Immediate release
January 16, 2008
More information
Ed Blume
RENEW Wisconsin
608.819.0748
eblume@renewwisconsin.org
Katie Nekola
Clean Wisconsin
knekola@cleanwisconsin.org
608.251.7020, ext. 14
Calumet County morass blocks wind projects again
Clean energy advocates expressed frustration over the Calumet County board’s adoption of a 70-day moratorium on issuing permits for wind turbines.
The action leaves wind developers wondering whether the County, which has among the best wind resources in the state, is effectively off-limits to commercial-scale projects.
State law requires utilities to get 10 percent of the electricity they sell from renewable sources by 2015, but local restrictions have paralyzed wind developers from moving ahead with project to help meet the goal.
"As far as the wind industry is concerned, countywide limits and delays speak louder than the state’s renewable energy goals,” said Katie Nekola, energy program director for Clean Wisconsin.
“What's the point of state government promoting renewable energy development in Wisconsin when it’s practically impossible to obtain permits for wind turbines?" asked Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide nonprofit group that promotes renewable energy.
"This marks the third moratorium on wind development adopted by Calumet County 2005. It seems that every time the Board considers changes to its ordinance regulating wind turbines, it moves farther and farther away from resolving the controversy and allowing projects to move ahead. What a morass Calumet County has become!" Vickerman said.
Between the moratorium in Calumet County and a restrictive ordinance in Manitowoc County, four wind projects totaling 200 megawatts (enough to power 60,000 Wisconsin homes) have ground to a halt, Vickerman added.
RENEW and Clean Wisconsin back a proposal being considered by the Governor’s Global Warming Task Force that would allow wind developers to seek approval from the Public Service Commission, the state agency that regulates utilities and large wind projects (over 100 megawatts), instead of local authorities.
“Wisconsin cannot afford to lose clean energy opportunities at a time when our Governor and others in the region have made a commitment to stopping global warming,” said Nekola.
- - - - -
Clean Wisconsin, an environmental advocacy organization, protects Wisconsin's clean water and air and advocates for clean energy by being an effective voice in the state legislature and by holding elected officials and corporations accountable. Founded in 1970 as Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Clean Wisconsin exposes corporate polluters, makes sure existing environmental laws are enforced, and educates citizens and businesses. Phone: 608-251-7020, Fax: 608-251-1655, Email: info@cleanwisconsin.org, Website: www.cleanwisconsin.org.
RENEW Wisconsin is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives. More information on RENEW’s Web site at www.renewwisconsin.org.
“We wanted to do something genuine, not phony,” said Bob Chesebro, president of family-owned Wigwam Mills, Sheboygan, about his company’s decision to install a solar energy system.
Initially, Chesebro wasn’t sure which kind of solar energy system to go with. But the more he delved into the question, the more he came to believe that solar hot water would provide the best fit for the
103-year-old company.
Placed in service in February 2008, Wigwam’s 27 solar collectors supply 47 percent of the hot water used by the company to shrink, bleach, antimicrobial treat, wash and soften 40,000 pairs of socks each day. . . .
May 29, 2008
To the Town of Union Plan Commission:
My name is Michael Vickerman, and I am here tonight representing RENEW Wisconsin’s 320 members who support EcoEnergy’s Community Wind initiative. This three-turbine project would supply Evansville Water & Light with a zero-emissions, locally available and renewable source of electricity for a minimum of 20 years. We urge the Town of Union to adopt a reasonable ordinance that would allow the construction of this community-scale project to proceed.
RENEW acknowledges that every energy source presents trade-offs, and wind-generated electricity is no exception. However, if one looks at this project through a broad lens that takes into account gaseous emissions, energy and price security, and economic impacts to local landowners and governments, there’s no question that the benefits of this project far outweigh the detriments. EcoEnergy’s proposal advances a number of public policy objectives in a single stroke. These objectives include:
1) Securing adequate supplies of energy from a sustainable sources;
2) Buffering ratepayers from future electricity surcharges caused by the rising cost of diesel fuel, coal, and natural gas;
3) Reducing air and water emissions from generation sources;
4) Preserving working farms and pasture land;
5) Reducing the flow of capital out of Wisconsin for energy purchases; and
6) Increasing the flow revenues into Wisconsin’s energy-producing communities.
If erected, EcoEnergy’s Community Wind project would diversify Wisconsin Public Power Inc.’s resource mix, which is at present heavily weighted toward the combustion of fossil fuels imported from other states and nations. This overreliance on fossil fuels is the primary reason why energy prices are rising this year. Bear in mind that when the cost of diesel fuel increases by 60% over 12 months, the cost of coal delivered to Wisconsin power plants will go up. And when the price of natural gas shoots up by more 50% since January 1, utilities become motivated to look for energy sources whose price they can lock into. Windpower is one of those few energy sources that can help utilities there.
There is one additional benefit from a Community Wind project that might not be apparent today: electricity for vehicular transport. WPPI, which now has four plug-in hybrid vehicles, is a leading utility advocate for electrified transportation. It now costs the average car owner about $8.00 to buy enough gasoline to drive 50 miles. The amount of electricity it takes to drive 50 miles, some 12 to 13 kilowatt-hours, costs an electric vehicle owner about $1.50. Given the current disparity of costs between electricity and gasoline, it seems to me that the transition to plug-in vehicles is a matter of when, not if. I believe that plug-in vehicles, whether hybrids or all-electrics, will become a common sight on city streets in five years. Why? Because the alternative--to leave things the way they--will become too expensive for the average person. And when these vehicles hit the mass market, their owners will want to fill their batteries with clean, renewable, locally produced energy. Imagine the feeling of security, environmental responsibility and civic pride that Evansville citizens would experience knowing that the electricity that powers their motor vehicles is produced from a wind project that’s visible from town. The EcoEnergy Community Wind project can make that future possible for Evansville and the surrounding area, if you let it.
Michael Vickerman
509 Elmside Blvd.
Madison, WI 53704
Immediate release
December 18, 2007
More information
RENEW Wisconsin
Ed Blume
608.819.0748
Clean Wisconsin
Ryan Schryver
608.251.7020, ext. 25
Trempealeau County sharply limits wind service
Calling it an effective ban on commercial wind generators, Wisconsin clean energy advocates blasted Trempealeau County’s new wind ordinance, which was adopted Monday night on a vote of ten to six. The county’s wind ordinance requires developers to place wind turbines at least one mile from neighboring residences, schools, hospitals, and businesses. This is the longest set back distance imposed to date by a local government in Wisconsin. Speaking to the county board, RENEW Wisconsin Executive Director Michael Vickerman said that the ordinance “steers Trempealeau County toward a head-on collision with state energy policies, which designate wind power as a preferred energy source.” RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide nonprofit organization, advocates for public policies and private initiatives to support renewable energy. State policy favors wind power, because “it has shown itself to be a clean, safe and affordable energy option that helps reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce global warming emissions,” according to Ryan Schryver of Clean Wisconsin,T an advocacy organization for clean water, air, and energy.T “Local governments, as well as the state, should be looking at ways to eliminate the barriers to renewable energy instead of creating new obstacles for siting wind developments, as this ordinance does,” continued Schryver. “This ordinance " all 16 pages of it " could have been boiled down to one sentence: No wind energy system greater than 150 feet in height will be permitted in Trempealeau County,” Vickerman told the county board. “If every county were to adopt a wind ordinance as arbitrarily restrictive as the one before you, renewable energy development in Wisconsin would slow to a stand still,” Vickerman added. Presenting an oversized map of Trempealeau County, Jim Naleid, representing Holmen-based AgWind Energy Partners, said that “There is not one square inch of land where a commercial wind turbine can be legally sited under this ordinance.” AgWind Energy Partners recently installed a meteorological tower in the county to measure wind speeds. END Clean Wisconsin, an environmental advocacy organization, protects Wisconsin's clean water and air and advocates for clean energy by being an effective voice in the state legislature and by holding elected officials and corporations accountable. Founded in 1970 as Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Clean Wisconsin exposes corporate polluters, makes sure existing environmental laws are enforced, and educates citizens. RENEW Wisconsin is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.
