Commentary: How Wisconsin regulators ‘tax’ renewable energy

Michael Vickerman’s commentary in Midwest Energy News on the recent changes in WI renewable energy. Find the original post here.

Commentary: How Wisconsin regulators ‘tax’ renewable energy

RENEW Wisconsin’s Michael Vickerman

Starting next January, the price of purchasing renewable energy voluntarily through monthly utility bills will spike to all-time highs, thanks to recent decisions rendered by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) on two popular “green pricing” programs.

The thousands of Madison Gas & Electric (MGE) customers participating in the utility’s Green Power Tomorrow program will see their premiums jump from 2.5 cents/kWh to 4 cents/kWh. That’s an increase of 60 percent. To translate this into dollars and cents, an average MGE customer consuming 500 kWh of electricity per month and subscribing at the 100 percent level will pay $90 more in 2013 for the same amount of renewable kWh sold this year.

Residential customers of Milwaukee-based We Energies (WE) will see an even larger percentage increase next year. In that utility’s rate case, the PSCW jacked up the premium paid by Energy for Tomorrow subscribers by nearly 73 percent, from 1.39 cents to 2.4 cents/kWh. Energy for Tomorrow has more than 20,000 subscribers.

Back in 1999, the year both programs were launched, MGE and WE customers paid an extra 3.33 cents and 2.04 cents/kWh, respectively, for the renewable energy they sponsored. Come January 1st, MGE and WE will likely share the dubious distinction of being the only utilities in the country offering renewable energy at a higher rate than they did in the 1990’s. So much for progress.

Adding insult to injury, renewable program subscribers will be subject to general rate increases approved by the PSCW this November. The utilities sought higher rates to recover the costs of retrofitting older coal-fired power stations with modern pollution controls. The fact that the renewable generators leveraged by program participants will never need pollution control retrofits is wholly disregarded in determining the size of the premium.

This is unquestionably a subsidy that flows from program participants to all ratepayers.

How did this happen?
Since 1999, renewable generation costs have tumbled, while productivity has improved.
A frustrated program subscriber might well ask: If base utility rates are going up, and the cost of renewable electricity is declining, why are premiums going up instead of down?

The short answer is that wholesale electricity prices have sagged in recent years, owing to a combination of unsustainably low natural gas prices, stagnant demand, and rapid expansion of wind power displacing higher-cost generation. In contrast, the price of renewable energy procured under long-term contracts held steady. When prices dropped in the wholesale market beginning in late 2008, the gap between system energy and renewable sources widened.

Though accurate, the above explanation is deeply unsatisfying, because the wholesale “market” is concerned about one thing only: the marginal cost of producing electricity into the grid. Nothing else matters, including the expenditures approved by the PSCW to reduce emissions from older generators. Even though retail customers wind up footing the bill for those upgrades, the wholesale market does not treat pollution control retrofits as marginal costs. Not one cent paid by ratepayers for these expenditures is reflected in the prices that renewable generators compete against.

The net effect of this disconnect is to artificially suppress the price of electricity from older and dirtier generators relative to newer and cleaner electricity producers. Real markets factor in the cost of upgrading and replacing capital equipment that manufacture the product bought by customers. What we have instead is an artificial contrivance that sacrifices long-term considerations like clean air, resource diversity and regulatory risk for the short-term reward of low prices.

Indeed, it would be difficult to design a more punitive market structure for renewables than the one we have at present.

‘Swimming up a waterfall’
Pricing renewable energy against a market operating in real time also undermines a valuable attribute of renewable energy, namely its inherent price stability. In this environment, the only way a customer can directly benefit from a fixed-price energy source like solar is to self-generate at his or her premises to reduce consumption of grid-supplied electricity.

In setting the premium size, the PSCW relied on pricing data at a time when the regional wholesale market was near its cyclical bottom. Electricity prices are now edging upward as forward prices of natural gas have rebounded from historic lows earlier this year. It’s a safe bet that wholesale electricity prices will continue to increase in 2013.

