If passed by the state Legislature, the proposed Clean Energy Jobs Act would increase the amount of electricity to be generated by renewable energy, change building codes, implement new energy standards for appliances and cars sold in the state, revise the state’s requirements for new nuclear power plants, and require the state Department of Transportation (DOT) to consider greenhouse gas emissions when planning a new transportation project.
The bill, built on recommendations from the Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming, would require 25% of the state’s energy to be produced from renewable sources by 2025 and encourage businesses and residents to conserve energy and increase energy efficiency measures.
Taken together, the bill’s provisions would cut the state’s greenhouse gas emissions 22% by 2022 and 75% by 2050.
The bill will be introduced in the state Legislature after the winter break, and supporters would like to deliver it to the governor’s desk by April 22, 2010, the 40th anniversary of Earth Day.
No More Coal Plants
Rep. Spencer Black (D-Madison), who supports the bill, said that the state’s overall economic health would improve if our reliance on fossil fuels sourced from other states and countries is lessened.
“Wisconsin has no oil wells, no coal mines, no gas fields,” Black said. “That means $20 billion a year leaves the state economy to purchase fuels from other states and nations. That’s the biggest single commodity drain on the state economy.”
To increase investment in the state, the bill requires at least 40% of the utilities’ renewable energy sources to be generated within Wisconsin—for example, from solar, wind or biomass.
“By diversifying our sources of energy and not relying on fossil fuels, which are going to be increasingly expensive, and as laws and treaties increase the cost of carbon-intensive fuels, it’s smart for us economically to invest” in renewable energy sources in Wisconsin, Black said. “I think energy is going to cost more in the future, but I think this will keep those cost increases down over the long term.”
Black said that the conservation and energy efficiency requirements would hold back energy consumption and eliminate the need to build a new coal-fired power plant, like We Energies’ $2.3 billion plant in Oak Creek, or a new nuclear power plant.
“If we are generating 25% of our energy from renewable sources, and we’re also investing in efficiency and conservation, we’re not going to need any new power plants, whether they rely on fossil fuels or nuclear power,” Black said.
Thad Nation, executive director of the business coalition Clean, Responsible Energy for Wisconsin’s Economy (CREWE), said that utilities such as We Energies support the bill because green energy is “where their business is going.” He said the new requirements would increase the pressure on utilities to build next-generation sources of power—and create more jobs in green technology.
But the bill isn’t without its detractors in the business community, even though members of the task force included corporations—such as General Motors, SC Johnson, General Electric and Johnson Controls—and utilities such as We Energies and Madison Gas & Electric.
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC) called the bill a “lose-lose for Wisconsin jobs and consumers.” The group opposes a low-carbon fuel standard, which it says would make gas—specifically, gas from Canadian crude oil—more expensive in the state. The WMC argues that the proposed fuel standard would result in large job losses for corporations that are tied to the industry—including Bucyrus International, Manitowoc Co. and Rockwell Automation.
Nuclear Plant Requirements and More Biomass
In addition to increasing the use of clean energy sources to generate electricity, the bill would also:
- Change the requirements for building a new nuclear power plant. Currently, the state’s nuclear moratorium only applies to utility-owned power plants. The new rules also would apply to nuclear plants owned by private corporations. Instead of requiring that a federal disposal site be licensed before another nuclear plant can be built, it would require a new plant to have a plan to manage the radioactive waste. A proposed nuclear plant would have to be determined to be more economical than other types of power plants—while including the cost of decommissioning the plant, an expensive process. And the energy generated would have to meet the needs of Wisconsin consumers, not consumers in other states.
While many environmentalists have criticized the changes as weakening the state’s moratorium, Black said that once efficiency and conservation efforts are implemented, the state wouldn’t need a new power plant—nuclear or coal.
- Increases fuel efficiency standards. Cars and light vehicles sold in the state would have to meet California’s strict emission standards.
- Changes the state DOT’s planning process. The DOT must consider the greenhouse gas emissions created by proposed transportation projects. That means the emissions resulting from freeway projects would have to be compared to those resulting from rail or other alternatives. Plus, the DOT would have to incorporate greenhouse gas emissions in its long-range planning.
- Sets higher energy efficiency standards. Increased energy conservation measures would be required for commercial buildings and one- and two-family homes. A new, voluntary green building code would be created. California energy-efficiency standards would be placed on appliances such as CD and DVD players and TVs.
- Encourages biomass production. The state would subsidize the establishment and production of biomass crops—such as switchgrass, fast-growing trees or prairie grass—and biomass sources from private forestland.
anonymous
