Public Comment on The Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming Strawman Proposal - June 18
26 Pages
English
Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer

Public Comment on The Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming Strawman Proposal - June 18

Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer
26 Pages
English

Description

Public Comment on The Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming Comprehensive Strawman Proposal Received on June 18, 2008 - Part I - Comments from Page Wayne Stroessner 2 Michael Orth  4 Judy Johnston 4 Tom Arden 5 Dr. John Wm. Ridge 6 Mark Honadel 7 Alana Aubin 7 Bonnie Aller 8 Mike Neuman 8 Terry Glembo 9 Lloyd LaDuke 10 Rick Sovitzky 10 Bruce L Weimer 10 Sherry Albrecht  10 Laura Gassner 11 Quinn Fiske 11 Phil Hoyer 11 Ken and Sandi Summerfield 12 Bruce Nielsen, P.E. 12 Fred Raatz 12 Blane R. Vik  13 Chuck Roloff 13 Jose R. Sepulveda 14 Danne Reagles 14 Warren Wiegratz 14 Bonez Yang 15 Robert Rettler 15 Terry Gerlach 15 Clayton Hill 16 Eileen Stutt 16 Al Roberts 17 Andy Mitchell 17 Jolanta Sears 17 Randall Smith 17 LARRY SCHIER 18 C. Smith 18 Mark Winnen 18 Tim Ritten 19Tony Rink 19 Kevin F. Keyser 19 Walter Klaffenboeck 20Suzanne Herold 20 Page 1 of 26 Kim Larson 21 Mike Gallagher 21 Cliff Peters 22 Schroeder, Marylyn 23 Skip Ticha 24 Cris Luetzow 24 C.R. Milazzo 24 Steve Foley 25 Roger Viel 25 From: Wayne Stroessner Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:01 AM To: DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS Subject: Comments to Task Force To: The Global Warming Task ForceFrom: Wayne Stroessner, WICEC Past President Wisconsin Interfaith Climate and Energy Campaign There are four items that are of special concern to us: Item I: Modifying Wisconsin’s nuclear moratorium so that “the proposed plant must be ...

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Reads 59
Language English

Exrait

Public Comment on The Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming
Comprehensive Strawman Proposal

Received on June 18, 2008
- Part I -


Comments from Page
Wayne Stroessner 2
Michael Orth  4
Judy Johnston 4
Tom Arden 5
Dr. John Wm. Ridge 6
Mark Honadel 7
Alana Aubin 7
Bonnie Aller 8
Mike Neuman 8
Terry Glembo 9
Lloyd LaDuke 10
Rick Sovitzky 10
Bruce L Weimer 10
Sherry Albrecht  10
Laura Gassner 11
Quinn Fiske 11
Phil Hoyer 11
Ken and Sandi Summerfield 12
Bruce Nielsen, P.E. 12
Fred Raatz 12
Blane R. Vik  13
Chuck Roloff 13
Jose R. Sepulveda 14
Danne Reagles 14
Warren Wiegratz 14
Bonez Yang 15
Robert Rettler 15
Terry Gerlach 15
Clayton Hill 16
Eileen Stutt 16
Al Roberts 17
Andy Mitchell 17
Jolanta Sears 17
Randall Smith 17
LARRY SCHIER 18
C. Smith 18
Mark Winnen 18
Tim Ritten 19
Tony Rink 19
Kevin F. Keyser 19
Walter Klaffenboeck 20
Suzanne Herold 20
Page 1 of 26 Kim Larson 21
Mike Gallagher 21
Cliff Peters 22
Schroeder, Marylyn 23
Skip Ticha 24
Cris Luetzow 24
C.R. Milazzo 24
Steve Foley 25
Roger Viel 25


From: Wayne Stroessner
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:01 AM
To: DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS
Subject: Comments to Task Force
To: The Global Warming Task Force
From: Wayne Stroessner, WICEC Past President
Wisconsin Interfaith Climate and Energy Campaign

There are four items that are of special concern to us:

Item I: Modifying Wisconsin’s nuclear moratorium so that “the proposed plant must be built to meet Wisconsin
electricity needs, at a cost that is reasonable in comparison with available alternatives, taking account of emission
reductions benefits…”

A. It appears that the Task Force is thinking in terms of electricity produced by nuclear technology that was
developed more than a half century ago. Research has been done which indicates that there is a far better
alternative to using Uranium/Plutonium as nuclear fuels. That alternative is Thorium. By itself, Thorium is not fissile
so it eliminates most of the hazards associated with present day nuclear plants.

