Commentary: How Wisconsin regulators 'tax' renewable energy

Michael Vickerman's commentary in Midwest Energy News on the recent changes in WI renewable energy. Find the original post here.

Commentary: How Wisconsin regulators ‘tax’ renewable energy

RENEW Wisconsin's Michael Vickerman

Starting next January, the price of purchasing renewable energy voluntarily through monthly utility bills will spike to all-time highs, thanks to recent decisions rendered by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) on two popular “green pricing” programs.

The thousands of Madison Gas & Electric (MGE) customers participating in the utility’s Green Power Tomorrow program will see their premiums jump from 2.5 cents/kWh to 4 cents/kWh. That’s an increase of 60 percent. To translate this into dollars and cents, an average MGE customer consuming 500 kWh of electricity per month and subscribing at the 100 percent level will pay $90 more in 2013 for the same amount of renewable kWh sold this year.

Residential customers of Milwaukee-based We Energies (WE) will see an even larger percentage increase next year. In that utility’s rate case, the PSCW jacked up the premium paid by Energy for Tomorrow subscribers by nearly 73 percent, from 1.39 cents to 2.4 cents/kWh. Energy for Tomorrow has more than 20,000 subscribers.

Back in 1999, the year both programs were launched, MGE and WE customers paid an extra 3.33 cents and 2.04 cents/kWh, respectively, for the renewable energy they sponsored. Come January 1st, MGE and WE will likely share the dubious distinction of being the only utilities in the country offering renewable energy at a higher rate than they did in the 1990’s. So much for progress.

Adding insult to injury, renewable program subscribers will be subject to general rate increases approved by the PSCW this November. The utilities sought higher rates to recover the costs of retrofitting older coal-fired power stations with modern pollution controls. The fact that the renewable generators leveraged by program participants will never need pollution control retrofits is wholly disregarded in determining the size of the premium.

This is unquestionably a subsidy that flows from program participants to all ratepayers.

How did this happen?
Since 1999, renewable generation costs have tumbled, while productivity has improved.
A frustrated program subscriber might well ask: If base utility rates are going up, and the cost of renewable electricity is declining, why are premiums going up instead of down?

The short answer is that wholesale electricity prices have sagged in recent years, owing to a combination of unsustainably low natural gas prices, stagnant demand, and rapid expansion of wind power displacing higher-cost generation. In contrast, the price of renewable energy procured under long-term contracts held steady. When prices dropped in the wholesale market beginning in late 2008, the gap between system energy and renewable sources widened.

Though accurate, the above explanation is deeply unsatisfying, because the wholesale “market” is concerned about one thing only: the marginal cost of producing electricity into the grid. Nothing else matters, including the expenditures approved by the PSCW to reduce emissions from older generators. Even though retail customers wind up footing the bill for those upgrades, the wholesale market does not treat pollution control retrofits as marginal costs. Not one cent paid by ratepayers for these expenditures is reflected in the prices that renewable generators compete against.

The net effect of this disconnect is to artificially suppress the price of electricity from older and dirtier generators relative to newer and cleaner electricity producers. Real markets factor in the cost of upgrading and replacing capital equipment that manufacture the product bought by customers. What we have instead is an artificial contrivance that sacrifices long-term considerations like clean air, resource diversity and regulatory risk for the short-term reward of low prices.

Indeed, it would be difficult to design a more punitive market structure for renewables than the one we have at present.

‘Swimming up a waterfall’
Pricing renewable energy against a market operating in real time also undermines a valuable attribute of renewable energy, namely its inherent price stability. In this environment, the only way a customer can directly benefit from a fixed-price energy source like solar is to self-generate at his or her premises to reduce consumption of grid-supplied electricity.

In setting the premium size, the PSCW relied on pricing data at a time when the regional wholesale market was near its cyclical bottom. Electricity prices are now edging upward as forward prices of natural gas have rebounded from historic lows earlier this year. It’s a safe bet that wholesale electricity prices will continue to increase in 2013.

This sets up the very real possibility that WE and MGE will collect more revenue than is necessary to cover the cost spread between system energy and the renewable energy supplies servicing their customers. Unfortunately, the next time the base premium for each utility can be adjusted is January 1, 2015.

For at least a century now, fossil fuels have been the default resource option for most utilities. Against this institutional bias, switching to renewable energy is akin to swimming upstream. But given how far backward the PSCW bent to accommodate utilities’ continued reliance on coal and natural gas, quite a few renewable energy subscribers may balk at the prospect of swimming up a waterfall.

