by jboullion | Oct 26, 2012 | Uncategorized
Clean Energy Choice (sometimes called third-party ownership) allows a customer to get electricity from a third-party which installs and maintains a renewable energy system on the customer’s premises.
With Clean Energy Choice, customers don’t have to put any money upfront, the major barrier to installing renewables. The customer either buys the output directly from the third-party owner or pays to host the energy-producing equipment and uses the electricity without any further cost under a long-term contract.
From a presentation by Michael Vickerman, RENEW director of policy and program, at Solar Powering Your Community, October 11, 2012:
- No up-front capital required from host customers
- Allows nonprofit entities to partner w/ for-profit companies that can use the 30% federal tax credit
- Based on a successful model for delivering energy efficiency (performance-based contracts)
- Could lower energy costs for customers over the contract life
- Hugely successful in states that allow it (e.g., California and Colorado)
- It’s your premises, after all
by jboullion | Oct 26, 2012 | Uncategorized
From an article by Heidi Clausen in The Country Today:
EMERALD — In the center of Marvin Voeltz’s farmyard stands an old, rundown windmill.
Used decades ago by Voeltz’s grandparents for pumping water, the windmill reminds Voeltz of the role wind once played — and can still play — in powering farms and homes.
“Right there is proof they used wind,” he said. “What’s wrong with using wind now to produce electricity?”
Voeltz, a dairy farmer near Emerald, is one of more than a dozen landowners who have signed on to host one or more wind turbines for the Highland Wind Farm proposed by Emerging Energies of Wisconsin.
by jboullion | Oct 26, 2012 | Uncategorized
From an article by Heidi Clausen in The Country Today:
EMERALD — In the center of Marvin Voeltz’s farmyard stands an old, rundown windmill.
Used decades ago by Voeltz’s grandparents for pumping water, the windmill reminds Voeltz of the role wind once played — and can still play — in powering farms and homes.
“Right there is proof they used wind,” he said. “What’s wrong with using wind now to produce electricity?”
Voeltz, a dairy farmer near Emerald, is one of more than a dozen landowners who have signed on to host one or more wind turbines for the Highland Wind Farm proposed by Emerging Energies of Wisconsin.
by jboullion | Oct 26, 2012 | Uncategorized
From an article on ThinkProgress:
September was tied for the hottest of any September on record globally. It was also a very hot month for renewable energy in the U.S. According to figures from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, wind and solar accounted for all new electricity capacity added to America’s grid in September.
The projects consisted of five wind farms totaling 300 megawatts and 18 solar installations totaling 133 megawatts.
by Ed Blume | Oct 26, 2012 | Uncategorized
From an article on ThinkProgress:
September was tied for the hottest of any September on record globally. It was also a very hot month for renewable energy in the U.S. According to figures from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, wind and solar accounted for all new electricity capacity added to America’s grid in September.
The projects consisted of five wind farms totaling 300 megawatts and 18 solar installations totaling 133 megawatts.
by jboullion | Oct 17, 2012 | Uncategorized
Dear Editor: The Biz Beat article
“Wisconsin slips down in energy-efficiency ranking,” published Oct. 6, reveals how Wisconsin has lost its one-time leadership position for policies and programs to achieve greater energy efficiency according to annual rankings performed by my organization, the American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy (ACEEE). We are pleased to see this issue raised in Wisconsin.
The article contains one statement, however, that is incorrect. A spokeswoman for the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Kristin Ruesch, states that our group (ACEEE) did not look at “achievements” but “spending alone.” Our State Scorecard, in fact, assesses and includes scores both for program spending and savings (achievements). We agree with the PSC that cost-effectiveness and savings impacts are important attributes of programs like Focus on Energy. It is precisely because of the demonstrated cost-effectiveness of Focus on Energy ($2.30 in economic benefits for every program dollar spent) that we believe higher levels of investments in this clean, low-cost energy resource are justified. The PSC reached the same conclusion in its 2010 review of the program, which led to its recommendation to greatly increase funding and associated energy savings goals for Focus on Energy.
Our neighboring states rank higher than Wisconsin because they continue to push for higher energy savings through increased investments in energy efficiency. Wisconsin, by contrast, is standing still and by doing so, is getting left behind. Energy efficiency saves customers money, protects the environment and creates jobs here in Wisconsin. We encourage Wisconsin’s policymakers to take actions to put Wisconsin back in a leadership position for creating a green energy economy for the 21st century.
Dan York, Ph.D., Utilities Program director, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
by jboullion | Oct 17, 2012 | Uncategorized
Dear Editor: The Biz Beat article
“Wisconsin slips down in energy-efficiency ranking,” published Oct. 6, reveals how Wisconsin has lost its one-time leadership position for policies and programs to achieve greater energy efficiency according to annual rankings performed by my organization, the American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy (ACEEE). We are pleased to see this issue raised in Wisconsin.
The article contains one statement, however, that is incorrect. A spokeswoman for the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Kristin Ruesch, states that our group (ACEEE) did not look at “achievements” but “spending alone.” Our State Scorecard, in fact, assesses and includes scores both for program spending and savings (achievements). We agree with the PSC that cost-effectiveness and savings impacts are important attributes of programs like Focus on Energy. It is precisely because of the demonstrated cost-effectiveness of Focus on Energy ($2.30 in economic benefits for every program dollar spent) that we believe higher levels of investments in this clean, low-cost energy resource are justified. The PSC reached the same conclusion in its 2010 review of the program, which led to its recommendation to greatly increase funding and associated energy savings goals for Focus on Energy.