Commentaries from RENEW Wisconsin.
Petroleum and Natural Gas Watch
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
May 16, 2008, Vol. 7, Number 1
Could there be more convincing proof of America’s debilitating addiction to oil than the recent calls to institute a gasoline tax holiday issued by two of the three presidential aspirants still in the race?
Click on attachment for complete commentary.
Petroleum and Natural Gas Watch
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
Vol. 5, Number 9, December 28, 2006
A year ago my wife was firmly in charge the household laundry. Now, not only am I washing and drying all our clothes, including the sheets, towels, and pillow cases, I find myself looking forward to doing it. What is going on here?
A divorce? Wrong answer. Anyway, that would only explain the shift in personnel, not the attitudinal change. A personality transfer à la “Freaky Friday”? Incorrect. This is not a case of life imitating a Disney movie.
Place the blame instead on our rooftop solar water heating system, which was installed in January 2006. That purchase challenged me to think about integrating our solar ration"the daily allotment of sunlight that falls on our house and yard"more effectively into our regular routines. And few routines are as unavoidable as doing the laundry.
It so happens that we share a clothesline with two neighboring households. In years past, my wife would hang the clothes out to dry during the warm summer months, but in the colder months she would simply transfer the wet clothes to the gas-fired dryer stacked above the washing machine.
One may wonder: why deviate from that routine? Using the washing machine and dryer in our decidedly unfinished basement would allow her to go through a week’s worth of dirty laundry and finish the job in three hours.
But some time this spring, a question started plaguing me: if it’s a good thing to use sunlight instead of natural gas to wash clothes, why isn’t it equally true for drying them? And if my solar panel can preheat up my water tank on a sunny day in March, why not rely on the same energy source to dry the wet clothes after they’ve been washed?
With these questions tumbling round and round inside my brain, I decided to take action by commandeering the laundry and doing it myself. So what did I learn?
First and foremost, weather conditions should be the deciding factor in selecting when to do the wash. On cold days, clothes dry much faster in breezy, sunny days than in slack days under overcast skies. If you’re depending on the weather to deliver the energy it takes to dry your laundry, you’ll need scheduling flexibility and an opportunistic attitude. And I can’t emphasize enough the value of periodically checking the Internet weather sites, particularly the radar images, to avoid being unpleasantly surprised by sun showers or swiftly moving thunderstorms.
Everything you hang on the solar dryer, as I like to call it, will become dry over time. The same is true for garments hung inside your house or apartment. But there will be occasions, especially around the winter solstice, when there isn’t enough solar energy outside to finish the job by sundown. If your goal is to avoid using a fossil-fueled dryer, then you’ll need to deploy a drying rack or two to take advantage of the low-humidity warmth inside your dwelling. In the dead of winter, your furnace or wood stove can deliver whatever supplemental heat is needed to dry a full load of laundry in a 24-hour cycle.
Since I’ve taken over laundry duties, the combination of our solar ration and the available indoor heat handles about 80% of what the gas dryer used to do. The only action the gas dryer sees these days is towels and heavy garments.
And how is my obsession with the solar ration affecting our bottom line? While it’s too soon to estimate an annual savings, we did use about 20% less natural gas this November versus the year-earlier period, even though November 2005 was a much warmer month.
The rewards of a well-used solar dryer are by no means limited to the energy and dollar savings reported on the monthly utility bill. The best part of the package is the time spent outside. There you can take the pulse of the day from the sunlight, clouds, air temperature, wind and humidity that make up this continuous flux of energy that we call the weather. Relying on solar energy in this way makes a person more attuned to the ebb and flow of weather conditions. Yes, forsaking the fossil-fueled dryer for the great outdoors does take more time and effort, but it’s a small price to pay for eliminating the drudgery that comes with doing the laundry on autopilot.
Amazingly enough, community prohibition of clotheslines is not uncommon in the United States. Ironically, this inane belief that the sight of gym trunks and sweat socks hanging in a yard will drive property values lower is strongest in the Sun Belt, a region where solar drying"and water heating--should be the norm and not the exception. What can you say about a mindset that thinks nothing of wasting a precious fossil fuel on doing the laundry just to keep up appearances? Given how prevalent this silly and self-destructive behavior is in our land, is the imminent arrival of the oil peak and terminally declining natural gas stocks necessarily a bad thing?
----------
Petroleum and Natural Gas Watch is a RENEW Wisconsin initiative tracking the supply demand equation for these fossil fuels, and analyzing its effects on prices,
consumption levels, and the development of energy conservation strategies and renewable energy alternatives. For more information on the global and national petroleum and natural gas supply picture, visit "The End of Cheap Oil" section in RENEW Wisconsin's web site: www.renewwisconsin.org. These commentaries also posted on RENEW’s blog: http://www.zmetro.com/community/us/wi/madison/renew
and Madison Peak Oil Group’s blog: http://www.madisonpeakoil-blog.blogspot.com
An Open Letter to Congress
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
July 10, 2008
If you want to know more about the economic, environmental and security benefits from renewable energy development, look no further than my house in Madison, Wisconsin. A crew from a local solar contractor just finished installing a solar electric system that will, when activated, produce about one-half of the electricity used in our household.
As you very well know, federal tax credits have been the principal policy tool for accelerating renewable energy development in this country. Right now, most renewable energy technologies are more expensive than fossil fuels, but the federal incentives level the economic playing field, providing breathing room for solar, wind and biogas to mature and become cost-competitive. This has been especially true with wind generation, which expanded from 6,500 megawatts in January 2005 to over 19,000 today. This tripling of windpower capacity in less than four years could not have happened without the production tax credit being in place during that time.
Here in Wisconsin, the renewable energy marketplace has exploded over the last three years, especially in the solar arena. As of this moment, there are 73 full-service solar electric and solar hot water installation firms active in Wisconsin, more than double the installer base in 2005.
