1. Complying with Act 141: Renewable Electricity Consumption at State Facilities Prepared by: Jennifer Blonn, Erik Johnson Hy Matz and Nicholas Sayen

2. Presentation Outline Act 141 Purpose of Project Alternatives Assessment Criteria Analysis Recommendation

3. ACT 141 Governor Doyle’s Task Force on Energy Efficiency and Renewables Published on March 31, 2006 State facilities must acquire 10 percent renewable electricity by December 31, 2007 and 20 percent by December 31, 2011

4. Purpose To advise the Department of Administration in complying with the 2007 renewable electricity targets outlined in Wisconsin Act 141

5. Renewable Electricity Generation Background Energy Independence & Global Warming 26 States have Renewable Fuel Portfolio Standards (RPS) for Utilities 6 States have Standards for State Facilities (as of February 2007) Iowa, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin

6. Four Policy Alternatives Source: Environmental Protection Agency in collaboration with the Department of Energy, the World Resources Institute and the Center for Resource Solutions Alternative One: Purchase renewable electricity from local utilities that invest in IN- STATE resources to meet Act 141’s 2007 target

7. Four Policy Alternatives Alternative Two: Purchase renewable electricity from local utilities that invest in OUT-OF-STATE resources to meet Act 141’s 2007 target Alternative Three: Generate renewable electricity at state facilities Alternative Four: Purchase renewable energy credits (RECs)

8. Evaluation Criteria

9. Assumptions Purchasing from Utilities & Self-Generation Rated ‘Good’ Purchasing RECs Rated ‘Poor’ because decreased conventional electricity generation in the region will not result Promote a Healthy Natural Environment in Wisconsin

10. Foster a Strong State Economy Alternatives that utilize in-state generation Rated ‘Excellent’ for reducing Wisconsin’s dependence on out-of- state energy & fostering job growth in Wisconsin RECs Rated ‘Poor’ for reducing Wisconsin’s dependence on out-of-state energy & fostering job growth in Wisconsin Purchasing from utilities with electricity generated out- of-state Performs similarly to RECs, but does slightly better in fostering job growth in Wisconsin

11. Maximize Feasibility Purchasing from utilities Performs ‘Excellent’ with respect to minimizing DOA’s regulatory oversight costs & maximizing political support based on adoption in other states Self-Generation Performs ‘Poor’ in both feasibility impact categories RECs Performs ‘Excellent’ in minimizing DOA’s regulatory oversight costs Performs ‘Fair’ in maximizing political support because it has a limited track record of adoption in other states

12. Maximize Efficiency Purchasing from utilities with in-state generation ‘Excellent’ in terms of minimizing cost per kWh & promoting the long-term cost efficiency of renewable electricity in Wisconsin Purchasing from utilities with out-of-state generation ‘Good’ in terms of minimizing cost per kWh & promoting the long-term cost efficiency of renewable electricity in Wisconsin

13. Maximize Efficiency Self-Generation Rated ‘Poor’ in terms of minimizing cost per kWh Rated ‘Fair’ in terms of promoting the long-term cost efficiency of renewable electricity in Wisconsin RECs Rated ‘Good’ in terms of minimizing cost per kWh Performs ‘Poor’ in terms of promoting the long-term cost efficiency of renewable electricity in Wisconsin

14. Recommendation Purchase renewable electricity from local utilities that invest in IN-STATE resources to meet Act 141’s 2007 target Promote a Healthy Natural Environment in Wisconsin: Good Foster a Strong State Economy: Excellent Maximize Feasibility: Excellent Maximize Efficiency: Excellent

15. Recommendation Not mutually exclusive Second: Local utilities, out-of-state resources Third: RECs Last: On-site generation

16. Questions