This sets up the very real possibility that WE and MGE will collect more revenue than is necessary to cover the cost spread between system energy and the renewable energy supplies servicing their customers. Unfortunately, the next time the base premium for each utility can be adjusted is January 1, 2015.

For at least a century now, fossil fuels have been the default resource option for most utilities. Against this institutional bias, switching to renewable energy is akin to swimming upstream. But given how far backward the PSCW bent to accommodate utilities’ continued reliance on coal and natural gas, quite a few renewable energy subscribers may balk at the prospect of swimming up a waterfall.

In fairness to MGE and WE, the price hikes approved by the PSCW went well beyond the incremental increases proposed by the two utilities. That’s because the agency relies solely on the wholesale “market” metric described above that filters out all societal benefits from the equation. To the agency, renewables are another source of electrons that deserve no special consideration. And, in reaching its decision, the PSCW disregarded the potential impact that abrupt price hikes might have on customer participation.

Programs outliving their usefulness?
A significant loss in subscribership would be a regrettable outcome if the programs were still viable vehicles for leveraging new sources of renewable energy. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

Earlier this decade, WE and MGE pulled the plug on a popular feature of their programs, specifically the special solar energy buyback rates that were funded with participant dollars. This innovation, which spurred the installation of hundreds of solar electric systems in their territories, succeeded in elevating MGE and WE’s stature while achieving the aims of their participating customers. However, when the utilities eliminated their solar incentives, they also removed the principal rationale for subscribing to their programs.

It seems quite clear that the current crop of voluntary renewable energy programs have outlived their usefulness. They are stagnating under a market structure that distorts and amplifies their true costs as well as a regulatory climate that greatly discounts their benefits to ratepayers. What were once dynamic vehicles for increasing supplies of renewable energy are now little more than feel-good marketing exercises running on autopilot. The value proposition to customers just isn’t there anymore.

There is nothing out there to prevent utilities from revitalizing their green pricing programs and making them useful once again. Such an undertaking, however, would require them to do something they haven’t done before: present an affirmative case for adding more renewables into their energy mix.

To do that effectively, utilities would need to recognize that the fossil energy path leads to a dead-end and that renewables ought to be the default resource option going forward. From that starting point, designing a program in which modest customer premiums actually result in additional supplies of renewable energy should be a simple and straightforward exercise.

It’s the very least a responsible utility should do to reduce the impact of generating electricity on the one planet we are privileged to call home.

Michael Vickerman is program and policy director of RENEW Wisconsin, a sustainable energy advocacy organization. RENEW Wisconsin is a member of RE-AMP, which also publishes Midwest Energy News.

Find the original article post here.

Milwaukee Brewing to build solar hot water system

From Energy writer Thomas Content of the Journal Sentinel. Find the original post here.

Green beer apparently isn’t brewed only on St. Patrick’s Day.

Milwaukee Brewing Co. will install a solar hot water system at its brewery in Walker’s Point, with 28 solar panels that will be combined with a system that will preheat water used in the brewing process.

“Here’s a good example of a perfect application for solar hot water,” said Amy Heart, who runs the City of Milwaukee’s solar program, Milwaukee Shines. “Breweries use a lot of water – and a lot of hot water – and so it made sense for them to invest in this.”

The project was funded in part with grants from the state Focus on Energy program as well as the ME2 Milwaukee Energy Efficiency program and Milwaukee Shines.

Through the combination of energy-efficiency upgrades that made the operation more efficient as well as the solar hot-water system, Milwaukee Brewing is forecasting a 27% savings in energy used during the brewing process.

“We hope our installation encourages others to make the investment,” said Jim McCabe, the brewery’s owner, in a statement. He added that the project will help boost the brewery’s competitiveness.