In fairness to MGE and WE, the price hikes approved by the PSCW went well beyond the incremental increases proposed by the two utilities. That’s because the agency relies solely on the wholesale “market” metric described above that filters out all societal benefits from the equation. To the agency, renewables are another source of electrons that deserve no special consideration. And, in reaching its decision, the PSCW disregarded the potential impact that abrupt price hikes might have on customer participation.

Programs outliving their usefulness?
A significant loss in subscribership would be a regrettable outcome if the programs were still viable vehicles for leveraging new sources of renewable energy. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

Earlier this decade, WE and MGE pulled the plug on a popular feature of their programs, specifically the special solar energy buyback rates that were funded with participant dollars. This innovation, which spurred the installation of hundreds of solar electric systems in their territories, succeeded in elevating MGE and WE’s stature while achieving the aims of their participating customers. However, when the utilities eliminated their solar incentives, they also removed the principal rationale for subscribing to their programs.

It seems quite clear that the current crop of voluntary renewable energy programs have outlived their usefulness. They are stagnating under a market structure that distorts and amplifies their true costs as well as a regulatory climate that greatly discounts their benefits to ratepayers. What were once dynamic vehicles for increasing supplies of renewable energy are now little more than feel-good marketing exercises running on autopilot. The value proposition to customers just isn’t there anymore.

There is nothing out there to prevent utilities from revitalizing their green pricing programs and making them useful once again. Such an undertaking, however, would require them to do something they haven’t done before: present an affirmative case for adding more renewables into their energy mix.

To do that effectively, utilities would need to recognize that the fossil energy path leads to a dead-end and that renewables ought to be the default resource option going forward. From that starting point, designing a program in which modest customer premiums actually result in additional supplies of renewable energy should be a simple and straightforward exercise.

It’s the very least a responsible utility should do to reduce the impact of generating electricity on the one planet we are privileged to call home.

Michael Vickerman is program and policy director of RENEW Wisconsin, a sustainable energy advocacy organization. RENEW Wisconsin is a member of RE-AMP, which also publishes Midwest Energy News.

Find the original article post here.

India's Blackout Lesson: Coal Failed, Small Solar = Big Results

From a story by Justin Guay, Sierra Club International Program:

Of course they still have to face the problems they have inherited from trying to copy/paste a centralized grid from the West. So what can they do to solve peak problems with the grid they already have in place? Deploy lots and lots of distributed solar and efficiency.

That's because, unlike coal, solar for the most part is available when you need it - during peak hours. Which is why it's great to see States like Gujarat taking the lead in roof top solar programs with the support of the IFC. And efficiency makes the peaks smaller so you need less power in the first place.

The irony here of course is that distributed generation has always been ignored as trivial compared to the real need for a large scale 'modern grid.' That’s because policymakers and commentators lack the imagination to understand the fact that when aggregated, small can be very, very big.

Take the hidden truth behind India's modern grid (as my colleague Jigar Shah points out): it is actually already a distributed system that is largely powered by filthy, costly diesel gen sets. That’s because power outages are so frequent that businesses and wealthy individuals have been forced to pay for this backup generation to ensure power. This is a tremendous opportunity for companies seeking targeted diesel replacement strategies to save people and companies tremendous amounts of money, while providing reliable power.

Only 20, not 200, years of coal; we have to move "so fast" to get to 100% renewables

Leslie Glustrom is the featured speaker at RENEW's Energy Policy Summit, January 13, Madison. Read the report that she mentions about 11 minutes into the interview.

Register and get details about the Summit at the Summit Web page.

Coal Critic Coming to Madison to Speak on Effective Renewable Energy Advocacy, January 13, 2012

For immediate release
December 7, 2011

More information
Michael Vickerman
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Leslie Glustrom, research director of Colorado-based Clean Energy Action, and an unwavering critic of utility reliance on coal for electricity generation, will be the featured speaker at RENEW Wisconsin’s Energy Policy Summit.

The Summit will be held on Friday, January 13, 2012, at the University of Wisconsin-Extension’s Pyle Center located on the UW-Madison campus. Summit attendees will spend the day discussing and selecting renewable energy strategies that make sense in the current political environment in Wisconsin. More information on the Summit can be found on the RENEW Wisconsin website at http://www.renewwisconsin.org.