I would hope that members of the Task Force will take the time to educate themselves to the fact that Thorium offers
a host of benefits not provided by the old, outdated Uranium/Plutonium technology for producing electrical energy.
Thorium may provide a win-win-win situation. It is only fair to give it a fair evaluation.

These are some of the advantages:
• Dramatically lowers the volume and toxicity of waste
• Significantly improves reactor safety
• Clean and easy fuel processing
• Removes the hazards associated with current fuel production
• Operates in an environmentally safe manner
• Prevents weapons proliferation
• Significantly reduces reactor size and complexity
• Drastically reduces fuel costs, making hydrogen production economical
• Lasts for hundreds of years ... acting as a bridge from oil, gas and coal to fusion
• Thorium is more widely abundant than uranium - USA has world’s fourth largest supply
• Safe environmental operation
• DBI (Dauvergne Brothers Inc.) Thorium Reactor offers these additional advantages:
• No refueling for the life of the reactor (30+ years)
• After 30+ years, a 90% reduction in volume and toxicity of waste
• Energy produced at less than 3 cents per kilowatt-hour
• Capital investment paid back in record time
• Solutions for handling the waste of the other reactors
• Enables higher fuel burn-up rates
• Produces less long-lived radioactive actinide waste
• Is less expensive to process
• Eliminates the possibility of radiation release to the environment, catastrophic failure
through operator error, or core meltdown
Page 2 of 26 • Provides facility decommissioning at the end of the reactor's useful life

Below are some websites that will provide a good background concerning the use of Thorium:

[ALL LINKS EXIT DNR]

Norway Can Solve the Global Energy Crisis
<http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/energie_elektrotechnik/bericht-71533.html>
Green nuclear power coming to Norway | COSMOS magazine
<http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1341>
DBI Thorium Reactors
<http://www.dauvergne.com/english/pages/safety.htm>
Accelerating Future » A Nuclear Reactor in Every Home
http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2006/10/a-nuclear-reactor-in-every-home/
Diva International.“Thorium-based nuclear energy” Interview with …
<http://www.divainternational.ch/spip.php?article161>
Thorium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium>
Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes: Norway mulls Thorium nuclear plant
<http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2007/05/norway-mulls-thorium-nuclear-plant.html>
<djysrv.blogspot.com/2007/05/ norway-mulls-thorium-nuclear-plant.html>
Thorium Nuclear Power - Truth versus Guns
http://www.rolf-witzsche.com/peace/global/canada/thorium.html
Thorium - Encyclopedia of Earth
<http://www.eoearth.org/article/Thorium>

B. Concerning the second part of the above paragraph (in Item I): “at a cost that is reasonable in comparison with
available alternatives, taking account of emission reductions benefits…” and another Task Force statement: “ the
Task Force recognizes the need to take all cost-effective, feasible emissions mitigation actions,” In the past, when
“real” costs were involved with utility coal burning, neither the PSC nor the courts appeared to be concerned with
costs related to pollution which causes: illnesses or deaths; acid precipitation; hospital, doctor and medicine bills
required because of pollution; effects of mountaintop removal with accompanying pollution of drinking water and
streams; effects on recreation i.e. activity limits during non-attainment (ozone) days, limits on eating fish because of
mercury, fishing decline because of fish contamination, etc. If all externalities were added to the costs of burning coal
for electrical generation, it would be far more expensive than nearly any other methods of producing energy.

Item II: “Provide assistance to farmers to cultivate the next generation of energy crops.” If this involves subsidies for
farmers to produce kernel corn for ethanol production, WICEC is against it. If there is any net gain in renewable
energy from this process, it is too small to be effective and the destructive toll that corn crops have on the soil leaves
future generations with low quality farmland.

However, if assistance to farmers is for the production of ethanol from cellulosic crops, wood wastes, plant stubbles,
or other waste biomass, we would endorse that promotion.

Item III: The statement: “The Task Force should recommend that the state also increase its own funding for such
R&D and that the PSC permit reasonable increased spending on GHG emissions reduction-related R&D by electric
utilities to be recovered in rates.” This recommendation especially affects low income families who already are
having difficulties with energy bills. Considering the salaries paid to CEOs and other utility officials in addition to the
rate paid to shareholders, it would seem reasonable that this expense should be considered as part of doing
business and not be tacked onto ratepayers. The best incentive to get results from researchers is to motivated them
by paying their salaries. That control should be in the hands of shareholders and management.

