Walker Legacy: ATC Transmission lines Importing Wind Energy!!!

Cap Times's Editor Dave Zweifel wrote an opinion today in opposition to ATC's plan for a transmission line connecting green wind energy in Iowa to Middleton, saying we don't need the extra power anymore. That's true, but he never brought up the fact that it was clean energy. Why? And when is Wisconsin supposed to transition to clean energy without first importing it?

To be clear, I hate ATC's above ground transmission lines. I've always thought policy should have at least dictated that in beautifully scenic areas, like parts of southwest Wisconsin, underground lines would be the only available option. But we've never had that state policy debate. Why?  

Is this also part of Scott Walker's legacy? Yes. Think about it; Walker ignored green energy production in Wisconsin for 8 years, and instead stuck with fossil fuels. Walker pushed frack sand mining of all things, because digging up Wisconsin's country side is preferable to transmission lines? 

Republican legislators delayed and "debated" the supposed horrors of green energy's "noise" and "destructive" use of valuable agricultural land for solar and wind. Taking a pass on our energy future, Republicans made Wisconsin dependent on other states, and they're loving it. There's a reason why we pay more for energy than most every other state in the country. 

So instead of shorter ATC transmission lines connecting us to Wisconsin's own wind or solar farms, making us more independent, we have to import it from Iowa with unsightly ATC transmission lines:

MISO, the Indiana-based Midcontinent Independent System Operator, has identified the project as one of 17 transmission proposals designed to improve the reliability of the electric grid, provide lower-cost power to the Midwest and expand the infrastructure to renewable energy sources. “The cost of wind energy has declined dramatically in the past decade, and wind is now the least expensive source of new electricity generation in America,” said Tyler Huebner, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin. “We need to build the infrastructure that connects wind-produced electricity with customers.”

Delays already have pushed back the possible completion date, if approved, from 2020 to 2023.

Proof Walker and Republicans to Blame: Better late than never? We wouldn't be having this discussion if not for Walker, Vos, and Fitzgerald's opposition to the climate related alternative energy movement and ATC's campaign contributions. It's all just a big hoax anyway, right? 

Meanwhile, Alliant Energy, of Madison, is building a 700-megawatt natural gas-fired power plant and a two-megawatt solar field in Beloit, and at least two wind farms are being developed in the state, so a transmission line bringing in more power is not needed, the organization says.

There is support for clean energy...

Chris Kunkle, regional policy manager for Wind on the Wires, a St. Paul-based organization that promotes renewable energy (said), "These projects are vital to ensuring we can transition our energy system to cleaner energy.

Walker Legacy will Haunt us for Decades: While ignoring actual state debt by claiming Wisconsin has a $500 million budgetary surplus, Republicans want voters to believe that spending cuts to education, infrastructure improvements, environmental protections, state parks, joking about green energy, and stopping progress is something we should celebrate as fiscally responsible.

For now, ATC's sprawling transmission lines will spread like duck tape across our aging energy infrastructure.    

Energy Industry leaving GOP fossil fuel policies behind...

While my Trumpian friend wallows in the orange god's lies about coal, and how bad clean energy is for our economy, the rest of the world is laughing, albeit uncomfortably:

WaPo: President Trump’s top White House adviser on energy and climate stood before the crowd of some 200 people and tried to burnish the image of coal, the fossil fuel that powered the industrial revolution, and is now a major culprit behind the climate crisis world leaders are meeting here to address.

“We strongly believe that no country should have to sacrifice economic prosperity or energy security in pursuit of environmental sustainability,” said Wells Griffith, Trump’s adviser.

Mocking laughter echoed through the conference room. A woman yelled, “These false solutions are a joke!” 

Energy Industry Proves Trump Republicans very very Wrong: You know you've got a major problem when the industry you think you're defending...is headed in the complete opposite direction. That's right, Republicans now look even dumber* than before with climate denial. Let's count the ways:

1. A report to the Oregon Public Utilities Commission (OPUC) from PacifiCorp confirmed that the bulk of its coal units cost more to run than to close and replace … that despite White House efforts to support coal, consumption is decreasing and the fuel is … data showing early coal plant retirements could bring hundreds of millions of dollars in net benefits to customers." Energy Innovation's Mahajan added. "It also shows the economics are shifting, and any forward-thinking utility will want to minimize coal."

