by jboullion | Feb 2, 2010 | Uncategorized
From a question-and-answer summary of the Low Carbon Fuels Standard included in the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill written by Peter Taglia, Staff Scientist, for Clean Wisconsin:
The Clean Energy Jobs Act (SB 450 and AB 649), announced recently by Governor Doyle, has been introduced by both houses of the Wisconsin legislature. The bill incorporates many of the recommendations made by the governor’s Climate Change Task Force. The Clean Energy Jobs Act, if adopted, will increase Wisconsin’s use of renewable energy, energy efficiency, cleaner fuels and cleaner cars. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) in the bill would be established based on recommendations currently under development by a broad stakeholder group of the Midwestern Governors Association (MGA).
Below are a series of answers to frequently asked question about how an LCFS will impact biofuels and oil sands (compiled by Pete Taglia of Clean Wisconsin and member of the Midwestern Governors Association’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard Advisory Group). If you have questions about the LCFS you can contact Pete Taglia at ptaglia@cleanwisconsin.org.
Question: What is a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)?
A LCFS is a fuel policy that will help break our dependence on foreign sources of oil and promote energy independence by gradually moving Wisconsin toward the cleanest and most efficient sources of transportation fuels. A LCFS rates different types of transportation fuels by their efficiency and carbon footprint and allows fuel providers to choose what mix of fuels will be used to meet the requirement.
Question: What types of fuels qualify for an LCFS?
An LCFS policy is unique in that all transportation fuels are able to compete in the fuel market, including the following resources:
• Ethanol: Alcohol fuel made from corn or cellulose (wood, plant stalks, harvest residues, etc.). Wisconsin has 8 corn ethanol plants producing almost 500 million gallons per year.
• Biodiesel: A diesel substitute (mono alkl ester) made from vegetable and animal oils that is then mixed with petroleum diesel (e.g., B20 is 20% biodiesel). Wisconsin has 8 biodiesel plants that use soybean oil, waste animal fats, and waste grease feedstocks.
• Renewable diesel: A fuel chemically similar to petroleum diesel (a hydrocarbon fuel) but made with renewable resources such as wood waste. Flambeau River Biofuels in Park Falls and New Page in Wisconsin Rapids both received Department of Energy grants to produce renewable diesel from wood waste.
• Compressed Natural Gas (CNG): Wisconsin has approximately 20 CNG fueling stations and two school district bus systems that use natural gas. ANGI Energy Systems of Milton is a leading manufacturer of CNG fueling systems and Wisconsin leads the nation in the production of biogas from dairy manure and food wastes.
• Electricity: Wisconsin has numerous electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles as part of state, utility and private car fleets. Wisconsin’s largest corporation, Johnson Controls, is a leading battery manufacturer that won a recent contract to supply batteries to Ford’s new electric van and Columbia Parcar of Reedsburg manufacturers a line of electric utility vehicles in WI.
by jboullion | Jan 29, 2010 | Uncategorized
From a letter from RENEW Wisconsin to Senators Jeff Plale and Mark Miller, co-chairs of the Select Senate Committee on Clean Energy, who held a hearing on the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill on January 27:
Dear Senators Miller and Plale:
Thank you for holding a hearing yesterday of the Select Committee on Clean Energy on SB 450 (the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill). You heard a great deal of substantive commentary about much of the bill, particularly the sections dealing with energy efficiency and the expanded Renewable Energy Standard.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the discussion on the proposal to institute Advanced Renewable Tariffs in Wisconsin. Early in the hearing, a speaker framed the issue as “asking a little old lady in Cudahy to subsidize an expensive system in Mequon.” From that point, the discussion devolved into a kind of semi-orchestrated gang-tackling on this issue that continued unabated until I was called upon to speak, some seven hours and forty five minutes after the hearing began. While RENEW members who work for or with solar, wind and biogas energy installation companies were present during the hearing and had registered to speak, none were called prior to myself. All but two (Full Spectrum Solar and Ed Ritger) had to leave before the hearing ended.
Now, I don’t believe the first speaker, a labor leader, had intended to belittle the companies that install customer-sited renewable energy systems or dismiss their contribution to Wisconsin’s economy and environment. Nevertheless, the “little old lady from Cudahy” theme took a life of its own, and as a result, the very important issues of how to support these systems through utility rates and whether these rates should be mandated had become thoroughly trivialized by the end.
