Georgia Regulators Force State Utility to Embrace Solar Energy

by | Jul 12, 2013 | Uncategorized

Environmentalists, conservatives and solar startups celebrate as the influential state utility Georgia Power is mandated to expand the amount of solar energy it generates. The newly approved program requires Georgia Power to purchase solar power from solar firms, growing Georgia’s solar industry. Read Kiley Kroh’s article to learn about the Koch brother’s attempts to undermine conservative support for the initiative.  Greg Bluestein and Kristi E. Swartz’s article below outlines Georgia’s path to an exciting future for the State’s energy consumers and solar energy producers.


By Greg Bluestein and Kristi E. Swartz

State regulators forced Georgia Power on Thursday to expand the amount of solar energy it generates, putting the company on the rare losing side of a political battle. But the vote was just a skirmish compared with bigger battles ahead for the powerful utility. 

It faces a double-whammy of upcoming votes before the Public Service Commission on approving new costs for its nuclear expansion project and a proposed 6 percent rate hike to fund new equipment. And a legislative fight looms over a proposal to create a new solar monopoly that could challenge Georgia Power’s grip on state utilities. 

The all-Republican commission’s 3-2 vote was a significant defeat for the Atlanta-based company, which had warned it already generated more than enough energy for its customers. Opponents also said that adding 525 megawatts of solar by 2016 would inevitably drive up rates, although Georgia Power, in a surprising about-face, backed off that argument on Thursday after months of making that case. Instead, its attorney said for the first time that the added solar likely wouldn’t affect power bills. 

In the aftermath of Thursday’s vote, the odd coalition of environmentalists, conservatives and solar startups behind the expansion barely paused to savor their win. Some emboldened activists said the victory gave them new hope they could successfully challenge the utility on other contentious issues.

[READ MORE]

RENEW’s Michael Vickerman Examines Utility Arguments Against Third Party Solar Arrangements

by | Jul 11, 2013 | Uncategorized

To: Clean Energy Choice Supporters
From: Michael Vickerman
Date:   July 10, 2013
Our grassroots campaign is beginning to catch the attention of utilities. Shortly after one county board passed a resolution in support of Clean Energy Choice, a utility representative contacted a board member and expressed his company’s dismay over the vote. This representative said that the reason utilities oppose Clean Energy Choice is that third party arrangements enable customers to use less utility-provided energy, which reduces revenues to utilities. The result is that the fixed costs associated with utility electric service are spread over a smaller rate base, which drives rates higher.
Let’s examine this argument in greater depth.
First, the argument can be applied with equal force to customer-owned self-generation. The impact from a rooftop solar electric system to utility revenues is the same no matter who owns the system.  If the solar system results in a 50% reduction in electricity consumed by the customer, that reduction is based on the amount of energy produced by the system relative to the amount of grid-supplied electricity consumed by that customer. The question of who owns the system is immaterial to that calculation.
Of course, the same argument could be levied against energy efficiency. If a retrofit of a building’s lighting system results in a 40% reduction in electricity usage, that reduction would be the same whether the new lights are owned by the building owner or by a third party service provider like Johnson Controls, which is in the business of saving customers money by reducing their consumption of energy. It’s interesting, though, that utilities are careful not to complain about energy efficiency’s impact on their rates, even though a kilowatt-hour (kWh) not consumed as a result of efficiency has the same effect on utility revenues as a kWh produced behind the meter and consumed on site. As with self-generation, the question of who owns the efficient lighting system does not affect the outcome.
Now, if the utilities figure out a way to overcome their basic hang-ups about solar energy, and resolve instead to provide solar-generated kWh to their customers who desire such a service, we wouldn’t be having this argument. There is nothing to prevent a utility from offering a voluntary solar service to customers. This service could be provided to any customer who wants their electricity to come from sunshine, including those who don’t have any access to sunshine on their premises and thus cannot host PV systems themselves. This is one group of potential solar customers that only the local utility can serve in a rate-regulated environment. Remember, a utility can place solar systems anywhere in its distribution system to serve individual customers who are willing to pay for such a service. But they have decided, at least for the time being, to remain fully committed to a fossil fueled future, to the point of obstructing customer efforts to supply themselves with solar energy. In so doing they are walking away from a golden opportunity to serve large subset of customers with solar energy that, due to shading or suboptimal roof orientation or lack of space, cannot be produced on their premises.  
It should be remembered that customers who reduce their consumption of fossil generated electricity through efficiency and on-site renewables furnish fellow utility customers the health and sustainability benefits of clean, non-CO2 producing electricity free of charge. The economic reward to system hosts from these pathways comes from bill savings, nothing more.  If the utilities are willing to engage in a serious discussion on a fair allocation of costs and benefits, they must acknowledge the need to incorporate adverse health and environmental impacts into the cost of electrical service, and not leave that particular tab to taxpayers.    
Summary: the question of system ownership is irrelevant to utility rate impacts.  Energy conservation and on-site generation have the exact same impact on rates. If on-site generation is undesirable from a ratepayer perspective, then so is energy conservation, if we extend the utility argument to its logical end point. And, lest we not forget, third-party contracts for renewable energy fill a void created by utility unwillingness to serve their own customers with clean resources that have demonstrated market appeal.
With each passing day, the battle lines between the solar community and utilities resistant to solar continue to sharpen, as evidenced by the four dispatches below.

