|
WHY
RENEW Wisconsin
Supports
Energy
Clean
Electric power generation is by far the leading producer of air pollution in Wisconsin, discharging more than three times the volume of emissions from the No. 2 ranking industry source, pulp and paper mills. Nearly 75% of the electric power generated in Wisconsin involves burning coal. Though utilities have been switching to low-sulfur coal to reduce acid rain formation, this has had no measurable effect on other pollutants that escape through smokestacks, like carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury. Furthermore, the total volume of coal used for power production has risen 20% since 1990, according to the Wisconsin Energy Bureau.
FACT:
Though the electric power industry accounts for 3% of the state's gross economic product, it produces 64% of the regulated air pollutants discharged into the atmosphere. These emissions are the principal ingredients in the formation of acid rain and smog, and contribute to the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Utility carbon dioxide emissions have increased 20% since 1990.
FACT:
Wisconsin's DNR warns anglers that fish from over 300 Wisconsin lakes and rivers are unsafe to eat due to mercury contamination. This number will continue to increase as the DNR tests new bodies of water. Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of mercury emissions in the state.
FACT:
Two Wisconsin utilities are installing 31 wind turbines in Kewaunee County, totaling about 20 megawatts. When placed into service in summer 1999, these wind generators will eliminate an estimated 30,000 tons of carbon dioxide and 130 tons of acid rain gases each year from utility sources.
FACT:
Energy efficiency achievement by electric utilities has declined by 40% from peak 1993 levels, and investment in energy efficiency has dropped at least 50% over the same period, according to the PSC. Cutbacks in utility energy conservation programs are contributing to rising air emissions in Wisconsin.
OUTLOOK:
As energy conservation keeps sliding and the state's economy keeps growing, energy production from fossil fuels will continue to go up, as will the volume of mercury, carbon dioxide, particulates, nitrogen oxides flowing out of utility smokestacks.
SOLUTION:
RENEW Wisconsin supports the enactment of a utility Public Benefits package that restores statewide energy efficiency achievement at historic levels. RENEW Wisconsin recommends a funding level of $105 million annually for energy efficiency improvementsw and conservation programs. Funding would be collected a graduated access fee applicable to all electricity customers in Wisconsin.
SOLUTION:
The recently enacted Reliability Act mandated by the year 2001 the construction of 50 MW of new power generators using clean energy sources like wind, solar, hydro and wood. The Public Benefits proposal favored by RENEW Wisconsin estends the state’s commitment to clean energy development by requiring electric suppliers to double the supply of renewable power currently sold in Wisconsin by 2010. This mechanism, called a Renewable Portfolio Standard, is a competitively neutral, low-cost mechanism for displacing fossil fuel generation with cleaner energy alternatives.
Affordable
Energy is essential for the lives, health, and safety of all Wisconsin residents. Wisconsin weather, with its below-zero winter nights and hot, humid summer afternoons, presents challenges unique to low-income households, who pay five to six times the percentage of family earnings on energy that an average household does.
Energy efficiency strategies are essential when one considers the financial difficulties low-income households face. Surveys found that many utility customers in arrears simply did not have enough money to pay their bills, much less weatherize homes. Their inability to conserve energy made their bills higher and more difficult to pay. Beside worsening the plight of these families, lack of energy conservation results in more arrearages which must be passed on to other utility customers, raising rates for everyone.
FACT:
Though there are now about 333,000 households with incomes under 150% of poverty who were eligible for weatherization services, fewer than 200,000 of those eligible have had their dwellings weatherized. Funding for all types of energy assistance for low-income customers--weatherization, other conservation, bill assistance--is sufficient to reach only about one-third of eligible households.
FACT:
Weatherized buildings use 26% less energy for space heating, making them more affordable for occupants. However, from 1993 to 1996, low-income weatherization funding from all sources declined from $28 million to $16.5 million. According to state figures, the number of low-income dwellings weatherized annually has fallen 46% since 1995.
