by jboullion | Nov 30, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
The state Public Service Commission [PSC] appears to have taken a reasonable approach to We Energies’ request for an increase in rates for electricity customers, granting some but not all of what the utility was asking. While any increase hurts consumers during a time of recession, the reality is that We Energies needs to cover costs related to building power plants, transmission lines costs and employee pensions.
Wisconsin needs reasonable power costs to attract and retain businesses, but it also needs reliable power. The PSC is striving to make sure the state has both.
But commissioners delayed making a decision on one aspect of the rate request. That delay could hurt Wisconsin consumers and the environment. Commissioners should reconsider, and grant the request without any delay.
At stake is a settlement We Energies reached in 2008 with environmental groups involving cooling methods for its new coal plants in Oak Creek. The settlement was a victory for all sides, allowing the utility and its partners to complete the plants in a timely manner, providing help for Lake Michigan in the form of funds for restoration initiatives and expanding renewable energy in Wisconsin.
The $105 million settlement will be paid for mostly by electric customers, but that price tag will be far less than it could have been under a protracted legal battle over the plant’s cooling system. The utilities involved and the environmental groups who fought the plant worked hard to reach a compromise that serves everyone.
But that compromise could be put in jeopardy if the PSC rejects the portion of the rate hike request designed to cover the cost of the settlement. The environmental groups could decide that their work was wasted if there is a significant delay in getting the restoration money for Lake Michigan. And re-opening the lawsuit could mean more costs to ratepayers if the groups prevail.
by jboullion | Nov 25, 2009 | Uncategorized
From RENEW Wisconsin’s brief filed with the Public Service Commission in support of the Glacier Hills Wind Park:
The design of the proposed Project is in the public interest first and foremost because it will be powered by wind rather than fossil fuels. Wind energy is a locally available, self-replenishing, emission-free electricity source. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, must be imported, are available in limited quantities, and emit pollutants. Moreover, using wind energy furthers the State’s policy goal that all new installed capacity for electric generation be based on renewable energy resources to the extent cost-effective and technically feasible. Wis. Stat. § 1.12(3)(b).
In his direct testimony, RENEW Wisconsin witness Michael Vickerman outlined a number of other public policy objectives that would be advanced by the construction of Glacier Hills. These include:
1. Helping Wisconsin Electric Power Company (“WEPCO”) meet its renewable energy requirements under Wis. Stat. § 196.378(2)(a)(2)d;
2. Securing adequate supplies of energy from sustainable sources;
3. Protecting ratepayers from rising fossil fuel prices;
4. Reducing air and water emissions from generation sources;
5. Preserving working farms and pasture land;
6. Generating additional revenues for host towns and counties;
7. Reducing the flow of capital out of Wisconsin for energy purchases; and
8. Investing Wisconsin capital in a wealth-producing energy generating facility within its borders.
by jboullion | Nov 24, 2009 | Uncategorized
From a post on Tom Daykin’s blog at JSOnline:
A proposed nine-lot subdivision, showcasing homes with solar energy panels, geo-thermal heating and cooling systems, and other features designed to save energy, has received conceptual approval from the Port Washington Plan Commission.
Developer Mike Speas told me this morning that he plans to build homes with around 1,200 square feet, with three bedrooms and two bathrooms, and sell them at around $200,000.
The houses won’t have finished basements, granite kitchen countertops and other amenities featured in comparably priced houses. But they will appeal to people looking to save a lot of money on their energy costs, Speas said.
The houses also will have a traditional arts and crafts bungalow design.
by jboullion | Nov 23, 2009 | Uncategorized
From a news release issued by the Sierra Club and the Wisconsin Green Building Alliance:
Milwaukee–Wisconsin Green Building Alliance (WIGBA) and Sierra Club’s Cool Cities program today announced the launch of the Green Building for Cool Cities collaboration. The partnership will leverage Cool Cities more than 200 local campaigns and USGBCs national network of 78 chapters to encourage new and retrofitted energy-efficient buildings, a key solution to global warming and to achieving the transition to a clean energy economy.
The organizations released a step-by-step green building policy guide for communities of all sizes. The recommended policies range from basic to more advanced plans of action to address energy-efficiency and environmental sustainability through the built environment.
Highlighted policies include leadership standards for government buildings that serve as models for the community; financial and no-cost incentives to build green for the commercial and residential sectors; and improved minimum efficiency standards through energy code adoption and enforcement. The Green Building for Cool Cities policy guide is available online at www.coolcities.us and www.usgbc.org. . . .
The Wisconsin State Building Commission has already been utilizing the guidelines. The new academic building at UW-Oshkosh, designed to incorporate renewable energy sources and sustainable principals to meet a gold LEED rating, is expected to save the University more than $182,000 annually. Energy design elements include:
+ Roof-top solar collectors will provide 70 percent of domestic hot water demand.
+ Radiant concrete slab flooring for heating and cooling — the first of its kind in the Wisconsin.
+ Day-lighting of more than 90 percent of regularly occupied spaces, reducing electric energy for lighting by more than one third.
+ Heat recovery system that exchanges the heat of warm exhausted air with the fresh air intake.
by jboullion | Nov 20, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an article by Joseph Room on Center for American Progress:
A new study puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour—triple current U.S. electricity rates!
This staggering price is far higher than the cost of a variety of carbon-free renewable power sources available today—and 10 times the cost of energy efficiency (see “Is 450 ppm possible? Part 5: Old coal’s out, can’t wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW?”
The new study, “Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power,” is one of the most detailed cost analyses publically available on the current generation of nuclear power plants being considered in this country. It is by a leading expert in power plant costs, Craig A. Severance. A practicing CPA, Severance is co-author of The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power (Praeger 1976), and former assistant to the chairman and to commerce counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission.
This important new analysis is being published by Climate Progress because it fills a critical gap in the current debate over nuclear power—transparency. Severance explains:
All assumptions, and methods of calculation are clearly stated. The piece is a deliberate effort to demystify the entire process, so that anyone reading it (including non-technical readers) can develop a clear understanding of how total generation costs per kWh come together.
As stunning as this new, detailed cost estimate is, it should not come as a total surprise. I detailed the escalating capital costs of nuclear power in my May 2008 report, “The Self-Limiting Future of Nuclear Power.” And in a story last week on nuclear power’s supposed comeback, Time magazine notes that nuclear plants’ capital costs are “out of control,” concluding:
Most efficiency improvements have been priced at 1¢ to 3¢ per kilowatt-hour, while new nuclear energy is on track to cost 15¢ to 20¢ per kilowatt-hour. And no nuclear plant has ever been completed on budget.
Time buried that in the penultimate paragraph of the story!