How critical is the solar tax credit in driving solar’s growth? If our middle-class household is at all representative of the solar-installing customer base, I can honestly say that the federal incentive was a necessary component to making that investment work for us. Had federal incentives not been available this year, our budget would have been insufficient to absorb the substantial up-front expense that comes with owning a solar energy system.
Indeed, when I compare the flurry of installation activity now with the near-dormant conditions that prevailed just three years ago, it’s clear that the federal tax credit has greatly expanded the size of the domestic solar energy market.
Extending the renewable energy tax credits would cost U.S. taxpayers somewhere between $3 and $4 billion a year, most of it going to wind generation. Some members of Congress consider that an unacceptably large expense. But these are not permanent incentives. In the case of windpower installations, which have a book life between 20 and 30 years, federal tax credits cover no more than 10 years of operation.
But it’s a telling measure of Beltway cluelessness that our federal lawmakers are more willing to make a show of fiscal discipline on renewable energy policy than on an overseas military operation that now drains about $120 billion a year from the U.S. Treasury.
The U.S. economy is on the ropes. The U.S. can ill afford to skimp on the one energy pathway that can, with the proper policy support, create jobs by the thousands and convert capital into socially productive and sustainable enterprises.
If Congress is truly serious about turning the economy around, reducing the trade deficit, making progress on climate change, and creating a more energy-secure America, it must extend the renewable energy tax incentives, preferably this month. No other action will accomplish so much, or cost so little.
Michael Vickerman
Executive Director
RENEW Wisconsin
222 S. Hamilton St.
Madison, WI 53703
www.renewwisconsin.org
An Open Letter to Congress
By Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
July 10, 2008
If you want to know more about the economic, environmental and security benefits from renewable energy development, look no further than my house in Madison, Wisconsin. A crew from a local solar contractor just finished installing a solar electric system that will, when activated, produce about one-half of the electricity used in our household.
Our desire to turn sunshine into electricity at home generated a tidy revenue stream for the installation contractor, Full Spectrum Solar. Most solar installers in Wisconsin are small businesses that provide their employees with a living wage and a good benefits package. If there is any one economic sector that has kept the U.S. economy from turning into a basket case, it is small business.
The kilowatt-hours generated by our panels will spare Madison Gas and Electric (MGE) from having to produce a like amount, mostly from natural gas. Wellhead natural gas prices have doubled in the last 12 months, driving up the cost of serving peak loads on summer afternoons. But that also is when solar systems are generating close to their rated capacity.
Because solar displaces the highest-cost resources on the electric grid, utilities are becoming increasingly receptive to buying back the solar electricity produced by their customers. From MGE’s perspective, our installation couldn’t happen soon enough. The price MGE is willing to pay for our system’s output, 25 cents per kilowatt-hour fixed over a 10-year period, is almost double its standard retail electric rate. MGE’s solar offer is a voluntary initiative underwritten by more than 10,000 customers who purchase utility-supplied renewable electricity for a small premium.
Clearly, both MGE and its customers believe strongly that solar energy is worth investing in today. Not tomorrow, not next week, today.
Indeed, there is no energy source as local as the sunlight striking the roof over your head. Solar energy is as reliable and predictable as the dawn. Fossil fuels are not needed to deliver the sunlight to the Earth’s surface. If solar energy comes with the territory we inhabit, why not use it?
Moreover, sunshine is not depleted when it’s converted into electricity or heat, nor does the conversion process change the chemical content of the atmosphere. Contrast that with carbon-rich fossil fuels. When a primary fuel like coal is converted into electricity, carbon dioxide is created and released into the environment. The carbon content in the atmosphere is now about one-third higher than it was a century ago, when the Automobile Era and the Age of Electricity were in their infancy. Most of that increase is attributable to fossil fuel combustion.
However useful the electricity may have been to its users, its creation resulted in the permanent removal of coal from the Earth’s crust and higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that will last throughout the century. Furthermore, the waste energy discharged through automobile tailpipes and utility smokestacks can’t be turned into oil and coal again. We only get one go-round with fossil fuels.
Used judiciously, solar energy in all its manifestations can help America ease off of its unhealthy and financially burdensome dependence on fossil fuels. Moreover, it is inflation-proof, because the sunlight that strikes the panels doesn’t come with a price tag. Compared with other generation sources, solar energy is virtually maintenance-free.
In one fell swoop, expanding renewable energy’s share of the nation’s energy mix would reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, lower the trade deficit, dampen rising fossil fuel prices, employ hundreds of thousands of people in manufacturing and skilled trades, and extend the available life of the world’s remaining nonrenewable resources. Is there a more effective pathway available to re-energize the nation’s slumping economy and sustain it over the long haul? Not as far as I can tell.
As you very well know, federal tax credits have been the principal policy tool for accelerating renewable energy development in this country. Right now, most renewable energy technologies are more expensive than fossil fuels, but the federal incentives level the economic playing field, providing breathing room for solar, wind and biogas to mature and become cost-competitive with more established energy resources. This has been especially true with wind generation, which has expanded from 6,500 megawatts in January 2005 to over 19,000 today. This tripling of windpower capacity in less than four years could not have happened without the production tax credit being in place during that time.
Here in Wisconsin, the renewable energy marketplace has exploded over the last three years, especially in the solar arena. As of this moment, there are 73 full-service solar electric and solar hot water installation firms active in Wisconsin, more than double the installer base in 2005. While a handful have been around before 2000, most are new entrants into this field. The contractor who installed our solar electric system, Full Spectrum Solar, has seen its revenues increase sevenfold since 2005, when it was established with two co-owners and one employee. That was also the year when Congress established the solar investment tax credit. Now Full Spectrum has 12 full-time employees, five of them hired this year.
How critical is the solar tax credit in driving solar’s growth in the United States? If our middle-class household is at all representative of the solar-installing customer base, I can honestly say that the federal incentive was a necessary component to making that investment work for us. Had federal incentives not been available this year, our budget would have been insufficient to absorb the substantial up-front expense that comes with owning a solar energy system.
Indeed, when I compare the flurry of installation activity now with the near-dormant conditions that prevailed just three years ago, it’s clear that the federal tax credit has greatly expanded the size of the domestic solar energy market.
Bear in mind that there are no other federal policies in place to promote renewable energy development and use. While other nations have adopted different mechanisms“CO2 limits, carbon taxes and feed laws, for example—to nurture this sector, renewable energy policy support in the United States begins and ends with tax credits. Allow them to expire and the safety net underneath renewables disappears with it.
The current cycle of tax credits for wind, solar and biogas will expire January 1, 2009, less than six months from now. Considering how important renewable energy has become for our nation’s environmental health and economic well-being, a citizen could be forgiven for thinking that extending renewable energy credits would be something of a no-brainer for Congress. But despite repeated attempts to extend them, Congress has not yet found a legislative formula that clears a path through the forest of interest groups and narrow partisan agendas standing in the way of timely passage.
Anxiety is growing in the renewable energy world that Congress could very well fumble away its remaining chances to adopt the necessary extension language. Should that happen, the momentum built up over the last three years will dissipate next year, and potentially throw the solar, wind and biogas industries into reverse.