Utilities Battle the Inevitable: Rooftop Solar

Grid Politics

Beyond the Keystone Pipeline 

Regulators In Two U.S. States Reject Lower Payments To Solar Homes

Collaboration Between Rosendale Dairy, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh and Renewable Energy Firms Enables the States Largest Dairy Farm to Begin Waste-to-Energy Project

by | Jul 10, 2013 | Uncategorized

Rosendale Dairy’s University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh funded biodigester is predicted to supply 1,200 homes with electricity. Read Tom Content’s article to learn how the BIOFerm headed project will help the University achieve it’s goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2025.


By Thomas Content

A $7 million waste-to-energy manure digester will be built at Rosendale Dairy in Pickett, in a collaboration between the dairy, renewable energy firms and the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh.The project, kicked off Tuesday, consists of a large biodigester energy facility, learning laboratory and a public education center at Milk Source’s Rosendale Dairy, the state’s largest dairy farm with more than 8,000 cows, located in Fond du Lac County. 

The project is being funded by the UW-Oshkosh Foundation in support of the climate emission targets and sustainability education efforts in place at the university. 

The digester, to be completed by the end of the year, will use methane from livestock waste to produce electricity that will be sold to the electric power grid through an arrangement with Madison-based Alliant Energy Corp.The digester is expected to generate 1.4 megawatts of electricity, or enough to supply about 1,200 typical homes, according to BIOFerm Energy Systems of Madison, which is overseeing the project. 

UW-Oshkosh plans to tap carbon credits from the renewable power generated at the site to help it fulfill its climate change emission reduction commitment.“The campus hopes to also use it go help us greatly accelerate our carbon neutrality goal, which was 2025,” said Alex Hummel, UW-Oshkosh spokesman. “Early estimates from when we were sizing up the collaboration show we could reduce that to about 2017 or 2018.” 

UW-Oshkosh and BIOFerm opened a first-of-its-kind dry fermentation digester, about one-seventh the size of this project, in 2011. The digester converts food waste and yard waste to energy. 

Partners in the project include BIOFerm and its Germany-based parent company, Viessmann Group, as well as Alliant Energy and Madison-based Soil Net.BIOFerm also is the developer of a third area project, a small family-farm-scaled digester that is currently in the pilot stage that also processes livestock waste.

WE Energies Admits their Elm Road Power Plant Operates only 20 Percent of the Time

by | Jul 1, 2013 | Uncategorized

In an interview with Wisconsin Public Radio, company spokesman Brian Manthey attributes low natural gas prices and orders from a Midwest power supply operator to the plant’s low operation but Michael Vickerman notes that this is only part of the story. Read or listen to Chuck Quirmbach’s story to learn how rate payers are absorbing the costs of the plant’s low operation.


 By Chuck Quirmbach

As part of its ‘Power The Future‘ project a few years ago, WE Energies was allowed to build 1,200 megawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity near an existing power plant in Oak Creek. The new plant is called the Elm Road Generating Station. WE Energies concedes the plant only operated about 20 percent of the time last year. Company spokesman Brian Manthey says that’s due to orders from a Midwest power supply operator and low natural gas prices that made it cheaper to boost operation of a gas-fired plant. But Manthey says the Elm Road plant really cranked up when the weather got very hot last summer. 

“The two new units actually at times were operating beyond their rated capacity, at a time when there was power needed from every possible source in the Midwest.”