2. Xcel Energy's "Steel for Fuel" strategy: The utility owns and ratebases the wind or solar project just as it would a coal or natural gas unit, but without the fuel price volatility risk" … the strategy are appearing across the country. 
3. Ohio's American Electric Power initiated development of 900 MW of ratebased wind and solar in September and then announced the closure of 1,590 MW of coal.
 
4. Northern Indiana Public Service Company plans to retire 1,800 MW of coal in favor of renewables within ten years. 
5. Unregulated utilities are also seizing the opportunity. Texas' Vistra Energy shuttered 4.2 GW of coal in favor of renewables and natural gas investments in February.  
6. A July study found electric cooperative Tri-State Generation and Transmission could save customers $600 million through 2030 with new renewables, even if it continues running its coal plants.

For added fun, Democracy Now gets the award for the longest and most exhausting pursuit of a question...ever:

 * I've decided ridiculous disproven talking points should be called just that, dumb. We can't keep repeating the same arguments over and over, purposely boring people, by repeating really dumb debate points. 

Reversing Clean Power Plan like Reversing Time, not happening...

When Scott Walker brags about keeping energy costs low in Wisconsin by doggedly standing by the coal industry, keep this amazing fact in mind:

"Electricity rates paid by businesses and residents of Wisconsin now rank highest among eight Midwest states."

and...

Industry analysts are warning that Trump administration efforts to support coal and nuclear energy by repealing the Clean Power Plan could upend wholesale markets and drive up electricity rates for Wisconsin consumers.

Wisconsin Slammed the Door on dangerous Wind Energy 5 years ago: Wisconsin Republicans turned away an entire industry and the massive jobs it is now creating elsewhere, long before Trump stepped in to save the dying coal mines. The rhetoric below seems idiotic, and almost funny now: 

Sheboygan Press Sept. 2012: State Sen. Glenn Grothman plans to introduce a bill that would freeze renewable energy requirements for Wisconsin utilities at 2012 levels in an effort to stop wind farm development throughout the state. The announcement comes as a developer is looking to build a wind farm in the West Bend Republican’s senate district in southwestern Sheboygan County. Officials with RENEW Wisconsin said Grothman’s proposal would be “profoundly detrimental” … “It would send a big message to the wind industry that Wisconsin is not open for renewable energy business,” said Michael Vickerman, program and policy director with RENEW Wisconsin.

WPR April 2013: People who claim that wind turbines make them sick would be able to sue wind developers under a proposal introduced by Republican state Senator Frank Lasee's (la'-say) ... bill would allow families that claim to be physically or economically affected by wind turbines to sue the companies that own them and property owners hosting them. Chris Kunkle represents the American Wind Energy Association in Wisconsin says Lasee's bill is par for the course: "This is just another attempt from Senator Lasee to install a level of uncertainty across the industry. It's another piece of his ongoing hostility towards an industry that creates manufacturing, construction, operation and maintenance jobs all around the state."

Message sent:

Sen. Lasee's concerns about nearby wind developers harming local citizens does not transfer over to those who will be near mines, where Republicans are pushing a bill that would harm local towns and villages. their roads, water and air, by eliminating local control:

The repeal of Wisconsin's so-called mining moratorium would limit public opportunities to contest DNR decisions ... Repeal a law requiring the DNR to deny a mine's request for a high-capacity well that would unreasonably harm the ability of others to have drinking water or enjoy lakes and streams.

And while we spend billions of taxpayer dollars for up to 13,000 possible jobs relating to Foxconn, look at what Iowa did by simply supporting wind energy:

Iowa had about 30,400 clean energy jobs last year, nearly 7 percent more than in 2015, an industry group estimates.
Iowa is already a renewable energy leader. It gets 36.6 percent of its energy from wind, leading the nation in the percentage last year. It ranks second nationally in the amount of wind energy generated, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency. Wind is second only to coal as a source of energy.