Item IV: Some of the Task Force recommendations actually gut the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Bill
(Act 141). These are some alternative recommendations:

Page 3 of 26 • Do not change the definition to non-renewable forms of power, like large-scale hydro and
derivatives of fossil-fuels.
• Keep green-pricing programs honest!
• Prevent double-counting of renewable energy! Do not remove the expiration date on the
energy credits.
• Create incentives for small, immediate cuts in global warming gases now. Not later.

Wayne Stroessner
Random Lake, WI


From: Michael J. Orth
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 2:08 AM
To: DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS
Subject: Global Warming Task Force Comments
I oppose the gutting of a past Conservation Priority, the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Bill (Act 
141).  I think the task force should leave the definition of renewable energy alone!  Your 
recommendations attempt to change the definition to non‐renewable forms of power, like large‐scale 
hydro and derivatives of fossil‐fuels.  Any action must keep green‐pricing programs honest!  Right now, 
citizens can enroll in special programs where they choose to purchase clean, green energy at a higher 
rate.  Every time they do so, it is green energy IN ADDITION TO the 10% renewable  standard 
required by law.  The Task Force recommendations propose to change that and count the green energy 
citizens are paying for TOWARDS the utilities' required 10% renewable energy goal.  Please prevent 
double‐counting of renewable energy!  Act 141 required a 10% renewable energy standard by 2015, and 
provides an incentive for companies that move quickly towards that goal to sell their renewable energy 
credits to other companies who are unable to move as quickly, with those credits being good for a 
maximum of 4 years.  Now the Task Force recommends that the expiration date on the energy credits be 
removed, meaning that renewable energy credits could be counted indefinitely and replace actual 
renewable energy.  I think that is a bad idea.  Second, the state must support strong, science‐based 
emission reduction targets by including a specific pollution reduction timeline and amounts for those 
reductions:  Stabilize emissions by 2010; reach 2005 levels by 2012; 25% reduction from 1990 levels by 
2020; and 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050.  And finally, we need to encourage action now, not 
later, by creating incentives for small, immediate cuts in global warming gases.  The recommendations 
include no such incentives which could mean that Wisconsinites see no reductions any time soon.      
 
Michael Orth 


From: Judy Johnston
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:16 AM
To: DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS
Subject: Global Warming Task Force
Dear Task Force,

In regards to the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Bill (Act 141)

Please leave the definition of renewable energy alone. Do not change the definition
to nonrenewable forms of power.
Page 4 of 26
Keep the green-pricing programs as they are intended-keeping the special
green programs purchased by citizens at a higher rate to be in addition to the 10% renewable
energy standard-not counted towards the 10% required by law!

Please keep companies renewable energy credits to 4 years and not indefinitely.

The state of Wisconsin had several air quality alerts just this year-our elderly population and
small children are not able to go outside and enjoy our state! The amazing thing about these
alerts is that they are not just for our large cities but for our rural communities also. How can we
promote tourism when our population can't even go outside! We need to be a leader in
supporting strong, science-based emissions reduction targets by including specific pollution
reduction timeline and the amounts for those reductions achieving an 80% reduction from 1990
levels by 2050. With our current climate situation, it may be too costly not to implement these
target reductions.

We need to continue to support the Wisconsin's current nuclear moratorium on nuclear facilities,
requiring them to demonstrate their plan for nuclear waste storage. We cannot keep producing
waste with no where to go with it and unsafe conditions to store it!

We need action now not later to create incentives for small, immediate cuts in global warming
gases. How will we continue to survive with the natural disasters that are already occurring,
crippling our transportation and economy.

Sincerely,
Judy Johnston


From: Tom Arden
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:00 AM
To: DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS
Subject: KRM Rail and economic/environmental development in SE Wisc.
We fully support KRM in SE Wisconsin and the commiserate positive impact on the economic
development in this area.

As Krm hopefully moves forward a possible long range goal would be to electrify the trains with
the idea of KRM tying into a more regional network of electric light rail in SE Wisconsin,
linking Milwaukee with other municipalities such as Waukesha, Port Washington.

The power to move the trains generated by means other than dirty coal or nuclear power.

Thank you.

