by jboullion | Mar 15, 2013 | Uncategorized
Doug Stingle, the MREA Development Director, wrote this great article on why Wisconsin needs options for third-party ownership – it’s clear we need Clean Energy Choice legislation to boost renewable markets. (See the original posting on SeeingRED here).
The US solar electric (PV) market is booming. In fact, according to the Solar Electric Industries Association (SEIA), the residential solar electric market grew 12% over the 2nd quarter of 2012 and had its largest quarter in history. Wow, that is some impressive growth that many industries would be boasting about for quite some time. Of course, the solar industry is proud of the market growth and does some bragging about their success.
However, living in Wisconsin, you would never hear about the growth of the solar market, because the solar market in Wisconsin is stagnant.
So where are all these solar panels getting installed? According to SEIA in the 3rd quarter of 2012 (the most recent period statistics are available), Wisconsin ranked 26th in installation of solar electric capacity. Unsurprisingly, California ranked number one for installed capacity of solar in 2012, with Arizona a close second. California is a sunny state with a great solar resource, but that is not completely what is driving the installations there. The number one driver of home-sited solar systems is a third-party ownership model.
How does this work? First, you contact Company X and let them know you are interested in solar on your house. Next, Company X does an assessment on your home to see if the solar resource is adequate, and then the company looks over your electric bills to properly size a system. Company X can then come back and offer you the opportunity to install solar on your house, with no upfront costs, and save money on your monthly electric bills.
For example, let’s say you are paying $90 a month on your current utility bill. Company X can offer you the option of installing solar, and you pay Company X $80 a month as a result. Company X is the owner of the solar system, and you buy the energy produced from the solar array on your home. Company X is able to offer you the chance to reduce your electric bill and utilize solar, because the company is able to take a tax break on the installed system cost as well as sign a net-metering agreement with the local utility, allowing the company to sell any excess electricity generated by the solar system back to the utility.
Who wouldn’t want solar installed on their house and to pay less on their electric bills, all with no upfront cost? Almost everyone. So why aren’t thousands of Wisconsinites lining up to get solar on their roofs?
In Wisconsin we have just two options when it comes to electricity at our home:
- We connect to the local utility company.
- We generate and store our own power.
This gives the utility companies a virtual monopoly on power supply, as most people don’t have the resources to pay for all of the power up front. A third-party owned renewable energy generation system, as an option, is currently in legal limbo in Wisconsin.
The arrangement is neither legal nor illegal. The Public Service Commission in Wisconsin has advised that any power generating facility that is not owned by the same entity where it is located, is in fact, a utility and subject to utility regulations. This sort of legal gray area has a chilling effect on third-party owned solar systems, as companies aren’t keen on possibly facing legal action that would cut into their bottom line. Why take the chance on a possibly illegal installation in Wisconsin when this arrangement is perfectly legal in many other states?
In addition, this legal black hole is preventing schools and non-profits from partnering with a third-party who can take advantage of tax incentives that a non-profit cannot, to install solar at their location. Third-party owned renewable energy systems are great drivers of the market and are employing thousands of workers manufacturing solar components and installing systems.
The solar market is booming because of these third-party owned systems. How can we get more installed in Wisconsin and create homegrown energy and jobs?
We need clean energy choice legislation that allows third parties to own energy generation sited at customer locations and to not be regulated as a utility. Clean Energy Choice is a matter of fairness. We need to create competition in the energy market. Free market supporters can easily see this as a case of government being in the way of the free market.
Write, call or email your state representative and Governor Walker and tell them to make Wisconsin open for (renewable energy) business and to support giving Wisconsin residents a clean energy choice. Also visit
www.renewwisconsin.org and sign on to the letter of support for clean energy choice.
–Doug Stingle
(See the original posting of this article on SeeingRED here).
by jboullion | Mar 14, 2013 | Uncategorized
Below is a post from Nicole Sandler on the BioForward blog. If you’re interested in bio in Wisconsin, checkout their website for more information. See this article in it’s original posting here.
My first post for Biotech in Wisconsin was scheduled for the week of March 11, which as many scientists know includes Pi Day. As we were exchanging ideas about a potential topic, I got an email from Laura Strong, who runs a cancer drug development company in Madison and created this blog, that said:
“I was thinking of something “fun” for Pi Day (March 14) like a pie contest, which got me thinking about cow pies. Cow pies led to a recollection that manure is being converted to energy – a sort of biotech mix of ag and energy…”
In case you aren’t familiar with
Cow Pies, they are a candy made of pecans covered in caramel and chocolate. So there you have it – from
the transcendental π to delicious desserts to actual cow poop to renewable energy!