Brenna Smith, a spokeswoman for Gov. Kim Reynolds, said Iowa's large renewable energy portfolio has been a leading factor in landing economic development projects such as Apple and Facebook data centers. But without the Clean Power Plan, environmental leaders say Iowa's wind-energy manufacturing industry — building wind blades, nacelles and towers — will lose out on business and jobs if other states are no longer required to adopt wind, solar and other clean energy technologies.

"Iowa sees significant economic benefits from wind and solar development that would have only increased with implementation of the Clean Power Plan," said Nathaniel Baer, the Iowa Environmental Council's energy program director. "Manufacturing jobs would have likely increased ... as Iowa and other states in the region shifted to renewable energy," Baer said.

Costs are declining for both wind and solar energy, Baer said, adding that wind is the cheapest form of new energy capacity installed today — even without federal production tax credits (that end in 2020).

Trump and Pruitt's Clean Power repeal is time wasting Republican wheel spinning, since even big energy has moved on from coal, considering Trump's move just a blip in time:

MidAmerican says its construction of 2,020 turbines across 23 counties has created about 3,800 jobs with $230 million in payroll. The wind farms support 320 permanent workers earning an average of nearly $69,000 annually, a total of $22 million a year. The investment and jobs help keep hospitals and schools open and pay for county roads and bridges, said Michael Fehr, who leads MidAmerican's wind development. Wind revenue helps counties "maintain their rural way of life."

...or this "free market" renewable movement ignored by Republicans:

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: EPA proposes killing Clean Power Plan, but market already cutting carbon. Market forces continue to push down the cost of renewable energy and keep natural gas competitive with coal, the most carbon-intensive fuel used by power plants. And there’s still almost no interest among utilities to invest in new plants as old ones retire. And after President Donald Trump was elected and signaled he would repeal the carbon regulations, Ameren opted to make the biggest renewable energy announcement in its history. Just two weeks ago, the utility said it planned to spend $1 billion on some 700 megawatts of new wind power by 2020. That’s about three-quarters of the capacity at its Sioux coal plant in St. Charles County. “For Ameren, the markets were penalizing them for being not diverse.”

By next June, Dayton Power and Light (DP&L) will close two coal-fired plants in Adams County, Ohio What’s happening in the two Ohio River counties, little more than an hour’s drive from booming Cincinnati, illustrates how powerful trends in technology and finance are quickly reshaping American electricity markets, Kabel of DP&L said that the proposal did not sway the utility. “The company has not made any changes to its previously announced plans,” she said.

Pfeffer, of Mason County, said he is not surprised. “What I’m seeing from generators, they see whatever measures that happen in this administration as a blip. They don’t see it as something that is long-term.”

Here's a timeline projection of what we can expect from renewable energy:

Republican Tax Reform Plan? Republican "Clean Power" Replacement Plan...?

Walker's twisted mess of a lie about the EPA's Clean Power Plan, and the simple truth that will save lives.

The BS meter is especially high Scott Walker's objections to Obama's Clean Power Plan. Walker made these claims:

Walker complained that the proposed rule was “riddled with inaccuracies” and “questionable assumptions” that made it unworkable for his state.

Why aren't reporters asking Walker "what inaccuracies" and "questionable assumptions?"

Walker, like Rep. John Boehner, are the ones "with inaccuracies ... questionable assumptions." PolitiFact explained it this way:

In the days leading up to the EPA’s June 2 announcement, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a study saying the regulations -- which hadn’t even been made public at that point -- would hurt jobs and economy ... but the study’s authors made several critical assumptions that turned out to be incorrect ... (1) they assumed Obama would want to decrease carbon emissions by 42 percent — not 30 percent — before 2030. (2) The chamber also predicted that by 2022, the EPA would have to require natural gas plants to install carbon capture and storage, a much more costly technology, to reach the 42 percent threshold. The EPA already said last year that new natural gas plants would not need to include carbon capture in their facilities.

That same morning, House Speaker John Boehner’s website claimed, "The president’s plan would indeed cause a surge in electricity bills — costs stand to go up $17 billion every year." Boehner’s evidence was the chamber study. 

Ouch, that's also Walker's big mistake, pushed now by 15 reliant states suing the EPA. 