This is no idle fear. Congress waited until October 2004 to extend the renewable enegry incentives that expired January 1st that year. The commercial wind industry ground to a virtual standstill that year and didn’t bounce back until the next year. Plans by overseas wind turbine manufacturers to build up a U.S.-based supply chain were put on hold as demand for commercial turbines sagged. Even though the wind industry has been on a roll over the last three-and-a-half years, memories of the 2004 bust continue to inhibit development of a U.S. manufacturing presence.
Should Congress fail to take action this year, the effects will be even more devastating than in 2004. This time around the entire solar industry“installers, equipment manufacturers, and third-party system owners“will experience a taste of what the wind industry went through before. So, too, will those companies—system designers, general constractors, civil construction companies, component manufacturers and environmental consulting firms“that have recently found a protfitable niche in the expanding renewable energy world. The ripple effect from a lapse in federal policy support, however temporary, will be felt by a wider circle of market actors, including utilities.
And who are some of these market actors? What follows is a partial list, by no means complete, of Wisconsin companies that have a stake in this country’s renewable energy future: GDH, Inc. (Chilton), Pieper Power/Clear Horizons LLC (Milwaukee), Johnson Controls (Milwaukee), H&H Solar Services (Madison), EcoEnergy (Madison), RMT WindConnect (Madison), Lake Michigan Wind and Sun (Sturgeon Bay), Bassett Mechanical (Kaukauna), Paterson Solar (Bayfield), Manitowoc Cos. (Manitowoc), Green Sky Energetics (Manitowoc), Tower Tech (Manitowoc), Magnetek (Menomonee Falls), Bubbling Springs Solar (Menomonie), Oscar Boldt Construction (Appleton), Orion Construction Group (Appleton), Timmerman’s Talents (Platteville), Wausaukee Composites (Wausaukee and Cuba City), Cardinal Solar (Sun Prairie), Badger Transport (Clintonville), Mitchell’s Heating and Cooling (Waupaca), Energy Concepts (Hudson), and Chet’s Plumbing and Heating (Stevens Point).
Extending the renewable energy tax credits would cost U.S. taxpayers somewhere between $3 and $4 billion a year, most of it going to wind generation. Some members of Congress consider that an unacceptably large expense. But these are not permanent incentives. In the case of windpower installations, which have a book life between 20 and 30 years, federal tax credits cover no more than 10 years of operation. After the 10th year, project output is fully taxable.
In my view, this is an underappreciated facet of the tax subsidy argument. Long after the tax credits are exhausted, the wind, solar and biogas installations that were aided by them will still be producing self-replenishing, domestically sourced energy for the owner and/or the grid. Can the same be said for incentives that accelerate the drawdown of our nation’s dwindling supplies of oil and natural gas?
Consider the 33 commercial wind turbines installed Wisconsin in the first half of 1999. Beginning July 2009, their output will be fully subject to federal taxes. These turbines, owned by three different Wisconsin utilities, should generate the same quantity of power in 2010“and 2025“as they did in the year 2000. Seen in that light, the tax break that leveraged the existence of those wind turbines is, if anything, a bargain, one whose benefits to our energy future appreciates over time. Shouldn’t that be a guiding principle in formulating national energy policy?
An annual price tag of $4 billion is peanuts compared with the $1.3 billion that leaves this country each day to slake our nation’s seemingly uncontrollable thirst for petroleum. Here’s another metric for comparing the cost of renewable energy incentives: at current rates of spending, the ongoing occupation of Iraq goes through $4 billion in less than 12 days. And one can argue that the pittance that U.S. taxpayers have contributed thus far to support domestic renewable energy sources has produced far better results in the areas of energy security and economic development than the ongoing occupation of Iraq.
But it’s a telling measure of Beltway cluelessness that our federal lawmakers are more willing to make a show of fiscal discipline on renewable energy policy than on an overseas military operation that now drains about $120 billion a year from the U.S. Treasury.
The U.S. economy is on the ropes, and a lot of unpleasant policy trade-offs lie ahead. As the cost of fossil fuels escalate, and the housing sector and the automobile industry contract further, the U.S. can ill afford to skimp on the one energy pathway that can, with the proper policy support, create jobs by the thousands and convert capital into socially productive and sustainable enterprises. If Congress is truly serious about turning the economy around, reducing the trade deficit, making progress on climate change, and creating a more energy-secure America, it must extend the renewable energy tax incentives, preferably this month. No other action will accomplish so much, or cost so little.
Michael Vickerman
Executive Director
RENEW Wisconsin
222 S. Hamilton St.
Madison, WI 53703
www.renewwisconsin.org
Title:
Renewable energy cleans up in mid-term elections
Summary Text:
The gale-force winds that reshaped the political landscape this November augur well for new initiatives to substitute fossil fuel use with renewable energy.
To a degree unmatched in previous elections, candidates articulated an energy agenda that emphasized greater reliance on bioenergy, wind, solar, and conservation"and won, often by convincing margins.
Title:
The Eye Between the Storms
Description:
An analysis of the destruction of oil and natural gas production in the Gulf of Mexico after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
Contact:
Michael Vickerman
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org
Executive Director
RENEW Wisconsin
June 18, 2008
These comments, submitted on behalf of RENEW Wisconsin, address the strawman proposal developed by the co-chairs of Governor Doyle’s Global Warming Task Force. I represented RENEW in the Electric Generation and Supply Workgroup and took part in the drafting and preparing of several specific proposals that were submitted to the full Task Force. Among them were proposals to establish (1) uniform permitting standards for wind projects, (2) fixed-rate production-cost-based tariffs to stimulate customer-sited renewable energy systems; and (3) post-2015 renewable energy requirements on utilities. The comments address various proposed changes to the existing renewable energy standard (RES).
In-State Set-Aside
The strawman proposal sets forth a 30% in-state set-aside by 2020 (6 percentage points out of 20 by 2020) and a 40 % in-state set-aside by 2025 (10 percentage points out of 25%) RENEW strongly supports an aggressive in-state set-aside for renewables, for reasons of economic development and energy supply security. Producing renewable kilowatt-hours (kWh) and therms within our borders will spark significant economic activity in the fabrication of equipment, installation of systems, and the provision of high-value services. Those economic benefits would be largely forfeited if those kWh and therms were imported from other states and nations.
Moreover, the sourcing of renewable energy within our borders represents the path of lowest risk from an energy supply and price stability perspective. In the past 12 months, we have seen crude oil prices jump from $66 to $121 per barrel, NYMEX natural gas prices double to $12.60/MMBtu, the national average retail price of diesel fuel increase from $2.80 to $4.70, and the national average retail price of gasoline rise from $3.08 to $4.04. In the first five months of 2008, the PSC approved requests from all five investor-owned utilities to add fuel surcharges to customer bills to collect an addition $149 million in revenues this year. That number is certain to increase before the end of the year.
As most people are aware, the fuel cost increases are being driven by ever-tighter world markets for fossil fuels, which affect wholesale market prices. It is worth pointing out that renewable energy sources in Wisconsin are in no way responsible for the price volatility roiling wholesale markets.