As research director, Glustrom authored in 2009 an extensively referenced report on U.S. coal supplies titled, “Coal—Cheap and Abundant—Or Is It? Why Americans Should Stop Assuming that the US has a 200-Year Supply of Coal,” available for free at http://www.cleanenergyaction.org.

Since 2009, Glustrom has traveled to numerous states helping them to understand the likely constraints on their coal supplies.
Glustrom’s on-going research illuminates a future in which coal prices will likely continue to escalate, driven by a combination of less accessible coal supplies, increasing demand from Asian countries, and rising diesel fuel costs for hauling coal to distant markets like Wisconsin.

Clean Energy Action is spearheading a campaign to shut down Colorado’s coal-fired power plants and replace them with locally generated renewable electricity.

“Leslie’s experiences with Clean Energy Action can help Wisconsin renewable energy advocates formulate effective strategies for 2012 and beyond,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide sustainable energy advocacy organization headquartered in Madison.

“Even though Colorado is a coal-producing state, it has adopted some of the most aggressive policies in the country for advancing renewable energy,” said Vickerman. “Colorado’s commitment to clean energy is driving its economy at a time when its coal output is diminishing. For example, Vestas, the world’s largest manufacturer of wind turbines with four plants employing 1,700 people in Colorado, supplied 90 turbines this year to Wisconsin’s largest wind project, the Glacier Hills Wind Park in Columbia County.”

“Leslie will inspire us to reverse the retreat from renewables and retake the initiative going forward,” Vickerman said.

In Boulder, Glustrom was part of the team that led the successful 2010 and 2011 ballot initiatives allowing Boulder to move ahead with plans to municipalize and break away from the long term commitment to coal plants made by their incumbent utility, Xcel Energy.

-- END --

WP&L and WPS warn of higher rates because of pollution rules

From an article by Tom Content published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on August 19:

Two state utilities said this week new federal pollution rules will lead to higher electricity costs come January.

Wisconsin Public Service Corp. of Green Bay said its residential customers can expect an increase of more than $4 a month next year, including about $2 linked to the new rules designed to limit air pollution from coal-fired power plants.

The utility said it would see higher costs of about $32.6 million in 2012 from the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that was finalized recently by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. That will result in rates going up by 6.8% instead of 3.4%, the utility said.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last month finalized stronger regulations for Wisconsin and 26 other states aimed at curbing air pollution from long-distance sources.

Environmental groups praised the new rule because it would reduce acid rain and air pollution as well as help curb health effects from dirty air linked to coal plants. The EPA projected the rule will save up to 34,000 lives a year and prevent more than 400,000 asthma attacks as well as 19,000 admissions to hospitals. . .

The new rule has been in development for several years but the first phase of compliance hits utilities in 2012. WPS said it won't have time to install pollution controls by next year at its plants, but will be able to comply by purchasing credits from other utilities that have cut emissions.

The utility also said it plans to operate its coal plants less next year than it otherwise would have, and will buy more power from the Midwest wholesale power market as a result, a move that it said is also a factor in higher costs for customers. . . .

On Thursday [August 18], Wisconsin Power & Light Co. [Alliant] of Madison said it would face an additional $9 million in costs linked to the air pollution rule. With the change, the utility is now seeking an increase in 2012 of $20 million, or 2%, utility finance manager Martin Seitz said in a filing with state regulators.

Todd Stuart, executive director of the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, criticized the increases, and he noted that large energy users like paper mills will see higher than average increases, compared with homeowners and small businesses. Paper mills served by WPS could see a 9% hike, he said. . . .

"Industry always cries wolf whenever EPA tries to reduce air pollution," said Katie Nekola, lawyer with the conservation group Clean Wisconsin. "The fact is, the new rule will affect old, inefficient, unnecessary coal plants that should have been shut down long ago. The continued operation of those old units is costing ratepayers money, but you don't hear industry complaining about that."

Outdated power plants killing fish

From an article by Betsy Bloom in the La Crosse Tribune:

Outdated power plant cooling systems take a major toll on fish and other wildlife in the upper Mississippi River, according to a Sierra Club report released Thursday.

The report refers to the plants’ open-cycle cooling systems as“giant fish blenders” that also spew out heated water harmful to aquatic habitats.