Manthey says with natural gas prices going up this year, he expects the Elm Road plant to run more. He says it’s available to generate power more than 90 percent of the time. But Michael Vickerman, of Renew Wisconsin, says WE Energies rate payers still have to keep paying for Elm Road, and aren’t getting much for their investment.

[READ MORE]

The Midwest Watches as Alliant Energy Corp. Attempts to Prevent Third Party Solar Installations in Dubuque, RENEW’s Michael Vickerman Comments

by | Jun 28, 2013 | Uncategorized

Worried over their ability to compete with solar energy installers like Dubuque-based Eagle Point Solar, Alliant Energy continues to throw legal roadblocks in the path of third party-owned solar. Wall Street Journal  reporter Ryan Tracy identifies the far reaching implications of the dispute with input from RENEW’s Michael Vickerman. 



By Ryan Tracy

Disputes over the use of small-scale solar power are flaring across the nation, with utilities squaring off against solar-energy marketers over rules for the growing technology.Until now, the fights have been mainly before state regulators. In California, Louisiana and Virginia, utilitieshave sought to cut what they claim are unfairly high payments they are required to make to owners of homes or larger buildings with solar systems. 

At issue in an Iowa lawsuit is whether solar-system marketers can sell electricity in territories where localutilities have exclusive rights to customers. Such an arrangement isn’t allowed or is under dispute in many states, limiting solar firms to sales of panels to homeowners and businesses. 

But if they win in Iowa, it could pave the way for fledgling solar industries to expand in other states. The case is being watched closely elsewhere in the Midwest, where policies granting utilities a monopoly on electricity service are one reason a solar-construction boom hasn’t occurred, unlike in states such as California and NewJersey. 

Utilities “are proponents of renewable energy,” said Barry Shear, president of Iowa’s Eagle Point Solar LLC, but only “if they own the energy assets and the electrons flow through their grid and they can bill you.” 

In March, an Iowa District Court judge said Mr. Shear’s 18-employee company could sign power-purchase contracts in the Dubuque territory of Alliant Energy Corp., one of the state’s largest utilities. Under the disputed deal, Eagle Point would own solar panels on the roof of a Dubuque municipal building and sell powerto the city at a rate similar to Alliant’s. 

The disputed Dubuque deal employed a “third party” ownership arrangement, in which a rooftop solar system is owned by someone other than the property owner. Solar deals using that structure are growing inpopularity — for both residential and commercial properties — because they allow building landlords or homeowners to tap into solar power without a significant upfront investment. 

Judge Carla T. Schemmel, overturning an Iowa Utilities Board decision, said Eagle Point could sell solarelectricity to the city without encroaching on a utility‘s lawful turf. She noted that the city would still need to buy electricity from Alliant when the sun isn’t shining. “Eagle Point is neither attempting to replace [the utilitynor] sever the link between [the utility] and the city,” she wrote. “It is simply allowing the city to decrease its demand for electricity from the grid.” 

Alliant says the ruling contradicts Iowa’s policy of not allowing competition for electricity service. “They were going to be selling energy to one of our customers,” said Kim King, manager of the renewable-energy program at Alliant, in an interview.The ruling was a defeat for Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s MidAmerican Energy Co. unit as well. MidAmerican, another Iowa utility that had sided with Alliant in the case, told the judge in January that if the utilities lost, it could lead to “a proliferation of solar installation in the state.”Alliant and MidAmerican are appealing to the state Supreme Court. They say their problem isn’t with solarplants — each utility already connects to about 100 small-scale renewable-energy systems. Instead, they say they have a problem with the way the deal between Eagle Point and Dubuque was arranged. “This is not a dispute about solar energy. This is about a disagreement in the requirements under Iowa law,” said Tina Potthoff, a MidAmerican spokeswoman, in an email. 

MidAmerican said in May that it may be capable of generating about 39% of its electricity from wind farms by 2016, making it one of several utilities with large renewable-energy portfolios. 

But many of those same utilities have objected to policies they say are too friendly to small-scale renewable-energy generation. NextEra Energy Inc. says it generates more electricity from the wind and sun than any other U.S. company. But its Florida Power & Light unit opposes allowing solar-system marketers to sell electricity to the unit’s Florida customers. A spokesman for FP&L said the utility doesn’t oppose solar, but Florida law doesn’t allow “third party” sales. 

