Alternative Energy in Wisconsin and its Place in Governance

The Midwest Renewable Energy Association plays a fundamental role within environmental governance in the region, specifically promoting solar systems.  They work above myriad smaller actors, such as Grow Solar, to ready the area for the transition to a more open energy market, where decentralized sustainable energy sources are viable options for consumers.  The manner in which these groups work towards this goal is detailed in the previous post Grow Solar - A Midwest Partnership to Move Markets.  Grow Solar and the MREA especially are excellent examples of the emerging place of environmental governance in society, as illustrated by the eight hypothesis posited by JP Evans.  Those that appear most immediately relevant follow.

There is very little that can be done above the personal or community level to promote sustainability without in some way interacting with the market.  American-style capitalism guides the formation of the public's feelings on alternative energy in all directions.  Some see an unnecessary expense in the short term with an uncertain future, some a necessary transition to a more sustainable future.  Some simply see room for innovation and the profit innovation and change can bring.  No matter what the personal opinion on renewables, people as a whole like to have a variety of choice, and, indeed, that choice contributes to healthy markets.  Grow Solar working to clarify and unify regulations and to ease restrictive or punitive fees, as an example, go a long way to opening a previously, somewhat artificially, closed market to a new competitor.  Evans is correct in that these systems are not going to disappear any time soon, and making the sometimes hostile marketplace more friendly to renewables is necessary now, before the monopolies can do more to keep disruptive technology out of the market.

It seems that changes in cultural values do not amount to much if there is no infrastructure, or even a hostile one, to fuel change.  Similarly, attempting to make major shifts like the switch to renewables without the private sector and the priorities of the people being ready amounts to top-down ordering of change.  This is always unpopular and has many problems.  They work to educate the populace and leaders alike, to prepare the private sector with job training and the like,  and to ease civic impediments and hassles.  The variety of approaches and vectors of action makes the work these groups do more robust and likely more effective.  It simply will not do any good to have trained PV solar technicians if people are scared away from installing a rooftop system by zoning regulations and fees, and vice versa.

The interaction of these two organization has a necessarily dualistic structure.  The MREA helps to coordinate and facilitate communication between many, many groups across a very wide area.  Grow Solar works on a more local level.  Each is needed to ensure effectiveness of the other.  The MREA's regional efforts help ensure that groups like Grow Solar are on the same page across distances.  They have a way to share information, tactics, and people easily, as well as having the larger, more unified body needed for interacting with organizations as large as huge corporations and the various federal and state government agencies.  In turn, the finer resolution focus of Grow Solar makes any work they do far more effective than if the MREA attempted to do it themselves.  The two scales are necessary to ensure they have a loud enough voice but still enough clarity to account for local differences.

Alternative energy plans involve public infrastructure.  Just as there is no way to escape the marketplace above the personal level, there is no way to work in energy without interacting with the government.  Fossil fuel companies and energy monopolies like WE Energies generally have the backing of the state, and they not going to just idly allow decentralized energy production disrupt their profits.  In this area, the government has a very important role to play in protecting a vulnerable fledgling industry from the predations of the existing hegemony.  WE Energies's attempt to implement an apparently punitive surcharge for home-generating customers clearly shows the sort of tactics that can be used to dissuade people from making even a partial switch to green energy.  Anti-competitive actions like that are inimical to a healthy marketplace and are exactly the sort of thing the government is suited to protect against.  The tricky area is in ensuring the pendulum does not swing to far in the other direction, since in many areas regulations and taxes are being used to squelch the growth of renewables.  Again, this is a reason why Grow Solar's approach is extremely important.

Overall, the future is not as dark as it may seem to some.  The multifaceted and wide-ranging approach of the MREA is helping to make serious headway on a problem that will otherwise only get worse as time go on.  It is a positive sign that, instead of just fighting against negative things in the present situation, they are working also to prepare for the future.  The extensive job training and certification plans the MREA coordinates through smaller groups, along with regulatory reform, are surely a major way of moving forward and making it so that not only are the renewable energy sources possible to implement, but that they are actually within reach.

Reducing energy and transitioning to renewable sources: A State-led partnership

Reducing our energy use and transitioning to renewable energy is a major issue we face today and will play a key role in our ability to live sustainably as well as combat global climate change. The topic covers micro-scale all the way to the global scale. To solve these issues many different institutions and actors are needed. One such actor is the Environmental Protection Agency. As a governmental agency it is a form of hierarchal mode of governance.  Through giving grants for research and development, sponsoring partnerships, environmental research, educational outreach and policy development and enforcement, the EPA has wide reaching arms. The EPA was a key actor is developing the Clean Power Plan which has been passed by President Obama, giving the EPA the task of enforcing its regulations. It seeks to regulate fossil fuel emissions with incentives to leave behind dirty nonrenewable fuel sources for cleaner more sustainable renewable energy.