The presumption in this particular set-aside proposal is that renewable energy produced in Wisconsin will be more expensive than renewable energy produced elsewhere. With respect to windpower, it is true that Dakota wind generation will be less expensive than Wisconsin windpower when there is sufficient transmission capacity to move the electricity to market from the Dakotas. The trouble is: no one can guarantee that there will be sufficient transmission capacity to accommodate Dakota windpower throughout the 17-year window between now and 2025. Moreover, competition for low-cost windpower in the Great Plains is certain to intensify as more MISO states like Ohio adopt renewable energy requirements on their utilities.
But this view of Wisconsin windpower assumes that it will always be more expensive than fossil generation, and on this point RENEW disagrees with conventional wisdom. Between the escalating cost of transporting coal to Wisconsin power plants and the global competition for liquefied natural gas, RENEW can easily envision a moment in the not too distant future when locally based windpower facilities like We Energies’ recently completed Blue Sky Green Field project becomes one of the lower-cost energy producers in eastern Wisconsin.
Even if electricity from Manitoba Hydro became an eligible resource under an expanded Renewable Energy Standard, the vast majority of the energy applied toward that requirement would come not from Manitoba, but from wind energy, whether generated in Wisconsin or elsewhere. There is simply no other renewable energy resource that can scale up to supply a double-digit slice of Wisconsin’s electric load.
That said, RENEW is very concerned about the ability of wind energy developers, manufacturers, installers and shippers to do business in the state of Wisconsin if the barriers that are in place right now aren’t resolved or mitigated. These barriers include:
(1) Local opposition to siting and permitting utility-scale wind turbines;
(2) Private airport expansions by wind opponents aimed at blocking turbines;
(3) Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s restrictions on transporting oversized loads in and through Wisconsin; and
(4) Growing utility preference for out-of-state wind over in-state wind.
The difficulties developers encounter in securing land use permits for in-state wind projects are well-known and don’t need to be rehashed. In unanimously recommending legislative changes to address this problem, the Global Warming Task Force recognized the necessity of this initiative to achieving current and successor renewable energy requirements.
Another obstacle encountered by developers is the obstructionist tactic of upgrading private landing strips to public use airports for the purpose of rendering nearby land off-limits to turbines. Once the upgrade has been approved, the Federal Aviation Administration has the power to restrict turbine installations presumed to be hazardous to airport operations, regardless of whether the field is capable of being used by the general public or not. Until the State of Wisconsin establishes procedures and standards for reviewing airport upgrade applications, determined opponents of wind installations will continue to employ this tactic with impunity.
An even larger obstacle has emerged in the construction of wind energy projects, namely restrictions in transporting oversized wind generation equipment across Wisconsin roads and highways. Last year, just as construction of We Energies’ Blue Sky Green Field and Invenergy’s Forward Energy projects commenced, Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT) imposed a prohibition on transporting oversize loads during the day, which made it impossible to haul the blades, nacelles and tower sections directly to the erection sites. At the Blue Sky Green Field project site, We Energies had to expand the laydown area behind its operations center in order to accommodate deliveries of the equipment. Some 792 pieces of equipment had to be offloaded in the yard and then reloaded on separate vehicles and taken to the 88 turbine sites. Double-handling this equipment is expensive. WE estimates that the restrictions on transportation added nearly $4 million to the cost of constructing Blue Sky Green Field.
In regards to Alliant Energy’s Cedar Ridge project now under construction, DOT will allow limited daytime transportation of oversize equipment. However, to reduce the cost of transporting turbines, nacelles and blades through Wisconsin, Vestas decided to ship that equipment to the United States via the Port of Galveston in Texas, and transport it by rail to Green Bay. It’s worth noting that those components could easily have been shipped to a Wisconsin port"Milwaukee, Green Bay, and Menominee-Marinette"where they would have been handled by our labor force.
Wisconsin also requires haulers to obtain an individual permit for each load carried along a surveyed route. Contrast that requirement with Iowa’s practice of issuing a permit that covers all trips involving oversized equipment along that route for a defined period of time.
Between the extra costs incurred by heavy haulers and the lost port traffic, Wisconsin’s transportation policies have imposed a heavy economic cost on in-state wind development in Wisconsin. The economic damage could spread to neighboring states if turbine manufacturers continue to avoid Wisconsin ports in favor of less convenient locations that require more truck or rail travel after the equipment is unloaded. To demonstrate to U.S. turbine suppliers, component manufacturers and heavy haulers that Wisconsin is open for business, the State needs to establish a regulatory framework that provides certainty and consistency in the transportation arena.
The unanticipated costs caused by the barriers enumerated above negatively affect utility perceptions on the economic viability of in-state windpower. When this perception is added to the lower wind speeds here compared with Iowa or Minnesota, the prospects for adding significant capacity beyond 2009 starts to fade. In the last three months, two Wisconsin utilities have announced plans to add, by 2010, 300 MW of windpower situated in Iowa and Minnesota. It’s clear that Wisconsin utilities have become very wary of the risks involved in pursuing wind development here, and in response have adjusted their resource acquisition efforts to source more renewable energy from out of state. I do not think it’s an exaggeration to say that some utilities have written off Wisconsin as a source of windpower for the foreseeable future.
While we at RENEW are steadfastly in support of expanding wind generating capacity in Wisconsin, we must point out that the in-state targets enumerated in the strawman proposal are unlikely to be achieved unless they are accompanied by meaningful regulatory reforms to facilitate project permitting, project construction, equipment transport, and component manufacturing in the Badger State. So long as in-state windpower is treated as a second-class resource in the renewable energy world, it is hard to imagine why the global wind industry would want to invest in new productive capacity here when the economic returns are higher elsewhere and the headaches fewer.
Changes to Resource Eligibility
The strawman proposal suggests an expansion of RES-eligible resources to include the following:
(1) Renewable energy credits (REC’s) created outside of the MISO region;
(2) Hydro in excess of 60 MW; and
(3) Renewable energy sold in the voluntary marketplace.
Simply adding these renewable energy sources to the existing Renewable Energy Standard will result in several negative outcomes. Voluntary renewable energy programs would implode overnight if they were folded into the utilities’ mandated portfolio. The whole value proposition of a voluntary program disappears when the utility takes the renewable energy attributes away from customers who paid extra to create the renewable generation in the first place.
While exporting dollars out-of-state to acquire distant sources of large-scale hydro and REC’s may seem like a cheap compliance strategy right now, it would stifle local renewable energy development"and the jobs and business opportunities that come with that--as long as the newly eligible resources remain in plentiful supply.
RENEW suggests recasting the proposed changes in such a way to prevent the new category of resources from competing with existing RES-eligible resources to meet the higher standard. This could be accomplished by creating two tiers of resource eligibility, a Tier 1 group and a Tier 2 group. The Tier 1 group would consist of the current group of RES-eligible resources (and renewable thermal energy). Tier 2 resources would consist of non-MISO REC’s, hydro greater than 60 MW, and renewable energy from the voluntary markets.
