by jboullion | Jan 27, 2010 | Uncategorized
From a news release posted on WQOW.com:
(Press Release)– In a visit to the Wisconsin Farmers Union main office, Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection Secretary Rod Nilsestuen (DATCP) discussed the importance of Governor Doyle’s Clean Energy Jobs Act designed to grow Wisconsin’s economy by creating clean energy jobs and helping businesses and consumers use energy more efficiently.
“Every year, $16 billion leaves Wisconsin to pay for fuel to run our vehicles and heat our buildings,” DATCP Secretary Rod Nilsestuen said. “We are not a state with coal, oil or natural gas, but we are a state with enormous manufacturing expertise, rich agricultural and forest land, and tremendous ability to research and innovate. The Clean Energy Jobs Act is designed to harness this potential to improve our economy, save money and confront climate change.”
Governor Doyle’s Clean Energy Jobs Act implements recommendations of his Global Warming Task Force to address climate change and grow the state’s green economy. The package would:
+ Require use of renewable energy sources for 20 percent of Wisconsin’s needs by 2020 and 25 percent by 2025. This will ensure more energy dollars remain in the state. Wisconsin currently spends $16 billion per year on imported energy to heat homes and fuel cars and trucks.
+ Increase energy efficiency and energy conservation efforts with graduated statewide electricity savings goals, leading to a 2 percent reduction in energy use by 2015 and annual reductions thereafter.
+ Create jobs, more than 1,800 in the first year, many of them construction jobs, according to new industry-recognized research. Economists and policy analysts estimate the package will create 800 to 1,800 new construction jobs per year through 2025 and more than 2,000 manufacturing jobs once the energy act provisions are fully implemented.
by jboullion | Jan 27, 2010 | Uncategorized
From the frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill:
Enhanced Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Q: Won’t increased funding for statewide energy efficiency programs come out of the pockets of Wisconsin ratepayers? We shouldn’t be raising energy costs during an economic downturn by adding more fees to our utility bills.
A: Investing more money in energy efficiency has a demonstrable, risk-free payback for Wisconsin residents and businesses. Over the long run we will use less energy, which means we’ll actually be reducing our energy bills.
The cost of conserving energy is far less than the cost of building new power generation. Energy efficiency and conservation efforts are the least-cost means of mitigating carbon pollution.
Investing in energy efficiency also translates into stable, family-supporting jobs, particularly within the building and construction trades and at the 50+ businesses in Wisconsin that manufacture Energy Star appliances, windows, and other products. . . .
Renewable Fuels
Q: Will an Enhanced Renewable Portfolio Standard require the build-out of costly electric generation that Wisconsin doesn’t need, while doing nothing to reduce the demand for electricity? Don’t renewable energy sources cost more than coal and natural gas?
A: Each year, we send over $16 billion out of state to purchase coal, natural gas, and petroleum products to meet our energy demands. Every dollar we spend on these fossil fuels is a dollar that leaves Wisconsin. By increasing our state’s renewable portfolio standards, we are guaranteeing that more of our energy dollars remain here, and creating thousands of jobs for Wisconsin families in construction and building trades work, and, in the longer term, supply-chain jobs in our manufacturing, agricultural, and forestry sectors.
Also, the EPA has moved to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, which means that costs associated with burning coal and natural gas will continue to rise. We cannot continue to pretend that exclusive reliance on fossil fuels for power generation is either sustainable or affordable in the long term. We need to speed our transition to a cleaner energy economy and position Wisconsin as a leader in this growing industry before other states get ahead of us.
As we add renewable sources of energy to our fleet, many of the older and less efficient fossil fuel burning units will gradually be retired, and Wisconsin’s generation capacity will fall in line with demand. Initial infrastructure costs associated with a transition to renewables will be off-set by producing cleaner and reliable renewable energy for Wisconsin over the long-term. Meanwhile, the cost of renewable generation technologies continues to fall when compared to fossil fuel alternatives.
Increased reliance on renewable energy is central to creating a more sustainable Wisconsin. Life cycle costs associated with fossil fuel have a significantly greater adverse impact on public health, quality of life, and the environment.
Advanced Renewable Tariffs
Q: Won’t Advanced Renewable Tariffs simply increase the cost of energy for everyone by subsidizing certain types of renewable technologies at a cost that is higher than the market would otherwise tolerate? Don’t Advanced Renewable Tariffs duplicate the efforts of the Renewable Portfolio Standard?
A: Evidence from around the world suggests that feed-in tariffs lead to faster deployment of renewable generation sources than a stand-alone Renewable Portfolio Standard. Advanced Renewable Tariffs will help harness the power of Wisconsin’s rich agricultural resources by making it easier and more cost-effective for farmers to take farm-waste and generate electricity with it to power their farming operations and deliver clean, renewable energy back to the grid.