The plants suck in millions of gallons of water each day from the river that is circulated to help cool equipment, then released back into the river, according to the report.

Larger fish can become trapped against screens at the mouths of intake pipes, while smaller fish and other organisms are churned through the system and succumb to the high-temperature water, the report claims.

Mentioned in the region were Dairyland Power Cooperative’s plants at Genoa and Alma, along with the Alliant Energy plant at Lansing, Iowa.

The four coal-fired plants on the Wisconsin side of the river combined draw in more than 890 million gallons of water a day, according to the report.

The Sierra Club faults not only the power companies but also the Environmental Protection Agency for not requiring the plants to upgrade to a closed-cycle cooling system it contends uses 95 percent less water.

Dairyland Power spokeswoman Katie Thomson disagreed with the report’s conclusions, saying the plants have a “a very minimal impact on the Mississippi River.”

Students, faculty urging state to stop burning coal on campus heating plants

From a story by Martha Boehm on WEAU-TV, Eau Claire:

LA CROSSE, WI (WEAU)--Some students at UW-La Crosse want the state-run heating plant, that’s been on campus for decades, to stop burning coal. The No Coal Coalition wants the state to consider other fuel options.

“It may take a while, but what we really want is a definitive statement from them for a day and a year that they will be able to transfer our campuses off of coal," said UW-La Crosse senior Jennifer Dausey.

Dausey has been working with the No Coal Coalition and Environmental Council for about a year. About a dozen students and faculty members want the Wisconsin Department of Administration, which owns the heating plant at UW-L, to stop burning coal to heat campus buildings.

"We always say that we should have been off coal yesterday," Dausey said. "There’s no reason we need to keep burning this dirty energy. It’s not only destroying families in the mining process, but it’s also destroying our health and our lungs. It causes so much asthma it’s ridiculous.”

Dausey says the coalition not only wants the plant to stop using coal, but to cut back on its natural gas emission, which is the second way it produces energy.

“It’d be easiest to switch to burning biomass, which is like wood pellets and it’s going to become a bigger economy here in Wisconsin with our natural resources," Dausey said.

Wisconsin Cannot Afford to Ignore Rising Coal Prices

For immediate release

More information
RENEW Wisconsin
Michael Vickerman
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Wisconsin Cannot Afford to Ignore Rising Coal Prices

Long-considered an inexpensive and reliable fuel source, coal has become subject to market and regulatory pressures that threaten to make it an expensive and risky way to generate electricity, according to national news reports and pertinent utility filings with the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC).

“The expectation of continued increases in coal prices reinforces the value of relying on Wisconsin’s own energy resources. If there’s an effort to find savings for utility customers, the logical move would be to shutter antiquated coal plants before they become more of a liability,” said Michael Vickerman, Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide, nonprofit renewable energy advocacy organization.

A key driver behind coal’s rising cost is China, which has moved from an exporter to an importer of coal. The New York Times (NYT) reported last week that Chinese coal imports will hit all-time highs for November and December of this year. Some of this coal is coming from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, the coal field that also supplies many Wisconsin power plants.¹

In the New York Times story, an executive from Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private coal company, predicted that his company will send larger and larger quantities of coal to China in the coming years.

Further adding to the upward price pressure on coal is the rising cost of diesel fuel. The PSC has estimated that half of the delivered cost of coal in Wisconsin is attributable to rail shipment, that is highly sensitive to the price of diesel fuel, which sells for 38 cents more per gallon than it did a year ago, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.² Tom Whipple, editor of the Peak Oil Review, expects diesel fuel supplies to tighten in 2011 as a consequence of flat production volumes and increasing demand from Asia.³ This phenomenon could affect Wisconsin electric utility rates as early as January 2011, according to Vickerman.

We Energies’ coal costs have escalated by $57 million, of which transportation costs account for almost $33 million, according to the utility’s most recent rate filing with the PSC. On top of that, We Energies expects to pay an additional $8 million in oil surcharge costs.4

Click to continue

Another coal plant converts to wood

From an article by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Efforts to add more renewable energy in Wisconsin from burning wood waste moved ahead Monday with the completion of one biomass power plant and the start of construction on another.

A 40-megawatt biomass power plant has opened in southwestern Wisconsin.

The power plant, the E.J. Stoneman Station in Cassville, is producing electricity by burning wood waste including residue from forestry and tree trimming work as well as railroad ties, demolition waste and sawdust.

