Keep CUB as Advocate for Ratepayers

by jboullion | May 4, 2015 | Uncategorized

The below article appeared in the Sunday May 3rd edition of the Wisconsin State Journal, and argues that the Joint Finance Committee should restore funding for CUB and other advocates to ensure ordinary ratepayers have a voice on their side.

When you spread the cost of the Citizens’ Utility Board across all of the ratepayers in Wisconsin, it’s no more than a penny a month on your utility bill.

“I actually think it’s less than that because it gets spread across electric bills and gas bills and water,” CUB executive director Kira Loehr said Thursday.

That penny provides a lot of pop for the public.

CUB has successfully argued before the state Public Service Commission against rate hikes sought by utilities. Those efforts have saved ordinary ratepayers — homeowners, renters and small business people — real money.

In the last year alone, CUB has helped convince the PSC to reduce proposed rate hikes saving customers more than $160 million. The PSC might have scaled back some of those utility requests on its own. But the professional analysis and testimony of CUB played an important role.

In fact, the PSC is not required to grant CUB the $300,000 it receives from ratepayers each year. The PSC approves the expense because it values CUB’s input and knowledge. The PSC late last year called CUB “active,” “professional,” “forthcoming, prudent and worthy of this nominal award.”

Unfortunately, CUB is now at risk. The Legislature’s budget committee just nixed the $300,000 payment and made it harder for CUB to hire outside experts to testify at hearings on behalf of consumers.

Republicans who control the Joint Finance Committee claim the change will save ratepayers money. Sure, a few pennies a year.

But that savings will be imperceptible and will certainly lead to costly hikes in utility rates over time. That’s because CUB’s four-member staff won’t be carefully following and sticking up for ratepayers in dozens of cases before the PSC.

The PSC lets utilities hire expensive lawyers and consultants to plead their cases for higher rates, with the cost of that advocacy passed on to ratepayers. So it’s only fair for ordinary ratepayers to have a voice, too.

The Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce is spearheading the effort to scrub CUB, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The MMAC has disagreed with CUB in cases affecting how much Milwaukee businesses, versus general customers, will pay for power.

You can’t fault MMAC for trying to control its costs. But you should fault the Joint Finance Committee for trying to eliminate a strong advocate for ordinary ratepayers.

Even utilities are defending CUB’s important role.

“We felt the CUB funding worked fine,” Gary Wolter, CEO of Madison Gas and Electric, told the State Journal editorial board Wednesday.

If the Joint Finance Committee doesn’t restore CUB funding, the full Legislature should. Ratepayers need this cost-effective advocate on their side.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/editorial/keep-cub-as-advocate-for-ratepayers/article_d49f266f-818a-5d86-a7f2-dad48c06f056.html#ixzz3ZBvNIclb

Ale Asylum’s New Solar Installation and Climate Change Pledge in the News

by jboullion | Apr 28, 2015 | Uncategorized

Enlarge Photo

Scott Paulus

The Ale Asylum brewery in Madison produces about 20,000 barrels of beer annually.

Tom Held
Reporter-Milwaukee Business JournalEmail  |  Twitter

Ale Asylum, the Madison brewery with a 100-kilowatt rooftop solar electric system, has become the first Wisconsin brewery to sign a declaration to fight climate change being circulated by The Ceres Foundation.

More than 50 beer producers have signed the Brewery Climate Declaration, which holds that climate change caused by air pollution poses a threat and a challenge that must be addressed.

“And in doing this right, by saving money when we use less electricity, by driving a more efficient car, by choosing clean energy, by inventing new technologies that other
countries buy, and creating jobs here at home, we will maintain our way of life and
remain a true superpower in a competitive world,” the declaration says.

For its part, Ale Asylum installed the 480 solar panels that produce about 20 percent
of the electricity needed to operate its brewery and produce about 20,000 barrels of
beer each year.

“When we built our new facility, one of our goals was to increase our sustainability efforts,”Dean Coffey, Ale Asylum brewmaster said. “These measures include recycling
spent grain to local area farmers, utilizing energy given off in the brewing process for
our tasting room, and harnessing the cold winter air to help keep our large walk-in
cooler at the proper temperature.”

Tyler Huebner, executive director of Renew Wisconsin, said a number of Wisconsin breweries, including MillerCoors LLC and Milwaukee Brewing Co., have taken
steps to reduce energy consumption and re-purpose waste. The Brewery Climate Declaration represents a “can-do” message to be followed by the 2,800 breweries
in the U.S., Huebner said.