Incenting the deployment of smaller-scale, more distributed renewable generation sources cuts down on our state’s transmission infrastructure costs and will reduce our reliance on out-of-state renewable power in the long term.
This policy helps level the playing field so individual homeowners, farmers, and businesses can earn a return on investments in renewable energy that is similar to the returns that utilities earn.
by jboullion | Jan 27, 2010 | Uncategorized
From an article by Lisa Kaiser in the Shepherd Express (Milwaukee):
A new radio ad sponsored by the right-wing Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC)—attacking the proposed Clean Energy Jobs Act, just introduced in the state Legislature—is, as usual, full of misinformation.
Voices of two anonymous women claim that the bill would cost the average Wisconsin family more than a thousand dollars per year and lead to job losses, as well as high electricity rates and gas prices.
But that claim is based on an already debunked study by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (WPRI), largely funded by the ultraconservative Bradley Foundation, and the Beacon Hill Institute, a free-market think tank that accepted more than $50,000 from the Bradley Foundation in 2007 to develop a “tax model” for Wisconsin. (Yes, that is the same Wisconsin Policy Research Institute that was exposed in last week’s Shepherd Express for cooking their results to make their conservative board members happy.)
These two right-wing think tanks produced a report in November that purported to calculate the costs of recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming. That report alleged that the impacts of all of the task force’s recommendations would lead to roughly 50,000 job losses in the state over the next decade and cost the average Wisconsin resident more than $1,000.
But don’t believe it.
A Complete Fabrication
Thad Nation, executive director of the business alliance Clean, Responsible Energy for Wisconsin’s Economy (CREWE), which supports the bill, called the claims in the WMC ad “a complete fabrication” because it’s based on WPRI’s bogus study that analyzes the costs of all 13 task force recommendations—even though eight of the 13 are not included in the legislation.
“The [WPRI] study is not based on what’s actually included in the Clean Energy Jobs Act,” asserts a CREWE fact sheet.
Here are just a few errors:
•The WPRI study includes the cost of a cap and trade system. But the legislation doesn’t recommend a cap and trade system. That throws the study’s overall cost estimates into doubt.
•The WPRI study made a number of incorrect assumptions. For example, it assumed that 30% of the state’s energy sources would have to come from renewable sources by 2025, rather than the actual figure of 25%.
•The WPRI study doesn’t include the many economic benefits of the legislation.
For example, state Rep. Spencer Black, who helped to author the bill, argues that $20 billion leaves Wisconsin each year to purchase fuel from other states and countries. Redirecting that money toward clean energy sources in Wisconsin—for example, solar or wind power—will increase the state’s tax base and jobs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
by jboullion | Jan 25, 2010 | Uncategorized
From the frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill:
Enhanced Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Q: Won’t increased funding for statewide energy efficiency programs come out of the pockets of Wisconsin ratepayers? We shouldn’t be raising energy costs during an economic downturn by adding more fees to our utility bills.
A: Investing more money in energy efficiency has a demonstrable, risk-free payback for Wisconsin residents and businesses. Over the long run we will use less energy, which means we’ll actually be reducing our energy bills.
The cost of conserving energy is far less than the cost of building new power generation. Energy efficiency and conservation efforts are the least-cost means of mitigating carbon pollution.
Investing in energy efficiency also translates into stable, family-supporting jobs, particularly within the building and construction trades and at the 50+ businesses in Wisconsin that manufacture Energy Star appliances, windows, and other products. . . .
Renewable Fuels
Q: Will an Enhanced Renewable Portfolio Standard require the build-out of costly electric generation that Wisconsin doesn’t need, while doing nothing to reduce the demand for electricity? Don’t renewable energy sources cost more than coal and natural gas?
A: Each year, we send over $16 billion out of state to purchase coal, natural gas, and petroleum products to meet our energy demands. Every dollar we spend on these fossil fuels is a dollar that leaves Wisconsin. By increasing our state’s renewable portfolio standards, we are guaranteeing that more of our energy dollars remain here, and creating thousands of jobs for Wisconsin families in construction and building trades work, and, in the longer term, supply-chain jobs in our manufacturing, agricultural, and forestry sectors.
Also, the EPA has moved to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, which means that costs associated with burning coal and natural gas will continue to rise. We cannot continue to pretend that exclusive reliance on fossil fuels for power generation is either sustainable or affordable in the long term. We need to speed our transition to a cleaner energy economy and position Wisconsin as a leader in this growing industry before other states get ahead of us.
As we add renewable sources of energy to our fleet, many of the older and less efficient fossil fuel burning units will gradually be retired, and Wisconsin’s generation capacity will fall in line with demand. Initial infrastructure costs associated with a transition to renewables will be off-set by producing cleaner and reliable renewable energy for Wisconsin over the long-term. Meanwhile, the cost of renewable generation technologies continues to fall when compared to fossil fuel alternatives.