Walker said in his letter to Obama that compliance with the rule could cost Wisconsin as much as $13.4 billion and raise electricity rates in the state by 29 percent.

What Walker failed to fully mention was the actual estimate range by the PSC; $3.1 billion to $13.4! But the PSC is now filled with Walker cronies, so who would believe anything they said?

Besides the fact that our state utilities are making the switch-over anyway, I thought the following costly energy company expense didn't get the same phony outrage from Republicans:

State regulators on Thursday gave We Energies the go-ahead to make changes at its new coal plant in Oak Creek to enable it to burn coal from Wyoming ... but it also adds $100 million in spending to a coal plant that We Energies and its partner utilities spent more than $2.3 billion to build. 

So coal from Wyoming is cheaper, and will "reduce fuel costs and save money for utility customers over time." What? Eastern coal is more expensive? But coal is supposed to be cheap, saving us all on our energy costs:

The new coal plant was designed to burn coal mined in the eastern United States, but the price of that coal has surged in recent years because of exports to China and other countries.

Aren't Republicans also trying to pass laws allowing the export of cheap U.S. natural gas too? I wonder if that will go up in price too?

Walker opposes the Clean Power Plan based on a faulty disproved study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And like the true psychopath we know Scott Walker to be, here's an even better reason to support the EPA plan:

A study from Harvard and Syracuse universities released this week said reducing carbon dioxide from the nation's power plants will save about 3,500 lives a year by cutting back on other types of pollution as well. Much of the benefit would occur in four states that are severely polluted by coal-fired power plants, the study says: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas and Illinois. The new regulation would reduce hospitalizations by 1,000 a year and heart attacks by 220 a year, the study says.

How can Walker say he's pro-life, when he opposes policy that could save 3,500 Americans from premature deaths a year. That's one 9/11 a year. There's more too:

Reducing carbon emissions also will cut levels of other dangerous pollutants such as fine particles and ozone by more than 25%. Thus the plan brings substantial and measurable public health benefits ... worth from $55 billion to $93 billion per year by 2030, an amount that greatly exceeds the estimated compliance costs of $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion a year.

Walker's jobs failure easy to predict: Walker isn't open to all businesses, especially those not getting GOP support, and his jobs promise failure is proof:

Lori Compas: In Iowa, solar energy companies can sell power directly to customers, creating jobs and boosting investment in the solar sector, and more than a quarter of the state's electricity comes from wind-generated power.

Michigan's skilled workforce has been revitalized by the renewable energy industry, with more than 76,000 workers employed as part of the green economy and more than 10,000 people directly employed by solar and wind companies in the state, according to the Natural Resource Defense Council.

But while other Midwestern states are forging ahead, Wisconsin recently has rolled back renewable energy goals and allowed monopolies and outdated regulations to hamper the growth of the renewable energy sector. And our three largest utilities are actually de-incentivizing renewable energy by proposing unprecedented rate increases.

As for Obama's supposed overreach and illegal EPA mandate:

When Congress last updated this section of the Clean Air Act in 1990, the House and Senate each passed its own set of amendments, But the Democratic-controlled committee screwed up: It failed to harmonize the House and Senate language in section 111(d), and both versions were accidentally signed into law. Only the House version ended up in the statute books. The House version plainly prohibits the EPA from issuing its climate rule. The Senate version, however, says that the EPA can regulate existing plants using section 111(d) so long as the pollutant being regulated isn't toxic. Under the Clean Air Act, carbon dioxide isn't a "toxic pollutant," so the Senate version gives the EPA the authority it wants. the EPA's lawyers, argue that the discrepancy creates a conflict that renders the statute ambiguous. And when a statutory provision is ambiguous, the courts defer to the agency's interpretation so long as it is reasonable. Murray Energy and its 14 state allies (including Wisconsin) disagree. They argue that only the House amendment banning the Clean Power Plan should apply because the Senate amendment was a mere clerical error. That's because the EPA is trying to get the case thrown out on a procedural technicality — usually a rule needs to be final before it can be challenged in court, and the Clean Power Plan isn't final yet.

The highlighted section above could easily apply to the Affordable Care Act's line about federal subsidies not applying, now challenged in the Supreme Court.