Will Minnesota fixed-rate decision impact Wisconsin Fight?

by jboullion | Apr 15, 2015 | Uncategorized

The article below teases out a recent rate case ruling in Minnesota and how it might affect an upcoming case in Wisconsin. In addition to being the largest electric utility in Minnesota, Xcel Energy also serves much of western Wisconsin, including La Crosse and Eau Claire. Right now, Xcel’s residential customers in both MN and WI pay a monthly fixed charge of $8.00.

Posted on 04/15/2015 by Kari Lydersen

(Photo by Jimmy Emerson via Creative Commons)

Utility rate cases have become a major battleground over the future of distributed solar generation and the evolving structure of the nation’s electricity system.

In the Midwest, Wisconsin has been ground zero, with state regulators last year approving three rate cases that made solar much less viable through several mechanisms, including a drastic increase in the fixed monthly charges for all ratepayers, regardless of how much electricity they use.

The next major development on that front will be a case that Xcel Energy is expected to file in late spring or summer. The Wisconsin Public Service Commission has made it clear that it welcomes requests for increased fixed charges and related measures, as RENEW Wisconsin program and policy director Michael Vickerman and other energy experts see it.

But a March 26 decision by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) on an Xcel rate case in that state could mean Xcel is unlikely to request the type of fixed rate increase that other utilities in Wisconsin have been granted.

In Minnesota, which along with North and South Dakota makes up about 85 percent of Xcel’s upper Midwest territory, the utility had requested a $1.50 increase in fixed charges each month. The Minnesota PUC allowed Xcel to collect more revenue and increase rates in general, but it denied the monthly fixed rate increases.

“Having a neighboring public service commission say no will hopefully warn that not everybody is marching forward” with fixed rate increases, said The Alliance for Solar Choice spokesperson Amy Heart. “That this isn’t necessarily a trend in the Midwest.”

“The decision in Minnesota demonstrates just how out of step the Public Service Commission is in Wisconsin.”

Paying for the grid

The fixed-rate portion of an electric bill is meant to cover the cost of grid infrastructure, and utilities around the country have argued that even when people reduce their energy use – including through solar installations – they still need to pay an increased “fair share” for keeping up the grid.

Since Minnesota essentially rejected that argument, and since the grid infrastructure delivering to Wisconsin Xcel customers is largely the same system as in Minnesota, experts say Xcel would have a hard time justifying higher fixed charges for Wisconsin customers.

In other words, if it costs only $8 a month to deliver electricity to Minnesota Xcel customers, it doesn’t compute that it would cost much more to deliver to customers only a few miles away over the Wisconsin border.

“They will be constrained internally from asking for a large increase in fixed costs, though it doesn’t mean they wouldn’t do it,” said Vickerman. “They would feel like, ‘Hmm, this could cause problems with respect to the other customers served by the Xcel system.”

Heart added that “our suspicion [and] hope is that it’s an indication that Xcel would be more judicious and cautious in their upcoming rate request in Wisconsin as to whether they would include any fixed rate increase.”

Xcel response

Xcel spokesperson Mary Sandok did not respond directly to questions about whether the company will seek higher fixed costs in Wisconsin and whether the Minnesota decision will affect the company’s Wisconsin rate case.

“No decisions have been made in either Minnesota or Wisconsin about whether to include increases in monthly basic service charges in future rate cases,” she said. “Also, each state’s regulatory environment is different, and the decision by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will not necessarily affect what we decide to do in Wisconsin.”

Sandok echoed the same argument that We Energies and other utilities around the country have made for increasing fixed charges: “Our monthly basic service charge for residential customers in Minnesota and Wisconsin currently is well below the fixed cost of providing basic service to customers: service lines to their homes, metering, billing, etc. These costs are incurred regardless of the amount of energy customers use.”

But the fixed rate increase that Xcel requested in Minnesota was still far below the increases requested and approved for Wisconsin utilities. Both Public Service Corp. in northern Wisconsin and MG&E increased their fixed rates from about $10.50 to $19 per month, and We Energies’ increase is from about $9 to about $16 a month.

The Minnesota Xcel rate case was launched in November 2013 when the utility requested a $291 million rate increase over two years, saying it needed more money to maintain its nuclear plants and upgrade its transmission infrastructure. Like utilities around the country, Xcel is also struggling with dropping or flat electricity demand. Nationwide, this is an effect in part of increased energy efficiency and distributed generation.

