A response to: Wisconsin lags Midwest in clean energy sector jobs

Ken:
 
Regarding your article: Wisconsin lags Midwest in clean energy sector jobs
Before Focus, the shareholder utilities led the charge. Alliant (WPL) once had the most successful low-interest loan program in the country (it was called Shared Savings). Today (since 2001) we collect the monies from our retail customers (ACT141) and send it to Focus on Energy. We are not allowed to collect money from our wholesale customers, but we have been charged for those sales, since inception. The recent legislation is to correct that discrepancy. Now, the collections will be on the retail sales of energy – each customer contributes, once – no double-dipping. Utilities are not being greedy, we just want the accounting to accurately reflect the intent of the legislation.
 
I for one, agree that the Focus on Energy program has been successful and should not be cut – maybe, even expanded. The proper way of doing that is by legislation, as was done originally in 2001 via, ACT141. If we want more budget, we will need to increase the contribution (percentage) by retail customers – residential, commercial, agricultural, and industrial.
 
Alliant Energy has its conservation and energy-efficiency priorities straight. For over 20 years, our account management personnel (which includes me) have either had incentives or goal requirements in place, that are based upon increasing the conservation and energy-efficiency of our assigned customers. That’s correct, if our customers use less energy, we are rewarded, or get positive notification to our performance.
 
It’s too easy to suggest that utilities are greedy and want less funding in regard to energy-efficiency and renewables. You have to remember that we have to answer to the Public Service Commission, our shareholders, and to our customers. If more efficiency funding , our customers bill contribution increases. If more renewable energy funding, then their rates increase. Capital investment requires capital – and much of that money comes in the form of a line-adder on the monthly utility bill.
 
Whether transmission improvements, generation or distribution; or efficiency, renewable energy or low income assistance – it is our name on the bill each month. We are right in the middle. I’m just trying to communicate that is more complex than the perception on the surface.
 
Thanks,
 
Jeff
 
F. Jeff McCarthy | Key Account Manager
.
ALLIANT ENERGY
2147 County Highway PB | Verona, WI 53593

Ken Notes: First a clarification, I did not write the article, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel did.

I did say regarding the lack of green jobs:

Ken Notes: This is sad, Wisconsin has some GREAT companies and leaders in the green energy field but the State is not supportive. Why?

Focus on Energy has led the charge on consumer awareness and business implementation of green tech that IMPROVES the bottom line --- and we cut funding because energy companies asked for this?

Our requirement for green power is largely provided by facilities in Illinois, Minnesota, and Iowa, Why?? This technology is now cost effective, and being rapidly adopted in every state including Wisconsin despite little support from leadership. More Monday in WDNgreen.com

IT IS MONDAY SO:

1. I guess I understand the technical aspect of the legislation but when the utilities asked for the correction they did NOT ask to negate the impact on FOCUS.
   
   
2. I did mention that many of the green energy projects (and jobs), to get to the Wisconsin green energy goal, come from other states, while our legislature creates disincentives for green production in the state. Like the energy itself, I believe some companies take the path of least resistance and since Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois all have less obstacles they get the production and the jobs. The report bears this out.
   
   
3. I have never suggested utilities are greedy, in fact I met with MGE during the rate change hearings and used this publication to advocate for compromise. (much to the consternation of most of my readers). I am now asking those companies to step up and deliver on their promise to create more green energy now that the threat of competition has been reduced. For the record MGE is doing just that.
   
   
4. You mention the PSC and admit to lobbying (for recent legislation "to correct that discrepancy") in the same article. I have asked, even begged that energy and environmental issues not be a chess piece in the political arena. Yet it is - and energy companies have used this to their advantage. I now suggest these same companies move away from partisan politics and start advocating for jobs, cleaner energy, protecting our air and land -- all for the benefit of our grandchildren.
   
   Since you have demonstrated that you can in fact produce legislative outcomes -- and have -- here is a challenge: You suggested that:
   
   I for one, agree that the Focus on Energy program has been successful and should not be cut – maybe, even expanded. 
   
   I am asking that you (and the other energy companies) work to draft legislation that improves Wisconsin`s FOCUS ON ENERGY programs, improves our adoption of LED and other efficient technologies, produces more green energy in the state, and returns Wisconsin to the environmental leadership status it once enjoyed.
   

   ...more