The bill, currently being debated in the state Legislature, seeks to reduce energy consumption in the state and increase the use of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power. In turn, this would reduce the state’s dependency on carbon-emitting fuels and their escalating costs. Building on current, more modest goals, the bill would increase the state’s renewable energy requirements from 10% to 25% by 2025, and 40% of that renewable energy must be generated within the state.
Supporters like state Rep. Spencer Black (D-Madison) say setting goals and investing in locally produced renewable energy will save jobs and keep money circulating within the state. An estimated $16 billion is spent by Wisconsinites on fossil fuels imported from other states and countries. Black says Big Oil is funding think tanks and front groups to sow doubt about the causes of climate change and the need to invest in renewable energy.
Yet critics like state Rep. Jim Ott (R-Mequon) claim the bill is a “job killer” that will cost too much for state businesses. Ott also says the science proving the issue isn’t settled, despite a solid, growing body of evidence and international consensus for the human impact on climate change, and thinks the state shouldn’t make investments based on those scientific findings since they will have no impact on the weather or climate.
Fact-Checking the Claims
So do critics’ claims hold up?
n Impact on jobs: The conservative Wisconsin Policy Research Institute and Beacon Hill Institute conducted a study that concluded that up to 43,000 jobs would be lost if the bill was enacted.
Yet the study evaluated programs that aren’t included in the bill.
“As a result, the WPRI/Beacon Hill Institute study is of near zero value in evaluating the [bill’s] utility sector policies,” Eric Callisto, chair of the nonpartisan Public Service Commission (PSC) of Wisconsin, wrote in a letter to legislators.
More recently, researchers from Michigan State University and the University of Southern California found that more than 16,221 net new jobs would be created as a result of the legislation. It would also increase the gross state product by $250 million in 2015, by $710 million in 2020, and by $1.41 billion in 2025, the study’s authors concluded.
n Energy rates will spike: Ott claims that the current 5% use of renewables has caused electricity rates to increase, and the 25% goal will “drive electric rates through the roof.”
He said he relies on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for his facts—specifically, a column by conservative businessman John Torinus, who wrote on Feb. 6 that “one estimate of the capital costs [of building clean energy plants] is $16 billion over the next 15 years, which is about equal to the current investment in power generation in the state.”
In contrast, the PSC’s analysis of the legislation showed it would have a beneficial impact on electricity rates because of its emphasis on conservation and renewables. According to the PSC, by 2025, residential customers’ monthly bills would be $1.08 to $9.09 less than their monthly bills under the status quo.
“If we continue down a path that values old ideas before new, we are destined to spend ratepayer dollars on infrastructure that is outdated before it is even operational,” Callisto wrote in his letter.
n Cost of building renewable-power facilities: Ott said that the cost of wind farms—for example, the $400 million We Energies’ Glacier Hills Wind Park near Madison—is being passed along to ratepayers at the same time the state is consuming less energy.
Black said that cost is figured into any decision to build a new power plant, whether it uses clean sources or fossil fuels to generate power.
“The bill has a self-regulating mechanism, what’s called an off-ramp [mechanism],” Black said. “Any application of the [renewable] standard has to meet a cost-effective requirement under the bill—and under current law.”
Black said anyone could object to a new facility because of its cost.
“But none of the groups—not WMC, or ExxonMobil or the Republican Party—has applied to the PSC to ease the renewable standard because it costs too much,” Black said.
n Building codes: According to his Feb. 22 “Hot Air Report,” Ott argues that under the bill, “by 2030 new homes and commercial buildings are not allowed to draw power from the electric grid and are required to produce all their energy from their own renewable sources on site.”
Yet the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau explains that there is no such mandate in the bill, but rather a desired goal.
Page 146 of the bill reads: “It is the goal of this state that, by 2030, all newly constructed residential and commercial buildings are zero net energy buildings.”
n Investing in the state: Ott questioned why green energy requirements are necessary for businesses, since the market would favor renewables if they were cost-effective.
“Look at one of the paper mills in Wisconsin,” Ott said. “If they have to pay more for the electricity that they use, does it really matter if the money stays in Wisconsin or whether they’re sending it out of state?”
Yet Black says the $16 billion spent in other states and countries should be invested in Wisconsin.
“Big oil companies have a lot to lose if we start using clean energy instead of their product. And if we reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it’s going to cost them,” Black said.
*/?>