In Wisconsin, the question of whether solar-panel marketers can sell power in another utility‘s service territory is likely to be tested this year, said Michael Vickerman, program and policy director for Renew Wisconsin, a group that advocates use of solar power in that state. “If the utility objects, we may go down the same route that we saw in Iowa,” he said.


Proposed Madison Biodigester Could Make the City a Pioneer in Renewable Energy Production

by | Jun 25, 2013 | Uncategorized

Madison recycling coordinator George Dreckmann’s $20 million dollar proposal for a city-run biodigester and corresponding household organic refuse collection program could offer educational opportunities and ultimately reduce city landfill expenditures. Read Pat Schneider’s Capital Times article below to learn more. 

By Pat Schneider

Melon rinds, chicken bones, even pizza delivery boxes: Three years from now Madison residents could be putting them all curbside in a third household bin for collection and transfer to a city-run biodigester where they would be converted into biogas and compost.

That’s if the City Council approves $20 million — and the “yuck” factor doesn’t kill city recycling coordinator George Dreckmann’s proposal.

Dreckmann included expenditures for a citywide organic waste composting program — including construction of a biodigester — in a 2014 capital budget proposal sent Friday to Mayor Paul Soglin.

 If the funding is approved and the digester is built on the proposed schedule, Madison would be among the first U.S. cities to run its own digester for residential organic waste, Dreckmann said.

[READ MORE]

The New York Times Highlights MREA Fair Innovations and History

by | Jun 20, 2013 | Uncategorized

Michael Torttorello offers an informative and exciting overview of the MREA Fair’s history and the passionate participants who make it possible.
By Michael Tortorello
At 9 o’clock Friday morning, some 20,000 people will start arriving at a
vast field in Custer, Wis., to talk about wind power. No joke. Get
this: Thousands of souls have been coming here every summer for 23 years
to talk — really talk — about wind power. 
Here is the Energy Fair,
a three-day convergence of homesteaders, hippies, ecotopians and more
than a few end-times enthusiasts, staged by the Midwest Renewable Energy
Association. Beyond the lecture titled “MacGyver Windmills” (that is,
devices fabricated from junk), a $15 day pass gets you admission to 200
other workshops. Would you like to learn about home algae cultivation
and humane rabbit husbandry (for meat and wool)? How about advanced
photovoltaic systems and D.I.Y. biodiesel? 

The overarching theme is what marketers call “sustainable living,” and
these days it hardly qualifies as a kooky pursuit. Many of the fair’s
longtime commercial exhibitors, manufacturers of solar-energy technology
or rainwater harvesting kits, could now find a home at the Home Depot.

 [READ MORE]

Will Wisconsin Ever Let the Sunshine In?

by | Jun 19, 2013 | Uncategorized

A commentary
by Michael Vickerman, Director, Policy and Programs, RENEW Wisconsin