FACT:
These cuts have had an effect on the state’s economy. At its 1993 level, the weatherization program provided direct employment to 375 people, and generated $52 million in economic activity. By 1996, weatherization programs employed fewer than 200 people, and generated about $25 million in economic activity.
FACT:
The state weatherization program has been shown to generate $2.25 for every $1 in program expenditures, according the state Division of Housing. Translating this to a $50 million/year funding level, weatherization programs can generate upwards of $110 million yearly in additional economic activity.
OUTLOOK:
Government and utility cost-cutting measures have had a measurably negative impact on funding levels for low-income energy assistance. Deregulation and ongoing budget constraints will present additional risks to low-income families.
SOLUTION:
RENEW Wisconsin takes the position that the state should provide adequate tools for helping low-income households move toward energy self-sufficiency, putting them in a better position to benefit from structural changes in the utility industry. RENEW Wisconsin supports enacting a utility Public Benefits package, funded through an access fee applicable to all electricity customers in Wisconsin, to contribute $59 million annually for continuing essential low-income services. This commitment from utilities, combined with federal funds, would produce an overall total of $105 million yearly dedicated to continuing low-income programs. Of that total, at least $50 million would be targeted for weatherization and other energy conservation measures. The remaining funds would support bill payment assistance, furnace replacement, and early identification/crisis prevention programs.
Reliable
Wisconsin utilities were among the nation's leaders in energy efficiency investments, until they began to prepare for industry restructuring and deregulation. Regrettably, the prospect of restructuring has caused a drastic decline in energy investments (50%) and achievement (40%) from 1993 to 1996. Since 1993, load growth in Wisconsin has grown at the rate of 1.8% a year, the equivalent annual output of one 200 megawatt power plant. Because this trend is expected to continue over the next 10 years, utilities are already planning new generating units and transmission lines to meet the projected load growth in Wisconsin.
Not only are conservation and efficiency measures often more cost-effective on a per energy-unit basis than building new power plants and transmission lines, they can be deployed quickly. So too can distributed generating plants using renewable power sources or high-efficiency technologies like fuel cells and microturbines. Indeed, utility conservation programs have over the last 10 years reduced load growth and avoided the construction of several power plants in Wisconsin. However, because effective conservation results in fewer kilowatt-hours produced and sold, utilities have a built-in disincentive against pursuing that path. The fear of competition is magnifying concerns that continuing energy conservation and expanding distributed generation opportunities will put incumbent utilities at a competitive disadvantage with other suppliers.
FACT:
Even though the summers of 1997 and 1998 were mild ones by historical standards, electric service to customers with interruptible rates was curtailed several times during that period. Utilities affected by power scarcities relied on voluntary conservation measures to avoid rolling blackouts across eastern Wisconsin.
FACT:
About 15% of the power consumed in Wisconsin is imported from other states. A 1998 PSC report recommends the expansion of Wisconsin's transmission system to accommodate 3,000 megawatts of transfer capacity into eastern Wisconsin, about double what the present system can handle.
FACT:
Low-cost design improvements in commercial buildings--the fastest growing sector in the state's economy--can reduce power consumption costs for building owners to as little as $0.50 per square foot versus national averages of $2.15, according to the Energy Center of Wisconsin. These savings can pay for the installation of low-emission distributed generation systems on or in the buildings themselves, reducing building loads even further.
OUTLOOK:
Since 1995, funding for utility energy efficiency initiatives statewide has sunk below $100 million annually. Yet mounting reliability concerns are prompting proposals to commit billions of ratepayer dollars for shoring up the statewide grid to gain access to distant power sources. Without a stepped-up effort to use energy more efficiently at home and employ distributed generation to reinforce the grid, Wisconsin is on the verge of exporting thousands of jobs and millions of dollars of disposable income to other states.
SOLUTION:
By including a $105 million commitment to energy conservation and a Renewable Portfolio Standard to increase supplies of clean electricity, the Public Benefits proposal favored by RENEW Wisconsin would boost system reliability in Wisconsin. Given the difficulties of siting power plants and power lines, it is essential that utilities rely more heavily on energy conservation and distributed generation strategies for meeting future system reliability.
|
|