Our neighboring states rank higher than Wisconsin because they continue to push for higher energy savings through increased investments in energy efficiency. Wisconsin, by contrast, is standing still and by doing so, is getting left behind. Energy efficiency saves customers money, protects the environment and creates jobs here in Wisconsin. We encourage Wisconsin’s policymakers to take actions to put Wisconsin back in a leadership position for creating a green energy economy for the 21st century.
Dan York, Ph.D., Utilities Program director, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
by jboullion | Oct 17, 2012 | Uncategorized
Dear Editor: The Biz Beat article
“Wisconsin slips down in energy-efficiency ranking,” published Oct. 6, reveals how Wisconsin has lost its one-time leadership position for policies and programs to achieve greater energy efficiency according to annual rankings performed by my organization, the American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy (ACEEE). We are pleased to see this issue raised in Wisconsin.
The article contains one statement, however, that is incorrect. A spokeswoman for the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Kristin Ruesch, states that our group (ACEEE) did not look at “achievements” but “spending alone.” Our State Scorecard, in fact, assesses and includes scores both for program spending and savings (achievements). We agree with the PSC that cost-effectiveness and savings impacts are important attributes of programs like Focus on Energy. It is precisely because of the demonstrated cost-effectiveness of Focus on Energy ($2.30 in economic benefits for every program dollar spent) that we believe higher levels of investments in this clean, low-cost energy resource are justified. The PSC reached the same conclusion in its 2010 review of the program, which led to its recommendation to greatly increase funding and associated energy savings goals for Focus on Energy.
Our neighboring states rank higher than Wisconsin because they continue to push for higher energy savings through increased investments in energy efficiency. Wisconsin, by contrast, is standing still and by doing so, is getting left behind. Energy efficiency saves customers money, protects the environment and creates jobs here in Wisconsin. We encourage Wisconsin’s policymakers to take actions to put Wisconsin back in a leadership position for creating a green energy economy for the 21st century.
Dan York, Ph.D., Utilities Program director, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
by Ed Blume | Oct 17, 2012 | Uncategorized
A letter to the editor from Dan York, with a correction to the original article “Wisconsin slips down in energy-efficiency ranking.“. It’s worth reading the original, and the correction is listed below:
Dear Editor: The Biz Beat article “Wisconsin slips down in energy-efficiency ranking,” published Oct. 6, reveals how Wisconsin has lost its one-time leadership position for policies and programs to achieve greater energy efficiency according to annual rankings performed by my organization, the American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy (ACEEE). We are pleased to see this issue raised in Wisconsin.
The article contains one statement, however, that is incorrect. A spokeswoman for the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Kristin Ruesch, states that our group (ACEEE) did not look at “achievements” but “spending alone.” Our State Scorecard, in fact, assesses and includes scores both for program spending and savings (achievements). We agree with the PSC that cost-effectiveness and savings impacts are important attributes of programs like Focus on Energy. It is precisely because of the demonstrated cost-effectiveness of Focus on Energy ($2.30 in economic benefits for every program dollar spent) that we believe higher levels of investments in this clean, low-cost energy resource are justified. The PSC reached the same conclusion in its 2010 review of the program, which led to its recommendation to greatly increase funding and associated energy savings goals for Focus on Energy.
Our neighboring states rank higher than Wisconsin because they continue to push for higher energy savings through increased investments in energy efficiency. Wisconsin, by contrast, is standing still and by doing so, is getting left behind. Energy efficiency saves customers money, protects the environment and creates jobs here in Wisconsin. We encourage Wisconsin’s policymakers to take actions to put Wisconsin back in a leadership position for creating a green energy economy for the 21st century.
Dan York, Ph.D., Utilities Program director, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
by jboullion | Oct 17, 2012 | Uncategorized
Dear Editor: The Biz Beat article
“Wisconsin slips down in energy-efficiency ranking,” published Oct. 6, reveals how Wisconsin has lost its one-time leadership position for policies and programs to achieve greater energy efficiency according to annual rankings performed by my organization, the American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy (ACEEE). We are pleased to see this issue raised in Wisconsin.
The article contains one statement, however, that is incorrect. A spokeswoman for the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Kristin Ruesch, states that our group (ACEEE) did not look at “achievements” but “spending alone.” Our State Scorecard, in fact, assesses and includes scores both for program spending and savings (achievements). We agree with the PSC that cost-effectiveness and savings impacts are important attributes of programs like Focus on Energy. It is precisely because of the demonstrated cost-effectiveness of Focus on Energy ($2.30 in economic benefits for every program dollar spent) that we believe higher levels of investments in this clean, low-cost energy resource are justified. The PSC reached the same conclusion in its 2010 review of the program, which led to its recommendation to greatly increase funding and associated energy savings goals for Focus on Energy.
Our neighboring states rank higher than Wisconsin because they continue to push for higher energy savings through increased investments in energy efficiency. Wisconsin, by contrast, is standing still and by doing so, is getting left behind. Energy efficiency saves customers money, protects the environment and creates jobs here in Wisconsin. We encourage Wisconsin’s policymakers to take actions to put Wisconsin back in a leadership position for creating a green energy economy for the 21st century.
Dan York, Ph.D., Utilities Program director, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