Some initial searching on the topic of biogas revealed two data-rich documents, both relevant and informative. They serve as the sources for this basic background on where the state of Wisconsin stands on the concept of harvesting animal and plant waste to produce renewable fuel.
But first a quick explanation for those in the dark (like myself) on what exactly is meant by biogas. Biogas is produced from biomass, which can be thought of as animal and plant waste. As a renewable energy source biomass can be used directly or converted to a biofuel in any of three ways – thermal conversion, chemical conversion or biochemical conversion. Think of humans burning wood to make fire to produce heat. That is one of the most basic examples of how we use a biomass source to make energy.
Biogas is a gas that is produced by the breakdown of organic matter in the absence of oxygen – the biologists in the crowd recognize this as anaerobic digestion or fermentation. Typical sources of such biodegradable materials include manure, sewage, municipal waste, plant materials and crops; in other words, biomass. Biomass that is suitable for biogas production is referred to as “feedstock,” a term that figures prominently in the comprehensive reports and data available on this topic.
One such strategic report,
Wisconsin Strategic Bioenergy Feedstock Assessment, was published last year by the Wisconsin Bioenergy Initiative (WBI). The report highlights that Wisconsin has a wide range of biomass, from crops to food and dairy processing facilities to dairy farms. Dairy manure was described as the “lowest hanging fruit” for biomass in Wisconsin. Based on detailed economic modeling, the report suggests that despite a strong forest product industry in WI, use of wood as biomass would impact prices.
The lead author of the report and Director of the WBI is Gary Radloff. Radloff is also Director of Midwest Energy Policy Analysis with the Wisconsin Energy Institute and considered an Expert in energy policy. When asked to comment on the role that biogas can play in our state, he had this to say:
“Wisconsin has the opportunity to a be a national leader in biogas energy with its robust dairy sector, large food processing sector, along with local government facilities such as wastewater treatment plants and landfill sites. Yet it may take some additional supportive public policy to push the opportunity to success due to current challenges in the energy economic marketplace today.”
Another influential organization working for more renewable energy is
RENEW Wisconsin. RENEW Wisconsin is an independent, nonprofit sustainable energy advocacy organization that leads and represents statewide businesses, and individuals who seek more clean, renewable energy. Don Wichert, the organization’s interim executive director, provided some updated numbers to illustrate just where the state of Wisconsin stands on biogas:
“As of a few years ago we could boast of at least 100 biogas facilities – including over 35 wastewater treatment pants, 10 landfills, 40 animal digesters that use dairy manure and another 10 or so that use food waste.” Interestingly, one of these, at UW-Oshkosh, is the
first commercial-scale dry fermentation anaerobic biodigester in the nation, and it provides the campus with five percent of its current energy and heating needs.
In other words, biogas is not new to the state of Wisconsin.
As Wichert explains, these biogas facilities basically function by taking the waste, converting them to a 50:50 mix of methane and carbon dioxide which is then put that into an engine that turns a generator to produce electricity.
“We have a pretty solid basis for being the national leader in biogas production,” says Wichert. “Already we are very close to having the most in any state, and we could expand the number by a factor of four within the next ten years.” What this will require however, are a “few different policy tweaks.”
The Wisconsin State Energy Office also is involved in furthering the potential of biogas as a renewable energy source and recently
published a forward-looking plan in partnership with Baker Tilly. The end result is a report backed up by a set of tools to do an initial evaluation of the viability of biogas projects, specifically in the areas of cheese production and dairy farms. While the economic modeling tool is a bit advanced,
the map overlaps feedstocks and existing power/energy infrastructure.
Wisconsin seems to be striving to make its mark as a leader in harnessing biomass for renewable energy. With strong interest and resources, perhaps we could tap into the local biotech sector to address some of the quality of biomass concerns and help improve the conversion processes.
Wisconsin does have a few of these companies, most notably
Virent, which was developed around its BioForming® platform. The novel process is able to accommodate renewable feedstocks required by Virent’s customers and in doing so converts plant-based materials into a wide range of petroleum-free products.
