by jboullion | Dec 17, 2010 | Uncategorized
From an article in Renewable Energy World:
Washington, D.C. — In typical fashion, the U.S. Congress passed a suite of last-minute tax laws last night, including an extension of the Treasury Grant Program (TGP) for renewable energy project developers.
Trade groups in Washington have been pushing hard for an extension of the program, which provides a cash payment of up to 30% of equipment costs in place of the Investment Tax Credit. The grant program was responsible for a large portion of the renewable energy projects built throughout the U.S. in 2010. Originally passed as part of the 2009 stimulus package, the TGP was supposed to expire at the end of December.
Because there are still a limited number of financial institutions able to finance projects by taking advantage of tax credits, the TGP has opened up new sources of capital for project developers. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), the grant program spurred over 1,100 solar projects and $18 billion dollars of investment in 2010.
“This program has successfully created thousands of jobs and opportunity in all 50 states for construction workers, electricians, plumbers, contractors that have struggled in this harsh economic climate,” said SEIA President Rhone Resch in a statement.
While the wind industry saw a significant drop in installations compared to 2009, the grant program helped keep thousands of MW on the table for 2010 and 2011. American Wind Energy Association CEO Denise Bode projected a loss of tens of thousands of wind jobs in 2011 without an extension of the TGP.
by jboullion | Dec 15, 2010 | Uncategorized
Tom Content wrote and posted the following article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the day before the Joint Committee on Finance voted along party lines (12 Democrats in favor, 4 Republicans against) to approve funding for Focus on Energy:
Lawmaker calls for audit; business groups against added funds
With a decision possible Tuesday on an increase in funding for the state Focus on Energy program, a lawmaker called for an audit of the energy efficiency initiative and several business groups came out against what they criticized as “a $340 million energy tax hike.”
Business groups including Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, the Wisconsin Paper Council, Midwest Food Processors Association and the Wisconsin chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses issued a letter opposing increased funding for energy efficiency.
“Energy conservation and efficiency is a great idea, which is why so many businesses, like paper companies, already do it,” said Ed Wilusz, vice president of government relations for the Wisconsin Paper Council, in a statement. “But the existing state program appears to be working well. We doubt that the massive spending increase called for in this proposal is necessary or would be effective.”
Supporters of energy efficiency say it’s the least-cost alternative to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and a way to help the state postpone costlier expenses like investments in power plants.
The opposition by business groups comes even though large manufacturers in Wisconsin are exempt under state law from paying more to the Focus on Energy program.
The Focus on Energy program is funded through a surcharge on most customers’ electric bills. Under the PSC proposal, funding would ramp up over the next four years, raising $20 million more than current levels in 2011 and $60 million more in 2012. The increase would result in an average rate increase of 0.2% in 2011 for utility customers, and 0.7% in 2012.
Increases in funding are also proposed for 2013 and 2014 under the PSC proposal that will be reviewed Tuesday by the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee.
Sen. Robert Cowles (R-Allouez) said Monday he wants the Legislative Audit Bureau to conduct an audit of Focus on Energy before lawmakers agree to an increase in funding.
“Our economy is still in bad shape, and families and businesses in our state are hurting,” he said in a statement. “We need to make sure that this program is providing the benefits that it claims it is before we agree to add more funding.”
Although not audited by the Legislative Audit Bureau, the Focus on Energy program is audited regularly by independent consulting firms.
by jboullion | Dec 1, 2010 | Uncategorized
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
Click to continue
by jboullion | Dec 1, 2010 | Uncategorized
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
by jboullion | Oct 8, 2010 | Uncategorized
From an article by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
The Wisconsin Sustainable Business Council has published a 2010 Green Jobs Report focusing on areas of opportunity and investment for the state to focus on to build jobs in the clean-tech sector.
The report sees opportunities in jobs linked to energy efficiency, green building, renewable energy and mass transit.
“Green jobs are a critical part of the state’s recovery from the recession,” said Tom Eggert, executive director of the business council and co-director of the business, environment and social responsibility program at the University of Wisconsin School of Business.
The aim of the report was to look at green jobs in Wisconsin at a time when other Midwest states have moved to capitalize and promote the attractiveness of their states for clean-tech companies, Eggert said.
“We can do more,” the report concludes. “We have only to look at our neighboring states of Iowa or Minnesota to see the benefit of establishing Wisconsin as a hotbed of green expertise.”
Strengths that the state can build on include its manufacturing tradition and the experience of its workforce in manufacturing technology, Eggert said.
“Green jobs will gravitate toward states that are the most attractive, or to states that actively increase their attractiveness relative to competing states,” the report says.
Wisconsin has invested heavily in energy efficiency initiatives and in research linked to cellulosic ethanol and biofuels. Cellulosic ethanol is a biofuel produced from wood, grasses, or the nonedible parts of plants.
But Eggert sees an opportunity by increasing the state’s renewable portfolio standard as a way to send a message to companies that may want to locate here that the state is committed to renewable energy. A renewable portfolio standard is a regulation that requires increased production of energy from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal.
