The bill, currently being debated in the stateLegislature, seeks to reduce energy consumption in the state and increase theuse of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power. In turn, thiswould reduce the state's dependency on carbon-emitting fuels and their escalatingcosts. Building on current, more modest goals, the bill would increase thestate's renewable energy requirements from 10% to 25% by 2025, and 40% of thatrenewable 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 savejobs and keep money circulating within the state. An estimated $16 billion isspent by Wisconsinites on fossil fuels imported from other states andcountries. Black says Big Oil is funding think tanks and front groups to sowdoubt about the causes of climate change and the need to invest in renewableenergy.
Yet critics like state Rep. Jim Ott (R-Mequon) claimthe bill is a “job killer” that will cost too much for state businesses. Ottalso says the science proving the issue isn't settled, despite a solid, growingbody of evidence and international consensus for the human impact on climatechange, and thinks the state shouldn't make investments based on thosescientific findings since they will have no impact on the weather or climate.
Fact-Checkingthe Claims
So docritics' claims hold up?
n Impact on jobs: The conservativeWisconsin Policy Research Institute and Beacon Hill Institute conducted a studythat concluded that up to 43,000 jobs would be lost if the bill was enacted.
Yet thestudy evaluated programs that aren't included in the bill.
“As aresult, the WPRI/Beacon Hill Institute study is of near zero value inevaluating the [bill's] utility sector policies,” Eric Callisto, chair of thenonpartisan Public Service Commission (PSC) of Wisconsin, wrote in a letter to legislators.
Morerecently, researchers from Michigan State Universityand the University of Southern Californiafound that more than 16,221 net new jobs would be created as a result of thelegislation. It would also increase the gross state product by $250 million in2015, by $710 million in 2020, and by $1.41 billion in 2025, the study'sauthors concluded.
n Energy rates will spike: Ott claims that the current 5% use ofrenewables has caused electricity rates to increase, and the 25% goal will“drive electric rates through the roof.”
He said herelies on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelfor his factsspecifically, a column by conservative businessman John Torinus,who wrote on Feb. 6 that “one estimate of the capital costs [of building cleanenergy plants] is $16 billion over the next 15 years, which is about equal tothe current investment in power generation in the state.”
In contrast,the PSC's analysis of the legislation showed it would have a beneficial impacton 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 wecontinue down a path that values old ideas before new, we are destined to spendratepayer dollars on infrastructure that is outdated before it is evenoperational,” Callisto wrote in his letter.
n Cost of building renewable-power facilities:Ott said that the cost ofwind farmsfor example, the $400 million We Energies' GlacierHills WindPark near Madisonis being passed along to ratepayersat the same time the state is consuming less energy.
Black saidthat cost is figured into any decision to build a new power plant, whether ituses clean sources or fossil fuels to generate power.
“The billhas a self-regulating mechanism, what's called an off-ramp [mechanism],” Blacksaid. “Any application of the [renewable] standard has to meet a cost-effectiverequirement under the billand under current law.”
Black saidanyone could object to a new facility because of its cost.
“But none ofthe groupsnot WMC, or ExxonMobil or the Republican Partyhas applied to thePSC 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 arenot allowed to draw power from the electric grid and are required to produceall their energy from their own renewable sources on site.”
Yet thenonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau explains that there is no such mandatein the bill, but rather a desired goal.
Page 146 ofthe bill reads: “It is the goal of this state that, by 2030, all newlyconstructed residential and commercial buildings are zero net energybuildings.”
n Investing in the state: Ott questioned why green energy requirementsare necessary for businesses, since the market would favor renewables if theywere cost-effective.
“Look at oneof the paper mills in Wisconsin,”Ott said. “If they have to pay more for the electricity that they use, does itreally matter if the money stays in Wisconsinor whether they're sending it out of state?”
Yet Blacksays the $16 billion spent in other states and countries should be invested in Wisconsin.
“Big oilcompanies have a lot to lose if we start using clean energy instead of theirproduct. And if we reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it's going to cost them,”Black said.