Ann Arbor, Mich.-based DTE Energy Service Inc. owns and operates the plant and sells the power to Dairyland Power Cooperative of La Crosse.

"DTE Energy Services is proud to be able to give the Stoneman plant new life as a generator of renewable energy," David Ruud, president of DTE Energy Services, said in a statement. "We also are pleased that the plant will provide employment for 32 members of the Cassville community and support the local economy through our relationships with fuel suppliers and other local businesses."

Dairyland built the former coal-fired power plant in 1951 and operated it for more than 40 years.

"We are pleased to see this major renewable energy resource come online for our cooperative membership," said Dale Pohlman, Dairyland vice president of strategic planning. "Our 'green' partnership with DTE Energy Services will supply the energy needs to power 28,000 homes across our system by utilizing a natural resource - wood waste - as fuel."

Governor Doyle breaks ground on coal plant conversion to biomass

From a news release issued by Governor Doyle:

MADISON – Governor Jim Doyle today broke ground on the Charter Street Biomass Heating Plant project. The $251 million project is one of the largest biomass projects in the nation and will create construction and clean energy jobs. The project follows Governor Doyle’s 2008 announcement that Wisconsin would stop burning coal at state-owned heating plants on Madison’s Isthmus.

“In 2008, I announced plans to stop burning coal at state-owned heating plants on Madison’s Isthmus,” Governor Doyle said. “Today, we are breaking ground on the Charter Street biomass plant and taking a major step forward to make this goal a reality. The Charter Street plant will turn a waste stream into clean energy, it will keep energy dollars in our communities, and it will help clean our air and water. This project will create great jobs in Wisconsin and will develop a new biomass market from our great fields and farms.”

The Governor’s 2009-2011 capital budget included $251 million for the Charter Street project and $25 million to convert the Capitol Heat and Power Plant to natural gas. The Charter Street plant will support local biomass providers and eliminate over 108,000 tons of coal burned every year. In March, the state stopped burning coal at the Capitol Heat and Power Plant – eliminating 4,500 tons of coal burned by the state each year. When the Charter Street project is completed in 2013, the Doyle Administration will have reduced State of Wisconsin coal use by 65 percent.

The Charter Street project is a joint effort between AMEC and Boldt Construction. The plant’s coal boilers will first be replaced by natural gas and biomass fuel. The plant will run completely on biomass by late 2013, with the capacity to burn wood chips, corn stalks and switch grass pellets and power 300 local buildings.

Rally against coal on UW-L campus

From a story on WXOW-TV, La Crosse:

LA CROSSE, Wisconsin (WXOW)- Opponents of the use of coal to heat classrooms and dormitories at the UW-La Crosse held a rally to push for a transition to cleaner forms of energy.

Speakers at the rally emphasized damage to the environment and public health as reasons to stop using coal as an energy source. The rally also criticized what they call destructive methods used to mine the coal used to power the campus.

Representatives for the No Coal Coalition say that the transition to cleaner energy should not be complicated. The coal plant at UW-La Crosse is able to run on natural gas, which would be used as a transitional fuel until renewable sources of energy such as biomass can be used. The No Coal Coalition also mentioned that a new facility will not have to be built; only changes to the infrastructure will be needed.

Pollution suit targets Alliant coal plants

From a blog post by Tom Content of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The Sierra Club on Thursday [September 9, 2010] filed suit in federal court claiming that two major coal-fired power plants operated by Wisconsin Power & Light Co. were upgraded over the years without installing modern pollution controls required by the Clean Air Act.

The suit charges the Madison utility made modifications to its Nelson Dewey power plant in Cassville in southwestern Wisconsin and its Columbia power plant near Portage without adding pollution controls. WP&L is a subsidiary of Alliant Energy Corp., Madison.

The suit is the latest in a series of Sierra Club suits targeting pollution from coal-fired power plants across Wisconsin.

Another suit by the environmental group and Clean Wisconsin has targeted air pollution from the We Energies Valley power plant in Milwaukee’s Menomonee Valley. Sierra Club has also filed suit over pollution by coal plants operated by Dairyland Power Cooperative of La Crosse and Wisconsin Public Service Corp. of Green Bay.

“The pattern here is that our aging fleet of coal plants can’t even meet current standards, so it sets us up for making a choice about whether we should be throwing good money after bad” to retrofit coal plants to meet emerging, stricter standards, said Jennifer Feyerherm of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign.