See the original posting of this article here.
by jboullion | Mar 13, 2013 | Uncategorized
RENEW Wisconsin’s policy director, Michael Vickerman, is submitting the following statement in opposition of Senate Bill 71 at today’s hearing :
Statement of RENEW Wisconsin before the Government Operations, Public Works and Telecommunications Committee in Opposition to Senate Bill 71
March 13, 2013
Good afternoon, my name is Michael Vickerman, and I am submitting testimony today on behalf of 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 250 total members, and more than 100 businesses around the state, including Bleu Mont Dairy (Mount Horeb), Crave Brothers Farm (Waterloo), Convergence Energy (Lake Geneva), Current Electric (Brookfield), DVO, Inc. (Chilton), Emerging Energies (Hubertus), Energy Concepts (Hudson), Full Circle Farm (Seymour), Full Spectrum Solar (Madison), Kettle View Renewable Energy (Random Lake), Michels Wind Energy (Brownsville), Morse Group (Beloit), North American Hydro (Neshkoro), Northwind Renewable Energy LLC (Stevens Point), Pieper Foundation (Milwaukee), Organic Valley (LaFarge), Quantum Dairy (Weyauwega), Renewegy (Oshkosh), SunVest (Waukesha), Symbiont (Milwaukee), W.E.S. Engineering (Madison) and Werner Electric (Neenah).
On behalf of all our members that have an interest in advancing clean, locally produced, cost-effective wind generation, RENEW Wisconsin took the lead in bringing together diverse groups and companies and forging a broad and bipartisan coalition to support legislation establishing statewide permitting standards for all wind generators in the state of Wisconsin. The fruit of that labor, 2009 Act 40, was signed into law in September 2009. As directed by the Wind Siting Law, the Public Service Commission promulgated PSC 128, a rule that sets forth uniform, science-based standards for local government review and regulation of wind power systems in Wisconsin. PSC 128 took effect on March 16, 2012.
In evaluating the merits of SB 71, RENEW asks the Committee to consider the following points:
- In terms of setback distances as well as maximum allowable sound levels and shadow flicker duration, PSC 128 is the strictest statewide standard for permitting windpower systems in the United States. The provisions in PSC 128 are, on balance, stricter than the conditions specified in the prior permits issued by local governments or the PSC.
- The statewide rule is the culmination of two uninterrupted years of agency involvement in wind siting proceedings. It is the product of a highly deliberative process that elicited substantial input from the Wind Siting Council and the public. The Siting Council looked at all the health-related studies that were in the public domain at that time, and tailored its recommendations accordingly. The record built on the major issues is nothing short of encyclopedic.
- All 412 utility-scale wind turbines currently operating in Wisconsin were permitted before PSC 128 took effect a year ago. Because PSC 128 does not have a track record, there is no factual foundation for asserting that PSC 128 inadequately protects public health and safety.
- An independent expert panel established by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Public Health gave wind a clean bill of health in January 2012, based on analyzing all available scientific studies. The agencies stated: “There is no evidence for a set of health effects from exposure to wind turbines that could be characterized as a ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’…we conclude the weight of the evidence suggests no association between noise from wind turbines and measures of psychological distress or mental health problems.” This is as true today as it was 14 months ago.
- The PSC rule was intended to provide wind energy developers with regulatory certainty — a clearly defined set of requirements which they must comply with in order to obtain a permit. This lack of certainty and predictability in the local permitting process would be paralyzing to wind developers and would bring wind development to a standstill.
- The PSC rule was intended to provide wind energy developers with regulatory certainty — a clearly defined set of requirements which they must comply with in order to obtain a permit. Allowing local governments to opt out of PSC 128 would undermine the chief rationale for the Wind Siting Law–uniform standards consistently applied across all jurisdictions in Wisconsin. This lack of certainty, consistency and predictability in the local permitting process would be paralyzing to wind developers and would bring wind development to a standstill.
- Allowing local governments to opt out of PSC 128 would jeopardize current proposals that have been configured to conform with PSC 128. It is extremely challenging to redesign windpower projects to meet different standards than those that informed the original proposal.
Restricting windpower development in Wisconsin will result in a net loss of construction and manufacturing opportunities in the clean energy sector, dry up investment and business start-up opportunities here at home, deprive local governments of a stable source of local payments, and force young adults committed to this career path to relocate to other states. In addition, passage of this bill would further exacerbate Wisconsin’s dangerous overreliance on imported fossil fuels, causing certain environmental harm.
For the reasons enumerated above, RENEW Wisconsin urges rejection of SB 71.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Vickerman
Program and Policy Director
March 13, 2013
by jboullion | Mar 12, 2013 | Uncategorized
More on SB-71 (see our previous action alert post). You can also find RENEW’s testimony, opposing this bill, submitted at the hearing March 13. Below is an editorial published in the Sheboygan Press:
It has been a year since the Wisconsin Legislature reinstated a controversial rule that uniformly regulates wind energy operations in the state. The rule — PSC 128 — spells out what is allowed and not allowed for wind turbines throughout Wisconsin.