Once
dismissed by electric utilities as a boutique energy resource, solar power has
become the go-to renewable resource for a wide variety of electricity
customers. From data centers to department stores, from airports to auto
dealerships, more and more customers around the country are tapping into this
clean and quiet energy source that shines on their rooftops every day.
Nationally,
solar energy’s growth has been nothing short of phenomenal. In the first
quarter of 2013, solar energy accounted for nearly half (49%) of the new
generating capacity built, elbowing out wind and natural gas as the fastest-growing
energy source in the United States. Declining installation costs coupled with
easier access to third-party owned systems account for solar’s rapid
advancement, especially in the residential sector. Even utilities in select
states have begun diversifying their resource mix with large solar arrays.
For-profit
businesses and homeowners in all 50 states can take advantage of the 30%
federal investment tax credit in place through 2016. However, not all 50 states
have flourishing solar markets. This is true even in states where electric
rates are high enough to tempt homeowners and businesses to supply themselves
with energy from the sun. Unfortunately, Wisconsin happens to be one of those
states with a languishing solar market, though it wasn’t always that way.  
Five years
ago, Wisconsin was a regional leader in encouraging customer investments in
rooftop solar. Early adopters then could avail themselves of special solar
buyback rates which most electric providers offered on a limited basis. For customers
of utilities that did not offer these higher rates, a fair and transparent net
metering service was available. The state’s Focus on Energy program contributed
significantly to solar’s early success with grants and incentives that
supported start-up installation contractors. In fact, that program instilled
them with confidence that Wisconsin was a solid place to do business.  
Fast forward
to today, and you see a very different market environment for solar energy
here.  Attractive buyback rates in
Wisconsin have become a distant memory. Some utilities have restructured their
net metering service to make self-generation substantially less appealing to
customers. And while state incentives for solar installations are still
available, the flow of dollars has been reduced to a modest trickle. Solar
contractors, like the rest of Wisconsin’s renewable energy business community,
cope with the hard times by pursuing work opportunities in neighboring states
like Iowa and Minnesota.
The
installed costs of solar today are about half of what they were in 2008, while
the price of utility-supplied electricity continues to move higher. Given the
fact that solar’s return on investment to customers has never been higher, the
attitudinal about-face we’re seeing is as inexplicable as it is
counterproductive.
While
Wisconsin raises the proverbial drawbridge to protect utilities from solar’s
advances, the state of Minnesota, in stark contrast, has rolled out the welcome
mat to this emerging industry. Just one month ago, Minnesota became the first
state in the Upper Midwest to establish a solar electric standard. By 2020, the
state’s largest utilities will need to source 1.5% of the electricity they sell
at retail from solar generation systems. 
Through the
same law, Minnesota strengthened its net metering policy, and required Xcel
Energy, the state’s largest utility, to provide a community solar service to
its customers. This innovative provision will enable Xcel customers who can’t
host a solar system on their premises to invest in a nearby installation and
receive a modest return through their monthly bills.  
What does
Minnesota hope to achieve by adopting such an aggressive solar energy policy?
The list of
objectives is long:
Ø  Promote manufacturing and contracting
opportunities for solar energy and “green” construction firms;
Ø  Expand employment opportunities
for the state’s work force;
Ø  Enhance the ability of business
and residential customers to manage their electricity costs;
Ø  Modernize the state’s electrical
infrastructure and diversify its resource mix;
Ø  Attract private investment
capital into its energy sector from both in-state and out-of-state sources;
Ø  Minimize exposure to fuel price
volatility, especially during on-peak hours;
Ø  Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
associated with electricity generation;
Ø  Reduce imports of fossil fuel;
and
Ø  Promote the state as a
destination location for clean–tech companies. 
Ironically,
the ingredients are now in place for an instructive side-by-side study on the
value of state policy in advancing solar energy, with Minnesota serving as the
test case and Wisconsin serving as the control. In terms of both solar resource
and utility regulatory structure, the two states are very similar to each
other.  And, with each state having about
14 megawatts of installed solar capacity, both share the same baseline from
which to measure progress.
Indeed, the
only significant difference going forward is state energy policy. In Minnesota,
solar is subject to a state mandate that is projected to increase current
capacity, in seven short years, by a factor of 30. In adjoining Wisconsin,
solar operates within a policy vacuum. 
This raises
the question, what do we gain from participating in an experiment in which
Minnesota reaps all the economic and environmental benefits from its solar
investments while we get to send more dollars out of state for fuel
to feed 40-year-old power plants?
The fact is
that Wisconsin cannot afford to stand idly by while Minnesota plugs itself squarely
into a dynamic industry segment and exerts a gravitational pull on private
investment and start-up companies in the region. It’s no secret that Wisconsin
has struggled to find its economic bearings in the wake of the Great Recession.
In contrast, clean energy has provided a great lift in other states that had
the foresight to sow the marketplace with some well-thought and welcoming
policy seeds.
In a popular
two-part Simpsons episode, the diabolical Montgomery Burns builds a
giant disc to block the sun’s rays from reaching Springfield, forcing city
residents to become even more reliant on the power plant he owns. Though
clearly cartoon satire, those of us who are 
watching the ongoing retreat from solar energy know that if Wisconsin
has any chance of capturing at least its proportional share of an industry that
yielded $11.5 billion in new projects in 2012, it has to ditch the Mr. Burns
act and begin designing a policy to let the sunshine in.

The 24th Annual Midwest Renewable Energy Fair is this Weekend!