The Minnesota PUC decision was in keeping with the June 2014 findings of the state commerce commission and the December ruling of an administrative law judge, which both said that Xcel should reduce its rate increase requests. The PUC also approved the state’s first decoupling program, a structure where the utility does not get more profit the more energy it sells. That program should theoretically alleviate the need for the utility to increase its fixed rates.

Larger context

Across the country utilities have been requesting fixed rate increases and other changes that make solar installations less viable. Renewable energy advocates say the utilities are trying to protect the traditional model revolving around large centralized power plants and limited distributed generation.

In the majority of cases, according to analysis by The Alliance for Solar Choice, regulators have turned down utilities’ requests and made decisions amenable to the spread of distributed solar. But the Wisconsin Public Service Commission has been an outlier, as experts see it, approving rate cases despite a lack of evidence backing up the utilities’ arguments and in the face of public opposition to the changes.

Public Service Commission spokesman Nathan Conrad disagreed with that characterization, saying, “All decisions made by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin are based on the totality of the record before them, no other outside influences or sources are considered in any case before the Commission.”

While renewable energy proponents hope the Minnesota decision could have larger ripple effects in neighboring Wisconsin, Vickerman and others see this as unlikely, given what they describe as the staunchly ideological position of the Public Service Commission.

“It’s really the Public Service Commission in Wisconsin that’s driving the rate restructuring change, moreso than the utilities,” said Vickerman. “This commission has rang the dinner bell.”

RENEW Wisconsin is a member of RE-AMP, which publishes Midwest Energy News.

Eau Claire Energy Cooperative Will Launch Wisconsin’s Largest Community Solar Installation

by jboullion | Mar 31, 2015 | Uncategorized

Eau Claire Electric Cooperative is set to proceed with the largest community shared solar installation in Wisconsin. At 858 kilowatts, this project will surpass the combined generating capacity of the three shared solar arrays already operating in Wisconsin, all owned by rural electric cooperatives. River Falls-based Able Energy Company will construct the array and interconnect it to the grid. Read the full article here.

The FAQ that appears below can be accessed online.

FAQs – Eau Claire Electric Cooperative’s MemberSolar Project

What is the purpose of the MemberSolar project?

To provide interested Eau Claire Energy Cooperative members a viable and affordable option to purchase renewable solar energy on a voluntary basis.

What is the cost to participate in the project?

The project is 858 kW which will be made up of 2,816 – 305 watt solar panels. The output of each panel, a subscription unit, will be sold for approximately $650. Each ECEC account is eligible to purchase from 1 unit – up to a maximum of 30 units. Units will also be limited to the annual kWh usage per account. If you would like to know how many units you are eligible to purchase, please contact our office.

Is there any equipment installed at my home?

No, the community solar array will be built on a 4 acre section of ground along Highway 12 in Fall Creek. Eau Claire Energy Cooperative will be responsible for operating, maintaining, and insuring the array for the 20-year life of the project.

Do I own the solar panels if I participate in the project?

No, as a member you are not purchasing solar panels, you are purchasing the production rights (output) of a solar panel, or a unit, for the 20 year life of the project.

How much energy will the solar array produce?

Energy production will vary from month to month and year to year based on actual sunshine. Half of the energy is expected to be produced June through August. Each unit is estimated to produce an average of approximately 400 kilowatt hours each year over the 20-year life of the project.

How do I receive credit for participating in the program?

The total energy produced by the entire solar array each month will be divided by the number of units in the project. Each participating member’s bill will be reduced by the number of kWh’s their share of the overall project produced – priced at the current ECEC energy component of the member’s retail rate. As the ECEC rate changes over time, the value of the bill credit will also change. If rates increase, the value of the credit will increase.

What happens if my share of production from the array is greater than my usage?

If your share of production exceeds your usage in any month, the excess will roll over to the next month. However, once per year, if there is any excess production it will be zeroed out and no credit will be given.

What happens if I move?

One option is to simply leave your solar energy credits on your account for whoever moves in, this is value added to your home the same as if you had physically installed panels. If you move your electric service to a different location within ECEC’s service territory, you can transfer the credit to your new location. If you leave the area, you may elect to transfer or assign the unit production credits to another member, donate them to a member organization, or ECEC will repurchase on a declining basis of 10% per year.

What happens after the 20 year life of the project?

The project will be evaluated as the 20 year life approaches to determine if it is still a viable project. If it is deemed a viable project and is able to operate effectively, the cooperative has the option to extend the member agreement.

Will I receive renewable energy tax credits by participating in the project?

