The resolution takesaim at WeEnergies’ proposal to make solar and other renewable energy sources moreexpensive so that they don’t become a threat to their monopoly.
(Of course, WeEnergies could also invest heavily in solar, something that former EnergySecretary and Nobel Prize winner Steven Chu is advocating that utilities do tocreate a new, sustainable business model. He's taking an if you can't beat them, join them approach to renewable energy.)
Zielinski and Murphywant the city to go on record as being in opposition to We Energies’ proposal,currently before the three-member state Public Service Commission.
They also want Gov.Scott Walker to speak out against the proposal and use his influence with thetwo PSC members he’s nominated.
He should.
We Energies’ proposedrate hike for renewables is shockingly punitive.
And if you think itonly affects people with solar panels on their rooftops, think again.
The city ofMilwaukee, other municipalities, big and small corporations, nonprofits,churches and MMSD have invested in solar and wind and they’d have to pay ahefty rate hike to We Energies, a regulated monopoly.
And do you thinkthese governments, nonprofits and businesses would just eat the costs?
Nope. They’ll passthem along to taxpayers and customers.
And that can onlydamage our economy.
So that’s why youshould care, even if you don’t own a solar panel and never want to.
The city has provideda fact sheet on the We Energies’ case here.
But a great summarycan be found in the resolution itself:
ALD. ZIELINSKI ANDMURPHY
Resolution relatingto changes in electric rates proposed by We Energies.
This resolutionexpresses the City’s concern that We Energies’ 2015/16 rate proposal will causesignificant environmental and economic damage to the state by discouraging the developmentof alternative, renewable sources of electricity generation and perpetuatingWisconsin’s unhealthy dependence on fossil fuels.
The resolution furthercalls upon Governor Scott Walker to publicly express his opposition to We Energies’2015/16 rate proposal on the grounds the proposal is environmentally irresponsible,represses healthy competition in the electricity generation sector and damagesWisconsin’s economy by eliminating valuable jobs.
Whereas, Solar-poweredenergy generation shows signs of renewed vitality as evidenced by the fact anew solar power facility was installed every 4 minutes in the United Statesduring 2013; and
Whereas, The number ofsolar power projects is expected to increase 30-fold between 2010 and 2016 as aresult of falling prices and improved technology to the point that by 2016 roof-topsolar panels may provide 1/3 of the electricity generated by today’s nuclearpower plants; and
Whereas, We Energies hassignaled its disregard and disdain for the development of solar power and otheralternative, renewable sources of electrical power by eliminating funding in 2011for a program that encouraged development of solar projects by churches andnonprofit organizations, and has allowed other solar incentives to lapse andsignificantly scaled back Focus on Energy program incentives; and
Whereas, Otherstates, including Arizona and New Jersey, have reduced the barriers of entryand made it easier for customers to supplement their electrical power needswith solar-power by allowing customers to lease solar panels rather buying themoutright, and a bill allowing such lease programs is expected to be introducedduring the 2015 session of the Wisconsin legislature; and
Whereas, We Energies’2015/16 rate proposal to specifically bar customers from leasing solar power systemswill hamper and slow the development of solar-power electricity generation; and
Whereas, We Energies’2015/16 rate proposal may be an effort to better align rates with actual electricitytransmission costs, the effect of increasing the flat rate 78% from $9 per monthto $16 while reducing per kilowatt use rates will be to lengthen the payback customerscan expect from investments in solar or other alternative, renewable electricitygeneration sources which will likely discourage customers from making such investments;and
Whereas, We Energies2015/16 rate proposed reduction in payback rates for electricity purchased bythe utility from customers who have invested in solar power or other alternativesources to generate their own electricity will repress competition and discouragedevelopment of alternatives to the utility’s fossil fuel-generated electricity;and
Whereas, We Energies 2015/16rate proposal reduces the rate the utility pays customers to buy backelectricity generated by customers through solar power or other alternativesources from 14 cents to 3-5 cents per kilowatt hour; and
Whereas, Thisproposed payback rate deduction reduces the savings to customers for usingalternative energy sources by 64% to 79%, effectively tripling or quadrupling paybackperiods for customer investments in alternative electric power generation and soacts as a disincentive for consumers to invest in alternative energy to reducereliance on fossil fuel energy sources; and
Whereas, We Energies’2015/16 rate proposal further burdens customers using alternative electricity generationsystems, lengthens investment payback and disincentivizes customers interestedin developing alternative electrical-power sources by imposing an additional “capacity”charge of $3.80 per kilowatt per month on customers alternative electricitygeneration system’s capacity; and
Whereas, We Energies’2015/16 rate proposal effectively “penalizes” Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District’senvironmentally and socially responsible efforts to generate electricity fromlandfill and sewage operations by imposing an $8.60/kW surcharge on this powergeneration; and
Whereas, The overall impactof We Energies’ 2015/16 rate proposal is to discourage and penalize customersfrom installing solar power or other alternative, renewable electricity generationsources to reduce society’s dependence on the fossil fuels used by We Energiesfor electricity generation; and
Whereas, We Energiesdiscouragement of the use of solar power and other alternative, renewable electricitygeneration sources to substitute for the nation’s unhealthy dependence onfossil fuels is not only environmentally and socially irresponsible, but threatensto seriously undermine Wisconsin’s solar and alternative fuels industry, force employeelayoffs and business closing, cost the state valuable jobs and damage a sluggishstate economy; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, By theCommon Council of the City of Milwaukee, that the City of Milwaukee expresses itsconcern that We Energies’ 2015/16 rate proposal before the Wisconsin PublicService Commission will cause significant environmental and economic damage to thestate by discouraging the development of alternative, renewable sources of electricitygeneration and perpetuating the state’s unhealthy dependence on fossil fuels; and,be it
Further Resolved, TheCity of Milwaukee calls upon Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker topublicly express hisopposition to We Energies’ 2015/16 rate proposal on the grounds that theproposal is environmentally irresponsible, represses healthy competition in theelectricity generation sector and damages Wisconsin’s economy by eliminatingvaluable jobs; and, be it
Further Resolved. TheCity calls upon Governor Walker to publicly urge the Public Service Commission todeny We Energies’ 2015/16 rate request, and to dispatch state administration representativesas appropriate to present the state’s interest in this matter before thecommission; and, be it
Further Resolved, Thatthe City Clerk shall forward copies of this resolution to Governor Scott Walkerand each of the commissioners serving on the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.
