’s blog: http://renewenergyblog.wordpress.com and Madison Peak Oil Group’s blog: http://www.madisonpeakoil-blog.blogspot.com

Windpower in Wisconsin: Outlook for 2009 and Beyond

2009-03-23T16:26:00.012-05:00

From a presentation by Michael Vickerman to the Wisconsin Association of Energy Engineers, April 29, 2009:

Why Promote Windpower?
Clean = Environmental
Non-depleting = Energy Security
Fixed Price = Risk Management
Creates Wealth = Economic Development
Scalable to Utilities = Practicality

The current Renewable Energy Standard (RES) will yield an additional ~4.2 billion kWh/yr of qualifying renewable electricity by 2015, assuming no load growth.

Assuming that windpower generates 90% of that quantity, about 1,600 MW of wind capacity must come on line between 2004 and 2015 to satisfy the RES.