Since you own the rights to the energy production of the units and not the solar units themselves, you are not eligible for state or federal renewable tax credits. However, you are getting the benefit of the tax incentives in a reduced up-front cost. To determine any other tax implications, please contact your tax preparer.

Opinion Piece Discusses Discrepancies in Walker’s Presidential Campaign and Proposed State Budget on Energy Policy

by jboullion | Mar 25, 2015 | Uncategorized

The below article by Tom Clementi appeared in the Appleton Post Crescent Wednesday March 25th. Titled “Check Walker’s Motives on Energy Choices,” it discusses differences in Governor Walker’s self-proclaimed “supportive” position on bioenergy and renewables in his presidential stump speech and actions taken in his proposed 2015-2017 state budget that eliminates state funding for important bioenergy research.

Check Walker’s Motive on Energy Choices

By Tom Clementi

If you’re like me and find the news involving Scott Walker and his ever-changing views on seemingly everything— from abortion as something between “a woman and her doctor” to “I will sign the bill” prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks, from saying that immigration amnesty “makes sense” to “I don’t believe in amnesty,” and “I have no interest in a right-to-work law” to signing the law at the first possible moment — just dizzying, well, welcome to the club.

I’m really not sure how he does it, or frankly, how the people of Wisconsin can keep up with it or put up with it. Frankly, it makes me wonder if Walker is ever sure about anything or if he just changes his opinions as the political situations and locations warrant.

Recently, Walker traveled to Iowa and proclaimed his support for ethanol and bio-renewable fuels, which is about what you’d expect from a candidate stumping in the Corn Belt. Never mind that as far back as 2006, in his first run for governor, he was critical of the idea: “Mandates hurt Wisconsin’s working families. And whether they are from Washington or Madison, we as fiscal conservatives should oppose them.”

Yes, we know politicians change their minds.

But deep in his 2015-2017 budget, Walker calls for elimination of the University of Wisconsin’s renewable energy program. Keep in mind that this is separate from his proposal to cut the University of Wisconsin’s budget by $300 million. The research center develops ways to create energy out of wood, grasses and corn — all bio-renewable fuels. It partners with private companies to help them become more energy-efficient. An example is Johnson Controls, Wisconsin’s largest company, which opened a research facility on the Madison campus last year.

The energy research program started eight years ago with a $125 million grant from the George W. Bush administration. It continues to receive $25 million per year from the Department of Energy. The state’s financial contributions helped fund the actual construction of the building, which opened just two years ago. UW’s renewable energy program has been an unqualified success. It has filed 100 patent applications in the past eight years; that’s an average of about one per month.

Start-up companies have been enthusiastic about using UW’s technology, including GluCan Biorenewables, a Missouri company planning to build a plant in northern Wisconsin to develop chemicals used in the papermaking industry. That’d mean a more efficient papermaking process, and jobs to go with it. Another research center innovation is a process that breaks down plant sugars and coverts them to energy — energy from biological, not fossil fuels.

Walker, however, now wants to pull the plug on the state’s $4 million annual funding, which would mean the elimination of 35 positions and cripple the program. But why? To just save $4 million? It may be more important to recall exactly who has funded the Walker train from the start.

The amount of outside-the-state money that has flowed to the governor’s campaign coffers has been significant. Those donors are decidedly in the fossil-fuel business and their profits are threatened when they come up against renewable energy sources.

It’s fair to ask why there has been no expansion of wind power programs in Wisconsin in the last four years. Or why it was so easy for a Florida company to get approval to build the country’s largest open-pit mine in northern Wisconsin (though they’ve now quietly backed out of the mine’s construction). Or why, as soon as he walked into the governor’s office, Walker canceled an $800 million contract from the federal government to repair and expand rail service in Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, the amount of road construction in the state continues to increase and Walker wants to borrow the money to fund it. Who benefits from these type of policies? Whose profits increase? Those whose companies deal in gas, oil, coal and asphalt are those whose organizations have contributed heavily to Walker’s political campaigns.

I don’t know how the governor plans to reconcile his differing views and statements. I don’t know how he can attempt to dismantle the most successful bio-renewable research program in his own state, and then go next door to proclaim his support for an industry which uses the very research he wants to shut down.

It’ll be interesting to see how the governor defends his constantly fluctuating views on so many issues. We’d probably be wise to check Walker’s travel map before making any predictions on what he might say next.

— Tom Clementi is an Appleton resident. He can be reached at tjcwriter@gmail.com.