WP&L has proposed adding pollution controls at the Columbia power plant, in an investment projected to cost $627 million. The state Public Service Commission has yet to rule on that proposal, and the Sierra Club is challenging that the controls proposed don't go far enough to reduce air emissions from Columbia.

“We’re disappointed that the Sierra Club has opted for this approach,” utility spokesman Scott Reigstad said of Sierra Club's suit. “We disagree with the claims the Sierra Club is making in its complaint. We intend to vigorously defend against the action.”

The court actions come as the state Public Service Commission is studying whether to shut down aging coal-fired power plants in Wisconsin because of the state's power glut, and as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is commencing regulation of coal plants to curb emissions of carbon dioxide as well as a series of other pollutants.

Alliant says no more coal plants ... for now and no nukes

From an article by Judy Newman in the Wisconsin State Journal:

Alliant Energy is giving up on the idea of building more coal-fired power plants "for the time being," Alliant chairman, president and chief executive Bill Harvey said Thursday.

In an interview after the Madison utility holding company's annual shareholders meeting, Harvey said Alliant subsidiary Wisconsin Power & Light will not ask for a new coal-fueled power plant to replace one proposed for Cassville that state regulators rejected in late 2008.

"I think it's politically ... too risky to think about building coal plants until climate legislation gets in place," Harvey said. "There's got to be substantial technological improvements before the country returns to building coal plants. That's certainly true for us," he said.

Thanks to adequate power available to buy on the electric transmission grid, Harvey said it will likely be two or three years before Alliant proposes building another natural-gas-fired power plant. That could happen sooner, though, if the economy recovers quickly or if climate change rules force the company to abandon its older coal-fired power plants sooner than expected.

As for nuclear power, Harvey said Alliant is not big enough to consider spending up to $10 billion to build a nuclear plant but it might buy part of a new one, if one is built. "We have to consider that. We have to consider all possibilities," he said.

Moving away from coal as primary source of energy

From a story on WXOW-TV:

LA CROSSE, Wisconsin (WXOW) Dairyland Power serves a half a million households in their system.

Currently, more than 90 percent of their energy is produced from coal.

However, officials say Dairyland wants to have 25 percent of their power be produced by sustainable renewables, like wind and solar, by 2025.

Dairyland isn't the only one looking at making a transition away from coal.

Today, Secretary of State Building Commission David Helbach spoke at UW-L about how Wisconsin is trying to covert its state institutions from coal consumers.

There are 16 heating state plants that heat and cool institutions using some amount of coal.

These heating plants can be found at variety of places from government buildings to college campuses, including UW-La Crosse.

Secretary of State Building Commission David Helbach says, "Coal has about twice the pollutants as natural gas so just by changing the fuel you reduce your emissions by half."

The state wants to transition the biggest users of coal first, which are not university's like UW-L.

That means the university will be put on the back burner.

Helbach, "We'd like to do some of the other plants first so this plant may not be until the first round, maybe on the second or third round"

Since Dairlyand's transition can't happen over night either, it is taking steps to make coal burning more environmentally friendly, like recycling by it byproducts and installing a scrubber system and bag house to make air safer.

Geologists: Energy's future in for big change

From an article by Joe Knight in the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram:

"This is the age of oil, but the age of oil is about to end," said Lori Snyder of UW-Eau Claire's geology department.

In 1950, the U.S. did not import any oil. Today, we still like our cars, and we have to import 60 percent of the oil we use to support our driving habit, she said.

Vehicles may have gotten a smaller and more fuel efficient since the 1950s, but our appetite for energy - the majority of it coming from fossil fuels - is huge. Today the average American uses three times the amount of energy we used in 1950, Snyder said.

Snyder and J. Brian Mahoney, also of the geology department, discussed the future of fossil fuels and energy Tuesday night for an "Ask A Scientist" program at UW-Eau Claire.

An audience of mixed ages attended, and many asked questions of the scientists, but the answers they received painted a less-than-reassuring picture of our energy future.

Fossil fuel basically is solar energy trapped by plants and bugs - sometimes millions of years ago - that never completely decomposed. We have extracted the fuels and used it to power our cars, heat our homes and generate our electricity, but supplies are becoming scarce, the geologists said.

Oil supplies in the U.S. peaked in the 1970s, Mahoney said. World supplies of oil that is readily accessible are peaking now, he said.

