If passed bythe state Legislature, the proposed Clean Energy Jobs Act would increase theamount of electricity to be generated by renewable energy, change buildingcodes, implement new energy standards for appliances and cars sold in thestate, revise the state’s requirements for new nuclear power plants, andrequire the state Department of Transportation (DOT) to consider greenhouse gasemissions 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 sourcesby 2025 and encourage businesses and residents to conserve energy and increaseenergy efficiency measures.
Taken together,the bill’s provisions would cut the state’s greenhouse gas emissions 22% by2022 and 75% by 2050.
The billwill be introduced in the state Legislature after the winter break, andsupporters would like to deliver it to the governor’s desk by April 22, 2010,the 40th anniversary of Earth Day.
NoMore Coal Plants
Rep. SpencerBlack (D-Madison), who supports the bill, said that the state’s overalleconomic health would improve if our reliance on fossil fuels sourced fromother states and countries is lessened.
“Wisconsin has no oilwells, no coal mines, no gas fields,” Black said. “That means $20 billion ayear leaves the state economy to purchase fuels from other states and nations.That’s the biggest single commodity drain on the state economy.”
To increaseinvestment in the state, the bill requires at least 40% of the utilities’renewable energy sources to be generated within Wisconsinfor example, from solar, wind orbiomass.
“Bydiversifying our sources of energy and not relying on fossil fuels, which aregoing to be increasingly expensive, and as laws and treaties increase the costof carbon-intensive fuels, it’s smart for us economically to invest” inrenewable energy sources in Wisconsin, Black said. “I think energy is going tocost more in the future, but I think this will keep those cost increases downover the long term.”
Black saidthat the conservation and energy efficiency requirements would hold back energyconsumption and eliminate the need to build a new coal-fired power plant, likeWe Energies’ $2.3 billion plant in Oak Creek, or a new nuclear power plant.
“If we aregenerating 25% of our energy from renewable sources, and we’re also investingin 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 greenenergy is “where their business is going.” He said the new requirements wouldincrease the pressure on utilities to build next-generation sources ofpowerand create more jobs in green technology.
But the billisn’t without its detractors in the business community, even though members ofthe task force included corporationssuch as General Motors, SC Johnson,General Electric and Johnson Controlsand utilities such as We Energies andMadison Gas & Electric.
WisconsinManufacturers & Commerce (WMC) called the bill a “lose-lose for Wisconsin jobs and consumers.” The group opposes alow-carbon fuel standard, which it says would make gasspecifically, gas fromCanadian crude oilmore expensive in the state. The WMC argues that theproposed fuel standard would result in large job losses for corporations thatare tied to the industryincluding Bucyrus International, Manitowoc Co. andRockwell Automation.
NuclearPlant Requirements and More Biomass
In additionto increasing the use of clean energy sources to generate electricity, the billwould also:
- Change the requirements for building a newnuclear power plant. Currently, the state’s nuclear moratorium only appliesto utility-owned power plants. The new rules also would apply to nuclear plantsowned by private corporations. Instead of requiring that a federal disposalsite be licensed before another nuclear plant can be built, it would require anew plant to have a plan to manage the radioactive waste. A proposed nuclearplant would have to be determined to be more economical than other types ofpower plantswhile including the cost of decommissioning the plant, anexpensive process. And the energy generated would have to meet the needs of Wisconsin consumers, not consumers in other states.
While manyenvironmentalists have criticized the changes as weakening the state’smoratorium, Black said that once efficiency and conservation efforts areimplemented, the state wouldn’t need a new power plantnuclear or coal.
- Increases fuel efficiency standards. Cars and light vehicles sold in the statewould have to meet California’sstrict emission standards.
- Changes the state DOT’s planning process. The DOT must consider the greenhouse gasemissions created by proposed transportation projects. That means the emissionsresulting from freeway projects would have to be compared to those resultingfrom rail or other alternatives. Plus, the DOT would have to incorporategreenhouse gas emissions in its long-range planning.
- Sets higher energy efficiency standards. Increased energy conservation measures wouldbe required for commercial buildings and one- and two-family homes. A new,voluntary green building code would be created. California energy-efficiency standards wouldbe placed on appliances such as CD and DVD players and TVs.
- Encourages biomass production. The state would subsidize the establishmentand production of biomass cropssuch as switchgrass, fast-growing trees orprairie grassand biomass sources from private forestland.