RENEW propose that the RES consist of a “hard” target, the compliance of which must be met from Tier 1 resources. Above that, there could be a “soft” goal that can be met with Tier 2 resources. But to ensure that Tier 2 resources don’t crowd out Tier 1 resources, the amount of Tier 2 resources that could be applied to the soft goal has to be capped. While there would be a not-to-exceed amount for Tier 2 resources, there would be no cap on Tier 1 resources.
To illustrate: if the state were to adopt a 20% hard renewable target by 2025 and a soft renewable goal of 25% for that same year, utilities would then be required to source a minimum of 20% of the electricity they sell from current RES-eligible resources. They could incorporate Tier 2 resources and apply them to the soft target up to 5% of their retail sales. But utilities would not be able to apply the Tier 2 resources to any part of the 20% requirement. Therefore there would be no compliance benefit to a utility that aggregates Tier 2 resources in excess of the 5% cap. Interim hard targets and soft goals could be established as well.
It is worth pointing out that Wisconsin already has a similar arrangement in place today. Act 141 requires utilities to increase the renewable energy content of retail electricity sales by six percentage points above their 2004 benchmarks. The same law also sets forth a 10% goal by 2015. The required additions to the Wisconsin utility resource mix will, by themselves, raise the state’s renewable energy percentage to somewhere between 9% and 10%. That percentage does not include the volume of renewable electricity purchased by the State of Wisconsin and by its residences and businesses. Moreover, it is entirely possible that utilities will “overcomply” with their mandated minimums, especially if the cost of conventional fossil fuels keeps rising. Between the renewable electricity mandated under Act 141, voluntary renewable energy sales and any “excess” renewable electricity not serving a utility’s RES requirements or supplying a voluntary program, the prospects for achieving the state’s 10% renewable energy goal are very favorable.
Advanced Renewable Tariffs
RENEW is a very strong supporter of Advanced Renewable Tariffs (ART’s), which are buyback rates for distributed applications of renewable energy that are (1) based on production costs; (2) technology-specific; (3) fixed for a period of time; and (4) uniform across service territories. RENEW believes that ART’s are appropriate for any nonutility-owned renewable generation project under 20 MW and located in Wisconsin.
The strawman proposal rightly sees ART’s as a policy mechanism that would stimulate the development of distributed renewable energy sources that would otherwise be left behind under a typical RES. From a diversity of supply perspective, the establishment of ART’s would encourage utility customers to produce--and receive a fair price for"renewable electricity that a utility can apply toward either its RES requirements or resell to its renewable energy subscribership.
However, the strawman proposal identifies two renewable energy sources"biogas and solar--whose development should be encouraged through ART’s. Conspicuously absent from that list is windpower. This is a significant departure from the technology-neutral approach the proposal takes with respect to other recommended policies, such as the low-carbon fuel standard for vehicles. The proposal offers no rationale for explaining why biogas and solar are worthier resources for this policy treatment than wind.
Apart from the Act 204 wind projects built by utilities in 1999, distributed wind generation has not gone anywhere in Wisconsin. With the notable exception of WPPI, Wisconsin utilities have shown no interest in buying the output from community-scale wind projects. Nor do they have plans to build and operate community-scale wind installations of their own.
The potential exclusion of wind energy from being supported through ART’s provides another example of the state’s peculiarly unwelcoming attitude toward the wind industry in general. Community-scale wind projects elsewhere in the Midwest enjoy strong support from both policymakers and local communities. Minnesota and Iowa have supported community wind projects with public dollars and tax credits, and the results have been impressive. In Wisconsin, community wind finds itself in a policy no-man’s-land, too large to be supported by Focus on Energy, and too small to be supported by utility initiatives (other than WPPI’s excellent community program). The strawman proposal does nothing to correct that situation.
BEFORE THE
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN
Application of Wisconsin Power and Light Company
For Authority to Adjust Electric and Natural Gas Docket No. 6680-UR-116
Rates
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL J. VICKERMAN
ON BEHALF OF RENEW WISCONSIN
Q. Please state your name, occupation, and address.
A. My name is Michael J. Vickerman. I am Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin, an organization whose directors and members support expanding the use of locally available renewable energy resources to meet the state's power needs. RENEW is located at 222 S. Hamilton St., Madison WI 53703.
Q. Please describe your professional qualifications?
A. Under my direction RENEW has advocated, and mobilized political support for, several pro-renewable policies adopted in the last 10 years, including the establishment of Wisconsin’s Renewable Portfolio Standard and a public benefits fund dedicated in part to renewable energy sources. I have been involved with many issues relating to renewable electricity, ranging from broad policy mandates and customer-driven green pricing programs to such technical issues as renewable energy credit trading and windpower permitting ordinances. I was RENEW’s representative on the statewide Task Force on Energy Efficiency and Renewables, which Governor Doyle convened in September 2003, and served as co-chair of the Renewables Workgroup. In that capacity I developed and negotiated several renewable energy policy recommendations for consideration by the full Task Force. These were: (1) a successor Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that would result in a 10% renewable energy content by 2015 and (2) a State of Wisconsin commitment to source 20% of the electricity it uses from renewable energy sources. Both recommendations were included in a consensus package of proposed policy changes that were subsequently incorporated into a bill (SB459) that passed the Legislature and was signed into law in March 2006 (2005 Act 141) .
I have written and defended testimony in several PSC proceedings in recent years, including We Energies’ 2007 rate case (05-UR-1030, Madison Gas & Electric’s 2007 rate case (3270-UR-115), Wisconsin Power & Light’s application to build the Cedar Ridge wind energy installation (6680-CE-171), We Energies’ application to build the Blue Sky Green Field wind energy installation (6630-CE-294), Forward Wind Energy’s application to build a 200 MW wind energy installation (9300-CE-100), We Energies’ 2005 rate case (05-UR-102), Wisconsin Public Service Corporation’s 2005 and 2006 rate cases (6690-UR-117 and 6690-UR-118), and Wisconsin Power & Light’s 2005 and 2006 rate cases (6680-UR-114 and 6680-UR-115).
RENEW has been providing services under contract to Focus on Energy’s Renewable Energy program since its launch in March 2002. The services I provide to Focus on Energy include reviewing requests for financial incentives to underwrite the development of customer-sited renewable energy installations in Wisconsin.
Q. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A. The purpose of my testimony is to discuss the company’s proposed solar, wind and biogas energy buyback rates in the context of promoting customer-sited renewable generation facilities. Wisconsin Power & Light (WPL) proposes to acquire wind- and biogas-generated electricity at a price of 9.2 cents/kWh fixed over 10 years and solar electricity at a price of 25 cents/kWh fixed over the same duration.
Q. What are the estimated production costs for biogas and wind energy systems above 20 kW?
A. The data from Focus on Energy-funded wind and biogas energy systems in the past two years give us a clear picture of production costs. For biogas systems up to 500 kW installed this year, the break-even number is now 11 cents/kWh. Between 500 kW and one MW, the system cost drops to 10 cents/kWh. With respect to wind energy installations up to 100 kW, the break-even cost ranges from 18 to 25 cents/kWh range. For a 900 kW wind energy system, the production cost drops to 14 cents per kWh. These estimates are exclusive of federal renewable energy tax credits.