There are some alternative sources of oil, such as sand tars in Alberta, Canada, which are being mined, but they require a substantial amount of energy to extract and are costly to the environment, Mahoney said.

We still have an abundance of coal in the U.S. - enough to meet our electrical needs for 200 to 250 years, Snyder said. Unfortunately, coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel for emissions. We're already altering the composition of the atmosphere, and continuing at the current rate or increasing emissions brings about more questions about climate change and what life on Earth might be like in 100 years, Mahoney said.

"It's taking us to a place we don't really understand," he said.

Beyond coal ... winners and losers

From an article by Chris Hubbuch in the La Crosse Tribune:

Local utilities support efforts to reduce greenhouse gases but differ on how to do it fairly

CASSVILLE, Wis. - The future of Wisconsin's energy is piled high on the south lot of the E.J. Stoneman plant.

Gone is the coal that fueled the boilers for six decades. Now 40,000 tons of wood chips and railroad ties tower over construction workers building an apparatus to grind that wood into fuel.

With its yellow tile walls and dusty turbines, Stoneman hardly looks futuristic. La Crosse-based Dairyland Power built the plant in 1950 and shuttered it in 1993 for economic reasons.

But with a push to limit carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, utilities are scrambling for new sources of renewable energy to replace fossil fuels. Stoneman again is viable.

DTE Energy Systems bought the plant in 2008, stripped out the boilers and began a two-year project to convert it to biomass. Starting this summer, they expect the turbines to spin again with steam generated primarily by construction and demolition debris.

Even with a cost in the tens of millions - they don't disclose the exact amount - DTE expects to make money because of the premium price for green energy.

On the other side of town, Alliant Energy burns wood pellets along with coal at its Nelson Dewey station as part of a yearlong test. Though Madison-based Alliant has no plans to convert the plant, the company will use the data as it examines ways to reduce its carbon footprint, spokesman Steve Schultz said.

With Congress poised for the first time to limit carbon emissions, power utilities are ramping up efforts to replace coal, a cheap and plentiful resource that long has been the major source of electricity, particularly in the Midwest.

Environmental advocates say it's a start to slowing global climate change, and even utilities favor the principle of limiting greenhouse gases.

But not all utilities are created equal. Xcel Energy, which supplies urban households and industries, has a diverse energy portfolio bolstered by investments in renewable sources and nuclear power, which produces no greenhouse gases. Dairyland Power, which through its member cooperatives provides power for most of the Coulee Region's rural and small town residents, relies almost exclusively on coal.

Both utilities support a congressional approach to cutting carbon emissions but differ on the details of how it should be done.

Two showings set for Coal Country documentary video

An announcement from the Sierra Club's campaign Moving Wisconsin Beyond Coal:

Coal Country is a stunning new documentary that reveals the devastation of mountaintop-removal coal mining to the forests, streams, and communities of Appalachia. Produced by Mari-Lynn Evans and Phylis Geller, Coal Country brings us inside the lives of Appalachian residents who are directly threatened by mountaintop-removal, a destructive mining practice where mountaintops are blasted away to expose the coal; the waste is then dumped in the waterways of nearby communities. As it takes us through each stage of coal mining and processing, Coal Country reveals the shocking true cost of America's over-reliance on coal.

Holmen, WI
Host: Marilyn P.
When: 8:00 PM, November 11, 2009
Please call Marilyn to confirm attendance and get directions: 608-317-9698.

La Crosse, WI
Host: Elizabeth W.
When: 5:00 PM, November 13, 2009
Sign up here.

The State of Wisconsin owns 15 coal plants across Wisconsin - including eight UW campuses and three health facilities. Governor Doyle agreed to clean up two in Madison.

Wisconsin's State-Owned Coal Plants
1.Capitol Heat & Power (Madison)*
2.Hill Farms (Madison)
3.Mendota Health Institute (Madison)
4.Northern Wisconsin Center (Chippewa Falls)
5.UW-Eau Claire
6.UW-LaCrosse
7.UW-Madison*
8.UW-Oshkosh
9.UW-Platteville
10.UW-River Falls
11.UW-Stevens Point
12.UW-Stout
13.UW-Superior
14.Waupun Correctional Institution
15.Winnebago Mental Health Institute (Oshkosh)
*Governor Doyle committed these facilities to burn biomass and natural gas instead of coal.