Studies: Wisconsin Could Benefit From Clean Economy Focus

A commitment by the state to support a clean economy could result in Wisconsin residents having lower utility bills, more jobs and cleaner air, according to two separate studies released earlier this summer.

“Unfortunately, Wisconsin’s clean economy is in danger of losing a good deal of its steam as a result of policy rollbacks and funding cutbacks in the renewable energy arena,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide organization advocating for public policies and private initiatives that advance renewable energy. “The short-sighted attacks we’ve seen in 2011 could throw the state’s clean economy into reverse next year.”

So far this year, RENEW says the state's Legislature has reduced funding for Focus on Energy, suspended the statewide rule regulating the permitting of wind turbines, and weakened the state’s renewable energy standard by allowing utilities to count Canadian hydropower toward their requirements.

“On top of that, We Energies, the state’s largest utility, announced that it will discontinue what had been an effective renewable energy initiative,” Vickerman said. “Among other accomplishments, it was instrumental in enabling Helios USA to build a solar-electric manufacturing facility in Milwaukee’s Menomonee River Valley.” The plant now employs 50 workers.

Though the state may have its current struggles with clean economy policies and funding, what the state has been able to do up until now has been successful, according to an economic study issued by The Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan public policy organization in Washington, D.C.

Reviewing data gathered between 2003 and 2010, the Brookings analysis pegged the number of clean economy jobs in the state at 76,858, a net increase of nearly 4,000. Measured as a percentage, Wisconsin’s clean economy accounted for 2.7 percent of all jobs in the state, compared with 2.5 percent for Iowa, 2.1 percent for Minnesota, 1.9 percent for both Indiana and Michigan, and 1.8 percent for Illinois. Overall, Wisconsin ranked eighth among all states and the District of Columbia in the relative size of its clean economy.

As documented in the Brookings report, the wages for these clean economy jobs run higher than the statewide average ($37,931 versus $35,906).

The report categorizes clean economy jobs as those focused in energy efficiency and renewable energy; sustainable forestry products; recycling and reuse; waste management and treatment; organic food and farming; energy efficient appliance and building manufacturing; and more.

“Clearly, Wisconsin’s commitment to clean energy has paid dividends, attracting new businesses and creating high-paying jobs that could have easily gone elsewhere,” Vickerman said.

In addition, Wisconsin’s adoption of a 10 percent renewable energy standard back in 2006 spurred new utility-scale installations built by skilled tradesmen employed by local contractors. During the study period, the number of wind-related jobs in Wisconsin doubled from less than 450 to 900.

Though the state may be seeing a drop in the number of clean energy jobs, were Wisconsin’s clean energy potential fully tapped it would trigger billions of dollars in new business investment, create thousands of jobs, save families and businesses billions through lower utility bills, and reduce the state’s dependence on coal and associated carbon emissions that contribute to climate change, according to a peer-reviewed report released this summer by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The report, “A Bright Future for the Heartland: Powering the Midwest Economy with Clean Energy,” shows that Wisconsin and other Midwest states have the potential to produce electricity from renewable resources, particularly wind, biomass (plant material such as corn stalks and switch grass), and solar. These initiatives could cut utility bills by reducing energy use in homes and businesses, the report says.

“We see stronger clean energy standards as way to help transform Wisconsin’s economy,” said Steve Frenkel, director of the Midwest office of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “That would create more opportunities for people to find jobs producing the products that power the clean energy economy, like wind turbines and solar panels. Also, by reducing their energy use, Wisconsin companies can stay competitive by cutting their costs."

The study analyzes the potential impact of a two-pronged clean energy strategy for Midwestern states developed in 2009 by the Midwestern Governors Association. First, the association suggested that states require that 30 percent of each state’s electric supply come from renewable energy sources by 2030. Second, it called for states to deploy energy efficiency technologies to save two percent in annual power consumption by 2015, with an additional two percent savings each following year.

Wisconsin’s renewable energy standard, updated in 2006, requires that just 10 percent of the state’s power supply come from renewable sources by 2015. It also mandates annual efficiency savings of only 0.75 percent this year, rising to 1.5 percent by 2014 and each year thereafter.

The study found that while Midwest states could benefit from enacting clean energy policies individually, they would benefit even more by acting together. "It’s important that the state—and the region—maintain momentum in making this transition because they could quickly lose ground to fast-growing clean energy economies in China, Germany and other countries,” added Frenkel.

The Union of Concerned Scientists study found that if the region embraced the Midwestern Governors Association goals, the action would:

• Save Wisconsin residents and businesses $5.9 billion on their electric and natural gas bills by 2030. The typical Wisconsin household would see small savings in annual gas and electricity costs in 2011, with savings reaching $98 by 2020, and $269 by 2030.
• Create 11,500 new jobs in Wisconsin and generate $2.7 billion in new capital investment. These would be on top of the jobs created under Wisconsin’s existing policies, and would span numerous sectors of the state’s economy, including manufacturing, construction, operations, maintenance, agriculture, forestry, finance, and retail.
• Generate $20 million in new income for Wisconsin farmers and landowners producing biomass as fuel for power plants or leasing their land for wind facilities. Also, new clean energy investments could raise an additional $80 million in property tax revenue, which would help financially strapped communities fund schools and public services, including police and fire departments.
• Keep more dollars circulating in state by substituting local, clean energy for coal. In 2008 alone, Wisconsin utilities spent $853 million to import coal from as far away as Wyoming, according to the 2010 report, “Burning Coal, Burning Cash.”
• Reduce the threat to public health and the corresponding jump in health costs resulting from increased ground-level ozone pollution due to rising average temperatures. According to a June study, “Climate Change and Your Health: Rising Temperatures, Worsening Ozone Pollution,” climate change-induced ozone increases could result in nearly 64,000 additional cases of serious respiratory illnesses in Wisconsin and more than $127 million (in 2008 dollars) in additional health costs for state residents in 2020, the report concluded.
• Lower greenhouse gas emissions from Midwest power plants by 130 metric tons annually by 2030—equivalent to the annual emissions from 30 typical new coal plants. The Midwest currently produces 27 percent of the country’s heat-trapping emissions, such as carbon dioxide.