The solar system is being supplied by Caleffi Solar, which has its North American headquarters in Milwaukee’s Menomonee Valley and is a founding member of a regional solar hot-water business council.

Along with the Midwest Renewable Energy Association, the business council is co-sponsoring a national solar thermal conference that begins Thursday at the downtown Hilton hotel.

“With companies like Caleffi Solar, Milwaukee is at the forefront of this industry with a strong and expanding solar supply chain,” Heart said. “Solar for a Milwaukee brewery is the perfect way to showcase how solar is a solution in many applications

The brewery’s green and energy-saving initiatives include water conservation measures as well as a biodiesel boiler that is fueled by grease from local residents and the county Parks Department.

Milwaukee Brewing has been at 613 S. 2nd St. since 2006.

See the original posting of this article here.

Sheboygan aldermen to hear solar panel proposal

Sheboygan aldermen to hear solar panel proposal

From an article in the Sheboygan Press by Dan Benson. Third-party ownership gets a look in Wisconsin:

Sheboygan aldermen will get their first look Tuesday night at a
proposal to install solar panels on city buildings at no cost to the
city and would hopefully lower the city’s electric costs.

Members
of the city’s Sustainable Sheboygan Task Force, which examines ways the
city can operate in a more environmentally friendly way, and
representatives from Arch Electric in Plymouth will make the
presentation to the council’s Committee of the Whole at 5 p.m. in the
third floor council chambers at City Hall.

The
key to the proposal is using a financing plan in which the city would
lease the panels from Arch Electric. The energy savings would be greater
than the lease costs, said Jennifer Lehrke, a local architect and task
force member.

“It
would not cost the city anything because the panels are owned by a third
party,” she said. “The investors who do this get to take advantage of
tax credits and accelerated depreciation and as a lease there is a small interest being paid to the investors.”

The
task force is recommending that the council finance a study to see
which buildings would be the prime candidates for solar panels. Lehrke
estimated the study would cost less than $5,000. Lehrke estimated the
study would take two or three months to complete.

If adopted, the plan would would be the first in the state, she said.

“We
would be a forerunner in the state. It’s a way to distinguish
Sheboygan, probably the first of its kind in the state,” she said.

Arch Electric owner Ed Zinthefer confirmed that.

“It’s never been done in Wisconsin,” he said.

His
company has installed solar panels on a number of local projects,
including the Maywood Environmental Center and at Ebenezer and First
Congregational United Churches of Christ.

Former
Common Council member Jeanne Kliejunas, also a member of the task
force, said Arch Electric is one of the most experienced solar
installation companies in the state that until now has worked mostly
with private clients.

“They would like to expand into the municipal market,” she said.

Solar powering your community with Clean Energy Choice

Clean Energy Choice (sometimes called third-party ownership) allows a customer to get electricity from a third-party which installs and maintains a renewable energy system on the customer’s premises.

With Clean Energy Choice, customers don’t have to put any money upfront, the major barrier to installing renewables. The customer either buys the output directly from the third-party owner or pays to host the energy-producing equipment and uses the electricity without any further cost under a long-term contract.

From a presentation by Michael Vickerman, RENEW director of policy and program, at Solar Powering Your Community, October 11, 2012: 

  • No up-front capital required from host customers 
  • Allows nonprofit entities to partner w/ for-profit companies that can use the 30% federal tax credit 
  • Based on a successful model for delivering energy efficiency (performance-based contracts) 
  • Could lower energy costs for customers over the contract life 
  • Hugely successful in states that allow it (e.g., California and Colorado) 
  • It’s your premises, after all 

Wind and solar make up 100% of new U.S. electricity capacity in September

From an article on ThinkProgress:

September was tied for the hottest of any September on record globally. It was also a very hot month for renewable energy in the U.S. According to figures from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, wind and solar accounted for all new electricity capacity added to America’s grid in September.

The projects consisted of five wind farms totaling 300 megawatts and 18 solar installations totaling 133 megawatts.