Q. Do you believe that the proposed tariffs will lead to the additional supplies of renewable distributed generation serving WPL?
A. At 9.2 cents, the biogas rate could result in new installations at dairy farms or food processing facilities, but only if the developer succeeds in attracting enough external funding from federal and state sources to cover the difference. Without a U.S.D.A Section 9006 grant or a Focus on Energy incentive in hand, the proposed rate is not likely to amortize a new 500 kW installation over its term.
As for the proposed wind tariff, I am skeptical that it could provide sufficient stimulus for leveraging independently owned installations, even with external funding. The gap between the rate and the system’s production costs is simply too great. It would take either exceptional fundraising talent on the part of the prospective wind turbine owner or a significant disinterest in cash flow to go forward with an installation through the tariff as proposed.
Q. Do you support WPL’s proposed solar electric buyback rate?
A. Yes I do. If approved WPL’s proposed solar tariff will spur additional installations in its territory, which help the utility manage its peak loads more effectively. Certainly that has been the experience with We Energies (WE) and Madison Gas & Electric (MGE). Customer installations of solar electric systems have increased dramatically in both WE and MGE territory since the utilities began offering solar specific rates. WE’s 22.5 cents/kWh rate took effect in January 2006, while MGE’s 25 cents/kWh hit the streets in January this year. The amount of solar electric capacity leveraged by WE’s solar rate is in the neighborhood of 600 kW. At MGE, about 200 kW of solar capacity has been applied for. Relative to other utilities, WE and MGE are attracting a disproportionate share of Wisconsin’s solar electric installations, a phenomenon that can only be explained by their solar buyback rates.
Q. Does the proposed solar tariff fit your definition of an Advanced Renewable Tariff?
A. It does in every way except for the price. Like a true Advanced Renewable Tariff, it is a fixed offering over a specified period of time that does not increase with higher retail rates. The solar tariff is certainly not based on utility avoided costs. However, it is not, by itself, high enough to capture the production costs of a typical photovoltaic installation. According to data gathered from Focus on Energy-funded PV installations, the tariff would have to be at least double that amount in order for the system owner to recoup the investment over a 10-year period. However, that estimate does not factor in the effect of federal tax credits, Focus on Energy incentives, or accelerated depreciation. When those external economic benefits are added on top of WPL’s proposed buyback rate, the overall package starts to approach the break-even point over a 10-year period, especially for larger-scale systems serving for-profit customers.
. Q. Is there a need for additional information on WPL’s renewable energy tariffs?
A. Yes. WPL has not indicated whether it will consider money paid to its renewable energy-producing customers as taxable income. With respect to those customer-generators that currently provide electricity to WPL under the utility’s net energy billing tariff, the utility has a policy of disclosing to the Internal Revenue Service any payments made to those customers. Customers who receive a Form 1099-MISC from WPL are legally obligated to include those payments as part of their taxable income. But not all utilities report these payments to the Internal Revenue Service. Those that don’t include WE, MGE, and Wisconsin Public Service (WPS). If WPL intends to send 1099-MISC forms to its renewable energy-producing customers, it should disclose that that information in the tariff language. I can easily imagine the irritation customer-generator would experience when he or she learns that their return on investment is suddenly subject to federal and state taxes. An even better approach would be to discontinue that practice. Judging from the prevailing practice at WE, MGE and WPS, there appears to be no need for WPL to penalize its customer-generators in this fashion.
Q. Does this complete your direct testimony?
A. Yes, it does.
From formal testimony submitted to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin on August 11, 2008, by Michael Vickerman on behalf of RENEW Wisconsin:
In my testimony I will survey the windpower prospects under development by independent power producers (IPP’s) in the parts of Wisconsin served by WPL. This information will include an estimate of their annual production (in the aggregate) as well as the current permitting and interconnection status for each prospect. The second half of my testimony outlines RENEW’s concerns with WPL’s proposal to co-fire biomass at Nelson Dewey 3.
Open the attachment for complete testimony.
Parent Folder node for Newsletters content in RENEW Wisconsin
Name:
Wisconsin Renewable Quarterly - Winter 2006/07
Description:
This edition of the newsletter contains the following articles:
RENEW, Clean Wisconsin Defend Wind Power Project
We Energies Cops National Honors
Don Wichert: RENEW Founder and Tireless Advocate
How I Fell in Love with My Solar Dryer
PSC Approves WE Wind Project
Doyle Sets Plans to Expand Renewables
Name:
Wisconsin Renewable Quarterly, Fall 2006
Description:
The Fall 2006 newsletter includes the following articles:
2nd U.S. Solar Testing Lab Opens in State
Payback Analysis: Impediment to Sustainability
Andy Bangert: Solar Installer & Master Electrician
MGE, WPPI Tap into Top of Iowa Wind Projects
Wind Energy Projects Slowly Advance
Neenah Paper Buys Reams of Renewable Electricity
Name:
Wisconsin Renewable Quarterly, Spring 2006
Description:
In this issue:
WE bulllish on wind energy
Producer profile: Amy Taivalkoski
Ethanol mandate runs out of gas
WE updates renewable program
State renewable grants available
Calendar
Name:
Wisconsin Renewable Quarterly, Spring 2007
Description:
This edition of the newsletter contains the following articles:
Wind Farm Construction Explodes While Manufacturing Lags
“But what’s the payback?”
Renewable Profiles: Jeff Riggert
Can Ethanol Kick Fossil Fuels?
Coal Rush Negatives Wind’s Promise
Energy co-dependents: Russia, America, and Energy Security - A special report
Name:
Renewable Energy Quarterly, Spring 2008
Description:
Articles in the Renewable Energy Quarterly, Spring 2008:
+ RENEW Battles Local Opposition to Wind
+ Starting a Renewable Energy Business
+ Renewable Profiles: Wes Slaymaker
+ Solar Hot Water from the Garden
+ Reviving a Classic Wind Machine
Name:
Wisconsin Renewable Quarterly, Summer 2006
Description:
In this issue of RENEW's quarterly newsletter:
Misplaced Security Concerns Still Wind Projects
Doyle Embraces Energy Independence
Profiles in Leadership: Niels Wolter
Wisconsin Tops in Cow Power
Calendar
Name:
Wisconsin Renewable Quarterly, Summer 2007
Description:
The summer issue of RENEW’s Wisconsin Renewable Quarterly includes the following articles:
RENEW Objects to Town Ordinance
A Federal Energy Policy?
