Will clean energy help Wisconsin’s job prospects?

From an interview conducted by Lisa Kaiser in the Shepherd Express (Milwaukee):

One of the biggest questions posed by the state’s proposed Clean Energy Jobs Act is whether it will produce more jobs in the state or force manufacturers to cut their workforce because of increased energy costs.

Last week, Randall Swisher, former executive director of the American Wind Energy Association, spoke at the Green Energy Summit in Milwaukee about the economic advantages of renewable energy. Prior to his visit, Swisher explained to the Shepherd why Wisconsin should embrace homegrown renewable sources of energy like wind power.

Shepherd: Texas is the leading wind producer in the country, the result of a fairly aggressive, deliberate strategy by that state’s policy-makers. Are there any lessons that can be learned from Texas’ experience?

Swisher: Partly, that the public supports going in this direction. The second lesson that we learned is that, when you put a lot of wind [power] on the system, it’s a lot more cost-competitive than people realize. The technology works and it’s not as difficult to integrate it into the electric utility system as a lot of people seem to believe. Because the wind doesn’t blow all the time, people sometimes think this could never amount to much or it’s going to be very difficult for public utilities to utilize it. You know, none of that is true.

Also, Texas has done a good job in terms of understanding that if you want to access the wind resource, you’ve got to ensure that you can deliver the power to where people need it. And that means that transmission is important to the future of wind in this country, and Texas is really leading the way with that. They’re spending like $5 billion building transmission lines over the next few years to access wind resources in west Texas. And the thing that’s particularly amazing about it is that the benefits to consumers of getting those lines built and getting the extra wind in the system would save customers about $2.5 billion a year. So they’ll pay for the line in about two years.

Shepherd: What’s your take on the impact of the Clean Energy Jobs Act on energy costs and jobs in Wisconsin?

Swisher: I’ve looked at some of the analyses and it seems like almost every analysis that has been done—other than the analysis that was commissioned by the major industrial customers [Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC)]—demonstrates that in fact [the bill] won’t have a severe impact on the economy and will be a net source of jobs. So you begin to wonder about the assumptions that were at the heart of the study that the major industry groups commissioned.

But [the WMC study] clearly doesn’t square with the facts as I understand them about the relative cost-competitiveness of wind and other renewables to meet the needs of the state over time. This is something that we found time and again. We did this on a national basis in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy. They did an analysis of what it would cost and whether it is feasible for wind to provide 20% of the nation’s electricity within a 2030 time frame. It showed that not only was it cost-competitive with other generation sources like gas or coal and nuclear, but because of the fuel cost savings, it was a net economic benefit. I think what we found on a national basis is going to be true in a state like Wisconsin as well.