by | Jun 18, 2013 | Uncategorized

The 24th Annual Energy Fair is next week!
We have some highlights we wanted to share with you – and let you know
that we have a few remaining exhibitor booths left, so if you wanted
to exhibit, there’s still time to sign up! Just contact Ellie Jackson as
soon as you can at 715-592-6595 ext. 115 or elliej@midwestrenew.org
This year’s highlights include:
  1. Keynote speakers Danny Kennedy of Sungevity and Josh Fox, director of the Academy Award nominated documentary GASLAND  – https://www.midwestrenew.org/fairkeynotes 
  2. The second annual Seeing RED presentation on Sunday where a 2kW PV system will be given away to one of four nonprofit finalists – http://www.seeingred.org/ 
  3. A Solar Powering Your Community track on Friday
    featuring sessions on financing, solar market trends, an overview of
    the changes happening in Minnesota, presenters from Wisconsin’s Energy
    Independent Communities, and more!
  4. Solar Professionals Workshops with Schletter, Caleffi, North Wind Renewable Energy, Quick Mount PV,  tenKsolar and more! 
  5. Extended workshops such as EV and Solar Charging and Successful Solar Business 
  6. A second stage (built by MREA’s very own Mike White and Nick Hylla) so there will be even more entertainment – https://www.midwestrenew.org/fairentertainment 
The program guide is now online so you can check it out before next week https://www.midwestrenew.org/programguide 
And finally, here is a link to our promotional video for this year’s Fair http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1WwAy-xlYY 
We hope to see you there!

Please show your support for Clean Energy Choice

by | Jun 17, 2013 | Uncategorized

RENEW Wisconsin, Clean Wisconsin, and the
Sierra Club are pushing for the State of Wisconsin to adopt “a policy
expressly allowing customers to enter into contracts with third parties
who install, own and operate a renewable energy system at the customer’s
premises.” This initiative is called “Clean Energy Choice” and is one
way to greatly expand solar energy installation in Wisconsin. 


The Eau Claire County Board, under the leadership of
Chairman Gregg Moore, is considering a resolution in support of Clean
Energy Choice in Wisconsin on Tuesday, June 18 at 7:00PM in the County
Boardroom.

 Later this summer, a similar resolution will go in front of the Eau
Claire City Council. La Crosse County and Dane County have already
passed resolutions, and if enough municipalities do so the State of
Wisconsin will hopefully be compelled to act.  Please use the Clean Energy Choice talking points below to guide you when you contact your county supervisor before Tuesday:

RENEW’s “Clean Energy Choice” Initiative  

Talking Points

Wisconsin must adopt a policy
expressly allowing customers to enter into contracts with third parties who install, own and operate a renewable
energy system at the customer’s premises.
  •  Current ambiguities in public
    utility law interfere with customers’ ability to access clean energy produced
    on their premises.     Clean Energy Choice
    affirms
    their right to decide how they wish to purchase or implement a renewable energy
    system for their site.

  •   Because the third party
    owner provides the up-front capital under this arrangement, this policy will
    greatly expand the number of energy users who can afford to host wind, solar or
    biogas systems serving their homes or businesses.

  •  In contrast to standard
    utility electric service, purchasing energy directly from a renewable energy
    system enables households and businesses to lock in predetermined prices for 10
    years or longer.

  •   In contrast to renewable
    energy purchased from utilities through their green power programs, the price
    of energy from a third-party owned renewable energy system does not increase or
    decrease as a result of short-term fluctuations in the cost of conventional
    energy.

  •  Clean Energy Choice will enable nonprofit
    entities to team up with for-profit companies that can take full advantage of
    federal tax incentives, such as the 30% Investment Tax Credit and accelerated
    depreciation.

  •  Earlier this year, the
    U.S. military solicited bids from businesses and developers to supply its bases
    and facilities with renewable energy produced by third parties on-site. The
    total amount of the pending solicitation is $7 billion. Unfortunately, without
    a Clean
    Energy Choice     policy in place, there were no bids from companies to
    install renewables in Wisconsin.

  • Energy from a third
    party-owned system either flows to the customer directly, offsetting
    consumption, or is sold to the utility under an approved tariff. The rate
    impact from these installations would be negligible.

  • Clean Energy Choice would help households
    and businesses overcome the diminishing supply of renewable energy incentive
    dollars available from Wisconsin’s Focus on Energy program and utilities at no extra cost to ratepayers and taxpayers.

  • Clean Energy Choice will greatly expand market
    opportunities for Wisconsin companies and their employees who are part of the
    state’s renewable energy supply chain. For example, there are an estimated 135
    companies in Wisconsin participating in the solar market, including Helios,
    Ingeteam, and Caleffi, three Milwaukee-based manufacturers.


Also, please consider attending the Eau Claire
County Board meeting on Tuesday, June 18 at 7:00PM in the County
Boardroom, 1st Floor Courthouse, Room 1277, 721 Oxford Ave., Eau Claire,
WI. Members of the public may speak at the very beginning of the
meeting for up to 5 minutes each.