In looking at the “State” as an actor there are a few hypothesis J.P Evans talks about in which I think are key for reducing energy and transitioning towards renewable energy.  First “Government Matters” mentions how the scale and speed of change necessary to combat global climate change needs to be faster in order to make an impact. I believe that the State must take strong direct action. Right now the policies in my opinion on not strong enough. They allow for mitigating emissions or buying the ability to emit more. This just prolongs the use of dirty fuel sources. The energy companies want to milk what they have for every cent they can get. The slow and small steps towards less emissions is nothing compared strong policy and incentives for the transition to renewable energy sources. Rather than spending money and resources to mitigate our use, it could be better spent developing and implementing renewable energy on both small and large scales.  Another hypothesis that stood out for me was that of “Getting a mix of approaches right is critical”. Each mode lends different strengths and weaknesses, so finding a concoction of modes would greatly increase the effectiveness for tackling environmental problems. A multi-prong approach would be much more effective as well as heard by many more people with attempts to reduce energy.  While market governance can help innovate energy or green technology, and reduce our energy use, I do not think it is the best approach for transitioning to renewable energy. It can help with more efficient appliances, houses and electric cars, but as far as the energy grid goes, I am a strong believer in strong hierarchal governance and policies to not only steer in the right direction, but a little push as well.  For reducing energy consumption and transitioning to alternative forms of energy, I think J.P. Evan’s eight hypothesis are spot on. It takes into account real world applications and externalities that arise while trying to tackle wicked problems. While I do agree with the statement “Governance is about evolution, not revolution”, I do think some environmental problems, and in this case transitioning to alternative energy need a bit of a revolution to hasten the evolution. 

Public Participation in the World of Renewable Energies

There are many strengths and weaknesses of every actor involved in solving a part of the problem that is climate change. Within the actors and regulations that have been involved with my group’s blogs, there are some obvious and not so obvious flaws or benefits which might hinder the solutions to our problem.

One of the main issues is public participation; or rather the lack there of.

With the regulations provided, the Lake Michigan Offshore Wind Energy Act and the Clean Power Plan, public participation is seemingly non-existent. Created by the Illinois State and President of the United States of America, it doesn’t seem that any public participation was even offered. There are bound to be people who would complain of offshore wind farms, or that the CCP for industries was not as strict as it could be. This may be a good thing, as these regulations are encouraging for the renewable energies market and better for the environment.

It was mentioned in class today that the public won’t be too upset if given fair notice or the opportunity to voice their opinions; but if no notice or warning is given, then certain individuals will rage.

As far as our actors go, I think the most limiting (or attempted to limit) solutions towards the problem is WE Energies. With wanting to receive energy made from home-owned energy collection and fighting the “threat posed by alternative decentralized energy industries”, it seems quite obvious that money is their highest priority, and not the environment. This sets up the public participation as absent and is represented by a form of manipulation.

On a better note, the other actors such as the Natural Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Grow Solar and the Great Plains Institute (GPI) are great examples of informing and consulting forms of participation. When the GPI and NREL collaborate with businesses (large and small), local communities and NGOs are invited and encouraged to participate to help develop solutions for whatever the unanimous goal is.

One thing that J.P. Evans brings to light in his final chapter of Environmental Governance is that with public participation there are some downfalls which become an issue for this particular topic, as opposed to others.

Asymmetry - He mentions that stakeholders are all suggested to all have equal attention with like-minded goals however, depending on the project size, location and content, not everyone will be content with how the solution is developed.

This particular drawback can be seen with GPI. While collaborating with many different institutions and developing policies and regulations, it is very unlikely that everyone will be happy in the end.

Expert Bias – Many institutions are what J.P. Evans says are, “stuck in the mindset that only experts can answer policy questions.” He backs this up by providing the concept of Decide-Announce-Defend (DAD).

This one can be seen with Grow Solar. Within city specific projects, the consulting and planning parts may be constructed by Urban Planners and members of the city; but this does not mean they are aware of all that occurs with everything happening within the city. Book-smarts is one thing, but street-smarts are more important in some areas. As a keystone species is vital to a particular ecosystem, affecting some communities or areas could affect more than anticipated.

Lack of Resources – J.P. Evens’ last drawback to public participation is the lack of resources; this isn’t solely about monetary issues, but time spent, and responsibility are other things as well. Once a project is complete, and it isn’t up to expectations or standards, is it the communities’ or the organizations’ responsibility to solve the issue?

This flaw could very well happen with the Lake Michigan offshore wind parks. If the energy generated doesn’t meet the minimal requirements based on poor research or quality of machinery…is it Chicago, or the energy company to look up to?

The flaws that J.P. Evans points out in the final chapter of his book, I feel, are valid to some extent. Every project will have some form of public participation whether it is placation, power delegation or manipulation. And with anything has public participation in some way or another have one of these three flaws. It’s hard to say which is most prominent, but they all affect the world of renewable energies.