Renewable Profiles: Jeff Knutson
State Must End Wind Roadblocks
RENEW Lunch and Meeting, Sept. 15
RENEW Argues for Uniform Tariffs
Walter: MGE Gets High Marks
WPPI Adds PV at HQ
Name:
Wisconsin Renewable Quarterly, Winter 2005
Description:
In this issue of RENEW's quarterly newsletter:
Time is ripe for renewable tariff reform
Church engergized by renewables
Producer profile: John Katers
RENEW lauds Forward's payment plan
China pins hopes on hydro
New federal tax credits for solar
RENEW backs ethanol bill
Calendar
Name:
Wisconsin Renewable Quarterly, Winter 2008
Description:
RENEW Wisconsin's quarterly newsletter contains the following articles:
+ Solar Water Heating's Day of Superlatives
+ Calumet Voters Strongly Favor Wind
+ Renewable Profiles: Steve & Nancy Sandstrom
+ Wind a No Go in Trempealeau
+ Windpower Projects Near Completion
Name:
Advanced Renewable Tariffs (as a PDF)
Description:
A presentation on the importance of advance renewable energy tariffs to encourage installation of renewable energy systems. Presented by Michael Vickerman to the American Solar Energy Society, San Diego, CA, May 7, 2008.
In a presentation prepared for the 12th Annual National Renewable Energy Marketing Conference, Oct. 21-24, in Philadelphia, RENEW's Executive Director Michael Vickerman reviews the requirements for the State of Wisconsin's purchase of renewable electricity:
+ 10% content by 2007; 20% content by 2011
+ Covers agencies, UW campuses, prisons
+ Can purchase from utilities or generate on-site
+ State’s electric load -- @ 900 million kWh/year
Brett Hulsey's presentations to the Madison Peak Oil Group on solutions to peak oil, February 28, 2006
Name:
Driving Away from an Oil Economy
Description:
A Power Point presentation (in a PDF) by Michael Vickerman at the Green Vehicles Workshop sponsored by the Milwaukee Area Technical College.
Vickerman poses the question, "[C]an we change our current habits and attitudes to transition into a less mobile but more sustainable future relying on renewable energy flows and low-EROEI energy stores?"
A presentation (as a PDF) by RENEW Wisconsin Executive Director Michael Vickerman at the Midwest Renewable Energy Fair in Custer, Wisconsin, June 22, 2008.
Title:
Peak Oil: Are We Headed Over the Energy Cliff?
Description:
A Power Point presentation prepared by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin's executive director, from two presentations at the first ever ASPO-USA conference held in Denver, November 2005, and slides that he's been using since 2002.
Name:
Solar hot water: The search for persuasive yet truthful marketing messages
Description:
A PowerPoint presentation (as a PDF) by Michael Vickerman at the Wisconsin Solar Hot Water Conference, December 13, 2007.
Title:
Stirrings in the Land of What-Me-Worry?
Summary Text:
In Fossil Fuel Watch: Stirrings in the Land of What-Me-Worry?, Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin's executive director, analyzes "America's collective subconsciousness" on energy conservation and asks:
[when]the availability of natural gas becomes an issue, does it make sense to heat garages, outdoor swimming pools and water parks with it? Would it make sense to power existing gas-fired generators with other fuels? How about running them less frequently as an economy and conservation measure? Has the time come for the state to adopt a moratorium on new gas-fired generation?
Name:
Tiptoeing Through the Minefields
Description:
A presentation by RENEW's executive director Michael Vickerman on the wind permitting process in Wisconsin.
A Power Point presentation in a PDF.
Name:
Wind Permitting - The Final Frontier
Description:
A PowerPoint presentation (in a PDF) on appropriate ordinances and permits for wind turbine projects, given my Michael Vickerman to Wisconsin County Code Administrators, October 31, 2007.
Name:
Windpower in Wisconsin: Ready for Takeoff
Description:
The presentation by Michael Vickerman on March 8, 2007, lays out the benefits of windpower and the efforts to advocate for more wind in Wisconsin.
Name:
Brett Hulsey's presentation on solutions to peak oil - PDF format
Description:
Brett Hulsey's presentations to the Madison Peak Oil Group on solutions to peak oil, February 28, 2006
Title:
Citizens Energy Cooperative Newsletter
Description:
The Fall 2006 editon of the newsletter from the Citizens Energy Cooperative includes the following articles: Solar Mining Company, The Other Utility; Letter from Executive Director; Membership Involvement on Door County Fair; Launching America into a New Energy Future; Member Installation - Emy J's Restaurant & Janssen Family Home; Wisconsin Universities to become Energy Independent
Title:
Focus on Energy presentation, Feb. 12, 2007
Description:
Focus on Energy: Status and Future. Legislative Briefing by Kathy Kuntz, Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corporation. A Power Point presentation in a pdf.
Name:
Levelizing the Playing Field for Renewables
Description:
The U.S. economy is structured to be powered by cheap and abundant sources of fossil fuel. Given what we know about climate change and Peak Oil, we have no choice but to begin weaning ourselves off these finite resources, no matter how convenient it may be. Most of us know that the longer we put off the transition to renewable energy, the more untenable our dependency to fossil fuels become. But there is no pre-determined path that will ensure a trauma-free evolution toward a leaner, slower, lower-carbon society. As we undergo this transition, we can expect entrenched energy interests to fight us every step of the way, and their allies in government to resist adopting policies necessary to accomplish this task. This presentation, given November 28, 2007, at the UW-Stevens Point, will examine several policy approaches we can pursue to elevate renewable energy from a bit player to the default option.
Name:
Mark Daugherty's Presentation on Peak Oil - PDF format
Description:
Mark Daugherty's presentation on peak oil to the Madison Peak Oil Group (www.madisonpeakoil-blog.blogspot.com) on February 28, 2006.
Name:
Peak Oil Presentation by Mark Daugherty
Description:
The Power Point presentation in April 2006 by Mark Daugherty, a board member of RENEW Wisconsin and a member of the Madison Peak Oil Group, lays out oil production leading up to the peak and after.
Title:
Senators' letter to Dept. of Defense
Description:
The letter raising concerns about the de facto moritorium on wind generation development.
Name:
Utility-scale Projects: The Trends We See
Description:
A PDF of the presentaton by Mark Osten, Director of Business Development, RMT WindConnect, at the 2008 Renewable Energy Summit.
Name:
Valuing Renewable Energy in an Energy-Constrained World
Description:
An overview by Michael Vickerman on the micro- and macro-economics of renewable energy.
Name:
What Must We Do? (PDF format)
Description:
A presentation by Michael Vickerman at the Illinois Renewable Energy Fair.
He describes what we must do:
• Use less petroleum and NG each year as a matter of policy
• More efficient houses, vehicles, devices
• Stop consuming fuel for non-productive (recreational) purposes
• Begin disengaging from global economy – shorten supply lines!!
• Build an economy around renewable energy
• Emphasize local energy production – avoid the commodities trap
• Reinvest high EREOI fossil wealth into lower EROEI renewable technologies
• Let go of the “energy on-demand” mindset - follow the flows
Title:
WIDRC Poster
Description:
The poster presented at Energy Transition 2050 by the Wisconsin Distributed Resources Collaborative
Name:
Wind in Wisconsin. Ready for the Big Leagues?
Description:
A PDF of a presentation by by Michael Vickerman, Executive Director, RENEW Wisconsin, at the 2008 Renewable Energy Summit. Vickerman explains why Wisconsin should promote wind and compares its cost to other soureces of electricity.