The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (WPRI) this week issued a study titled, “The Economics of Climate Change Proposals in Wisconsin,” which analyzes the costs associated with complying with the various policy recommendations contained in Wisconsin’s Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming Final Report.

The study predicts Wisconsin will lose 49,000 jobs over the next 11 years if all of the Task Force’s policies are adopted. This number may be a bit skewed because not all of the Task Force’s recommendations will be adopted, such as a state-specific cap-and-trade program. However, the study provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of the total costs associated with policies contained in the Governor’s Task Force Final Report.

Below are a few of the study’s major findings:

• Adopting a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, a policy aimed at prohibiting crude imported from Canada’s oil sands, would cost Wisconsin   $3.3 billion by 2020. Wisconsin receives a significant portion of its oil from Canada, which has the second largest crude oil reserve in the world.
• Adopting California’s Low Emission Vehicle standards would cost Wisconsinites $359 million in 2009 (assuming it is implemented that year).
• Amending Wisconsin’s current Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires electric utilities to produce a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources, would cost Wisconsin ratepayers $16.2 billion by 2025. Under current law, Wisconsin electric utilities are required to produce 10 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2015. The Task Force’s Final Report recommends requiring utilities to meet the 10 percent goal by 2013, and then increases the goal to 20 percent by 2020 and 25 percent by 2025.

A final omnibus bill containing the Task Force’s recommendations is expected to be introduced in early December with public hearings commencing shortly thereafter.

The Assembly Committee on Renewable Energy and Rural Affairs and Senate Committee on Rural Issues, Biofuels, and Information Technology this week held a joint hearing on companion bills - SB 279, introduced by Senator Pat Kreitlow (D-Chippewa Falls) and AB 408, introduced by Rep. Scott Suder (R-Abbotsford) - dealing with domestic biofuels.

The bills are the result of recommendations produced by the Joint Legislative Council Special Committee on Domestic Biofuels. The general purpose of the legislation is to promote domestic biofuels, and in particular, biofuels produced in Wisconsin.

While most of provisions in the bills are not controversial, two provisions garnered opposition from business groups. In particular, oil companies have concerns with a provision forcing refiners to offer gasoline free of ethanol so that dealers can blend the ethanol themselves. Oil companies argue that the blending of ethanol, which is required by federal law, should be done by refiners to ensure quality. Oil companies further argue that dealers may not have the technology to properly blend ethanol with gasoline, which could in turn lead to engine problems. In such circumstances the oil companies could be held liable even though they did not perform the blending.

In addition, the oil companies argue that on one hand the federal government mandates the amount of renewable fuel they are required to produce, and yet on the other hand Wisconsin would make it harder for them to meet this standard by forcing them to provide unblended fuel.

Another provision that raised concerns is the creation of annual sales goals for renewable fuels in Wisconsin equaling 110 percent of the state’s share of renewable fuel sales required nationally under the federal renewable fuel standard. Corn growers, who support the measure, argue that implementing such a standard is positive for Wisconsin corn growers and means less money going towards buying oil in foreign countries.

The Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce testified in opposition to the bill. WMC argued that the bill could lead to an extremely high ethanol mandate, which in turn would increase prices for consumers. In addition, WMC argued that the state’s fuel policy making should not be handed over to bureaucrats within the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this week will issue an executive order requiring that state to generate one-third of its power from renewable resources by 2020. Currently, California imposes a 20 percent requirement by 2010.

Gov. Schwarzenegger is expected this week to veto a similar bill passed by the California Legislature. The bill limited the amount of renewable energy that could be imported from outside the state. It appears that Gov. Schwarzenegger’s executive order will not include such a limitation.  There are also reports that Gov. Schwarzenegger may include nuclear energy as a renewable resource. See here for more information about California’s renewable energy regulations.

What is happening in California is likely a precursor to what will happen in Wisconsin in the coming months. Gov. Jim Doyle’s Global Warming Task Force Final Report recommends increasing Wisconsin’s “Renewable Portfolio Standard” from the current 10 percent requirement to 20 percent by 2020 and 25 percent by 2025. The Task Force also recommended requiring that 6 percent of the renewable energy be generated in Wisconsin by 2020, and 10 percent by 2025.

The renewable energy policy is just one of many policies currently being drafted by Wisconsin legislators as an omnibus bill. The renewable energy provision will likely be one of the more controversial issues as the bill moves forward.

The Wisconsin Legislature is considering companion bills (Assembly Bill 256/Senate Bill 185) that would give the Wisconsin Public Service Commission the authority to draft rules regarding the siting of wind turbines and preempt local government control over their placement.

Below is a story from the Wisconsin State Journal discussing the bills:

Retired mail carrier Gerry Meyer said he only sleeps two hours a night because of the constant swooshing sound and that his wife has started taking sleep medication.

His neighbor Nick Gonnering in South Byron, who lives just as close to the noise, said he finds the sound “relaxing.”

Either way, the sound of wind turbines is making more ears perk up as a bill moves forward in the Legislature that would empower the Public Service Commission to create statewide rules governing wind power and pre-empt local government control over their placement.

The rules would govern the distance between turbines and homes along with their noise and the flicker effects of shadows from their turbine blades.

The bill’s supporters say the current local ordinances on wind turbines are a patchwork of differing and sometimes unduly restrictive rules that are holding up development of wind farms here.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has an in-depth article today discussing a proposed $10 billion transmission line that would bring wind power to Wisconsin. 

According to the article:

At 765,000 volts, the lines would carry two to six times as much power as the largest power lines operating in Wisconsin today. Wisconsin’s highest-voltage lines are 345,000 volts, and transmission utility American Transmission Co. faces vocal opposition in its bid to build another line in Dane County.

In a related article, the Wall Street Journal yesterday cited a study that put the price tag of updating the nation’s transmission system to allow for more renewable energy at $100 billion.