It accounts for such factors as size and allowable setbacks from roadways and buildings.
The Public Service Commission rule is not perfect, but is preferable to the patchwork approach it replaced. Now, a group of state lawmakers seeks to again allow municipalities greater latitude in skirting the PSC rules. It is a bad idea.
The Legislature’s primary opponent of current wind siting rules is state Sen. Frank Lasee. The Ledgeview Republican’s crusade includes advocacy on behalf of several 1st Senate District families who say they have suffered negative health effects from large wind turbines on or near their properties, including in Manitowoc and Brown counties.
Similar concerns are expressed in Sheboygan County, where EEW Services is proposing the four-turbine Windy Acres wind farm in the towns of Sherman and Holland. The effect of wind turbines on human health has been a subject of controversy for many years. Study results have proven inconclusive, however, and cannot at this point form the basis of policy changes.
Read on…
by jboullion | Mar 12, 2013 | Uncategorized
More on SB-71 (see our previous action alert post). You can also find RENEW’s testimony, opposing this bill, submitted at the hearing March 13. Below is an editorial published in the Sheboygan Press:
It has been a year since the Wisconsin Legislature reinstated a controversial rule that uniformly regulates wind energy operations in the state. The rule — PSC 128 — spells out what is allowed and not allowed for wind turbines throughout Wisconsin.
It accounts for such factors as size and allowable setbacks from roadways and buildings.
The Public Service Commission rule is not perfect, but is preferable to the patchwork approach it replaced. Now, a group of state lawmakers seeks to again allow municipalities greater latitude in skirting the PSC rules. It is a bad idea.
The Legislature’s primary opponent of current wind siting rules is state Sen. Frank Lasee. The Ledgeview Republican’s crusade includes advocacy on behalf of several 1st Senate District families who say they have suffered negative health effects from large wind turbines on or near their properties, including in Manitowoc and Brown counties.
Similar concerns are expressed in Sheboygan County, where EEW Services is proposing the four-turbine Windy Acres wind farm in the towns of Sherman and Holland. The effect of wind turbines on human health has been a subject of controversy for many years. Study results have proven inconclusive, however, and cannot at this point form the basis of policy changes.
Read on…
by jboullion | Mar 11, 2013 | Uncategorized
A note from Michael Vickerman, RENEW’s Policy Director:
Senator Frank Lasee’s bill to allow municipalities to “opt out” of the reasonable standards contained in PSC 128, Wisconsin’s wind siting rule, is rapidly moving through the state legislature. A Senate Committee will hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 71 on Wednesday, March 13 at 12:00 PM CST. This bill would have an immediate impact on projects currently under development and will jeopardize the future of the Wisconsin wind industry.
We need your help opposing this bill.
It is absolutely imperative that policymakers hear from Wisconsin supply chain businesses, construction companies, project developers, installers, and manufacturers on this bill. If you are able, it would be of great help if you could travel to Madison to testify at the upcoming public hearing. If you are not able to come in person, please contact me directly as there are several other ways to help (direct calls, written testimony, lending your company’s name to our testimony, etc.)
Stopping this bill will take a united effort. We hope that we can count on your support.
The notice of the public hearing on SB 72 is below.
Thank you,
–Michael Vickerman Policy Director, RENEW Wisconsin.
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org 608-255-4044 x. 2
Senate
PUBLIC HEARING
Committee on Government Operations, Public Works, and Telecommunications
The committee will hold a public hearing on the following items at the time specified below:
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
12:00 PM
330 Southwest
Senate Bill 39
Relating to: the notice and degree requirements for the examination to practice as a certified public accountant.
By Senators L. Taylor and Grothman; cosponsored by Representatives Kooyenga, Spiros, Knudson, Marklein, Kapenga, Steineke, Smith, Bernier, Sanfelippo and Stone.
Senate Bill 55
Relating to: costs of replacement or relocation of certain municipal utility facilities required by the construction of a freeway and eligibility for the safe drinking water loan program.
By Senators Cowles, Lasee and Lehman; cosponsored by Representatives Jacque, Weininger, Bernier, Brooks, Kahl, Klenke and Bernard Schaber.
Senate Bill 71
Relating to: limiting the regulation of wind energy systems by local governments.
By Senators Lasee, Ellis, Leibham, Grothman and Moulton; cosponsored by Representatives Jacque, Murtha, Bies, Endsley, Kestell, Klenke, Knudson, LeMahieu, Spiros and Thiesfeldt.
________________________
Senator Paul Farrow
Chair