Allow me to repeat some of the points I made at yesterday’s hearing:
1. The vast majority of the distributed renewable generating units installed in Wisconsin serve schools, dairy farms and other small businesses, churches and local governments.
2. Utilities are not in the business of installing these systems themselves.
3. In many cases the renewable energy installation went forward because there was a special buyback rate available to accelerate the recovery of the original investment made by the customer. Yesterday, I gave the example of the Dane County community anaerobic digester project that, once operational, will treat manure taken from several nearby dairy farms in the Waunakee area and produce two megawatts of electricity with it. The electricity will be purchased by Alliant Energy through a voluntary biogas tariff worth 9.3 cents/kWh. Unfortunately, Alliant’s biogas program is fully subscribed and is no longer available to other dairy farmers, food processing companies and wastewater treatment facilities served by Alliant.
4. Companies that install solar, wind and biogas energy systems are quintessentially small businesses, many of them family-owned. Renewable energy contractors and affiliated service providers constitute one of the few market sectors where young adults who have acquired the necessary skills to do the job well can find meaningful work at decent pay.
5. By its very nature, distributed renewable energy delivers nearly 100% of its economic punch to the local economy.
by jboullion | Jan 28, 2010 | Uncategorized
From a news release issued by Clean Wisconsin:
MADISON – Prominent business leaders, labor representatives, farmers, health advocates, faith leaders, energy providers, and environmentalists were among residents from across the state who gathered at a public hearing held in the State Capitol today to ask their elected leaders to support and strengthen the Clean Energy Jobs Act.
“The diversity of support for this legislation is overwhelming,” said Ryan Schryver, Clean Energy Advocate at Clean Wisconsin, the state’s largest environmental advocacy organization. “People from all walks of life gathered today to ask legislators to create jobs, clean our environment, protect our health, and support energy independence by passing this bill.”
The Clean Energy Jobs Act holds the potential to be an economic boon for Wisconsin, creating demand for energy efficiency projects, putting residents to work harvesting wind and solar power, and creating markets for farmers to grow and sell biofuels.
According to an analysis performed by the Office of Energy Independence, the current version of the bill will create over 15,000 jobs for Wisconsinites in the construction and manufacturing industries alone. Strengthening the bill could lead to even greater job creation.
“We cannot afford to continue draining our economy by exporting billions on expensive, dirty fossil fuels,” said Schryver. “Residents gathered today to say ‘enough is enough’ and demand that we create jobs and start investing in our own state by producing clean energy right here at home.”
The Coalition for Clean Energy which includes Clean Wisconsin also made several suggested improvements to the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill:
+ Restore and protect the integrity of the Renewable Energy Standard (RES) (Renewable Portfolio Standard – RPS – in the current draft). . . .
+ Strengthening the language to ensure that Wisconsin does meet the 2 percent energyefficiency goal by requiring the Public Service Commission to direct efficiency investments necessary to reach that 2 percent goal. . . .
+ Increase the percentage of renewable energy that must be sited in Wisconsin to at least half of renewable energy generation required under the bill (i.e. 12.5% in 2025). . . .
+ Strengthen the Advanced Renewable Tariff (ART) language by making it apply statewide
and by including a statewide minimum MW cap and a minimum project size cap. . . .
Read all of the recommendations.
The coalition also includes Wisconsin Council of Churches, Citizens Utility Board, Wisconsin Community Action Program (WisCAP), Environmental Law & Policy Center; Environment Wisconsin, Midwest Environmental Advocates, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sierra Club – John Muir Chapter, Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters.
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 26, 2010 | Uncategorized
From a blog post by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Winter heating costs remain below last year, helped by both the weather and natural gas prices.
Customers of Wisconsin Power & Light Co., based in Madison, saw heating costs fall 30% in December, compared with December 2008. December’s weather was colder than normal but it was warmer than the prior year.
For the last three months of the year, customers also saw heating costs fall 30%, compared with the same period last year, the utility said in its “natural gas update.”
For October through December, a typical customer paid about $269, but that was $116 lower than the prior year.