Increased reliance on renewable energy is central to creating a more sustainable Wisconsin. Life cycle costs associated with fossil fuel have a significantly greater adverse impact on public health, quality of life, and the environment.
Advanced Renewable Tariffs
Q: Won’t Advanced Renewable Tariffs simply increase the cost of energy for everyone by subsidizing certain types of renewable technologies at a cost that is higher than the market would otherwise tolerate? Don’t Advanced Renewable Tariffs duplicate the efforts of the Renewable Portfolio Standard?
A: Evidence from around the world suggests that feed-in tariffs lead to faster deployment of renewable generation sources than a stand-alone Renewable Portfolio Standard. Advanced Renewable Tariffs will help harness the power of Wisconsin’s rich agricultural resources by making it easier and more cost-effective for farmers to take farm-waste and generate electricity with it to power their farming operations and deliver clean, renewable energy back to the grid.
Incenting the deployment of smaller-scale, more distributed renewable generation sources cuts down on our state’s transmission infrastructure costs and will reduce our reliance on out-of-state renewable power in the long term.
This policy helps level the playing field so individual homeowners, farmers, and businesses can earn a return on investments in renewable energy that is similar to the returns that utilities earn.
by jboullion | Jan 25, 2010 | Uncategorized
From the frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill:
Enhanced Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Q: Won’t increased funding for statewide energy efficiency programs come out of the pockets of Wisconsin ratepayers? We shouldn’t be raising energy costs during an economic downturn by adding more fees to our utility bills.
A: Investing more money in energy efficiency has a demonstrable, risk-free payback for Wisconsin residents and businesses. Over the long run we will use less energy, which means we’ll actually be reducing our energy bills.
The cost of conserving energy is far less than the cost of building new power generation. Energy efficiency and conservation efforts are the least-cost means of mitigating carbon pollution.
Investing in energy efficiency also translates into stable, family-supporting jobs, particularly within the building and construction trades and at the 50+ businesses in Wisconsin that manufacture Energy Star appliances, windows, and other products. . . .
Renewable Fuels
Q: Will an Enhanced Renewable Portfolio Standard require the build-out of costly electric generation that Wisconsin doesn’t need, while doing nothing to reduce the demand for electricity? Don’t renewable energy sources cost more than coal and natural gas?
A: Each year, we send over $16 billion out of state to purchase coal, natural gas, and petroleum products to meet our energy demands. Every dollar we spend on these fossil fuels is a dollar that leaves Wisconsin. By increasing our state’s renewable portfolio standards, we are guaranteeing that more of our energy dollars remain here, and creating thousands of jobs for Wisconsin families in construction and building trades work, and, in the longer term, supply-chain jobs in our manufacturing, agricultural, and forestry sectors.
Also, the EPA has moved to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, which means that costs associated with burning coal and natural gas will continue to rise. We cannot continue to pretend that exclusive reliance on fossil fuels for power generation is either sustainable or affordable in the long term. We need to speed our transition to a cleaner energy economy and position Wisconsin as a leader in this growing industry before other states get ahead of us.
As we add renewable sources of energy to our fleet, many of the older and less efficient fossil fuel burning units will gradually be retired, and Wisconsin’s generation capacity will fall in line with demand. Initial infrastructure costs associated with a transition to renewables will be off-set by producing cleaner and reliable renewable energy for Wisconsin over the long-term. Meanwhile, the cost of renewable generation technologies continues to fall when compared to fossil fuel alternatives.
Increased reliance on renewable energy is central to creating a more sustainable Wisconsin. Life cycle costs associated with fossil fuel have a significantly greater adverse impact on public health, quality of life, and the environment.
Advanced Renewable Tariffs
Q: Won’t Advanced Renewable Tariffs simply increase the cost of energy for everyone by subsidizing certain types of renewable technologies at a cost that is higher than the market would otherwise tolerate? Don’t Advanced Renewable Tariffs duplicate the efforts of the Renewable Portfolio Standard?
A: Evidence from around the world suggests that feed-in tariffs lead to faster deployment of renewable generation sources than a stand-alone Renewable Portfolio Standard. Advanced Renewable Tariffs will help harness the power of Wisconsin’s rich agricultural resources by making it easier and more cost-effective for farmers to take farm-waste and generate electricity with it to power their farming operations and deliver clean, renewable energy back to the grid.
Incenting the deployment of smaller-scale, more distributed renewable generation sources cuts down on our state’s transmission infrastructure costs and will reduce our reliance on out-of-state renewable power in the long term.
This policy helps level the playing field so individual homeowners, farmers, and businesses can earn a return on investments in renewable energy that is similar to the returns that utilities earn.