Tom Arden
Kenosha, WI

Page 5 of 26
From: John Ridge
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 9:09 AM
To: DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS
Subject: Comments
I strongly support three statements of the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters, as
follows:

1. Oppose the gutting of a past Conservation Priority, the Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency Bill (Act 141). Specifically, the Task Force should:
• Leave the definition of renewable energy alone! The recommendations attempt to change
the definition to non-renewable forms of power, like large-scale hydro and derivatives of
fossil-fuels.
• Keep green-pricing programs honest! Right now, citizens can enroll in special programs
where they choose to purchase clean, green energy at a higher rate. Every time they do
so, it is green energy IN ADDITION TO the 10% renewable energy standard required by
law. The Task Force recommendations propose to change that and count the green energy
citizens are paying for TOWARDS the utilities' required 10% renewable energy goal.
• Prevent double-counting of renewable energy! Act 141 required a 10% renewable energy
standard by 2015, and provides an incentive for companies that move quickly towards
that goal to sell their renewable energy credits to other companies who are unable to
move as quickly, with those credits being good for a maximum of 4 years. The Task
Force recommends that the expiration date on the energy credits be removed, meaning
that renewable energy credits could be counted indefinitely and replace actual renewable
energy.
2. Support strong, science-based emission reduction targets by including a specific pollution
reduction timeline and amounts for those reductions: Stabilize emissions by 2010; reach 2005
levels by 2012; 25% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020; and 80% reduction from 1990 levels
by 2050.

4. Encourage action now, not later, by creating incentives for small, immediate cuts in global
warming gases. The recommendations include no such incentives which could mean that
Wisconsinites see no reductions any time soon.

However, I think there should be no "moratorim" on nuclear power plants. Rather, they
should be required to have a nuclear waste storage plan, of course, but get with the
building of as many nuclear power plants as possible. Yesterday. Ultimately, nuclear is our
only way out. Storage is a technical problem which should be regulated but not thwarted.

3. Support Wisconsin's current nuclear moratorium, which requires that any proposed nuclear
facilities must demonstrate that they have a plan for nuclear waste storage. The recommendations
would remove this waste storage requirement.

Dr. John Wm. Ridge
Page 6 of 26 Altoona, WI


From: Rep.Honadel
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 9:53 AM
To: DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS
Subject: Comments Regarding Strawman Proposal
Please accept my attached comments regarding the Strawman Proposal to the Governor's Global
Warming Task Force. Thank you.
http://dnr.wi.gov/environmentprotect/gtfgw/comments/PDF/Honadel_comments.pdf [PDF 38KB]
Mark Honadel
State Representative
21st Assembly District
Majority Caucus Chair


From: Alana Aubin
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:28 AM
To: DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS
Subject: Strawman Proposal Not Strong Enough
As a resident of Wisconsin and an individual concerned with the issue of global warming, I am
writing to ask that the proposal be revised.

Specifically, the Global Warming Task Force proposal should contain:
• Numeric global warming reduction targets based on the most current, sound science
• Mandatory early action to reduce global warming pollution
• Home-grown clean energy and energy efficiency solutions to address global warming in
Wisconsin
Wisconsin needs to take aggressive measures, starting immediately, to reduce global warming
pollution by 80%. We can't afford to wait any longer to act on this serious problem that has far
reaching impacts on our economy, ecology, and public health!

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this critical issue.

Kind regards,
Alana Aubin


From: Bonnie or Lois Aller
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:29 AM
To: DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS
Subject: We Need Act 141 Intact and Strong

Page 7 of 26 Dear Sirs and Mesdames:

The Conservation Priority, the Renewable Energy and Efficiency Bill (Act
141) is already a strong stepping stone to a sustainable future. Coal (even
Liquid) and Oil are not renewable. They have no place in a Bill for
Renewable Energies. The derivatives of fossil-fuels are as poisonous to the
environment as are the originals. Nuclear is not a viable answer until we
find away to secure the waste. If it leaks into our very valuable ground
water, we still get all the bad effects. The energy that the Coal companies
has shoved down our throat has given us mercury poisoning already. Please,
do not include derivatives and nuclear in the definition of renewable energy.

Please, keep the pricing for renewable as it is now. There is no need to
change the policy to help the industry. They are not starving.
France, Germany, Iceland are all developing their energy with green
sustainability as the goal. Farmers in Germany have been able to harness
their by-products run their farms and sell back energy. Work the pricing for
the people who can save and thereby spread more energy around. Please, do
not remove the expiration date on energy credits.
They have 4 years. What actual strain is it on them to renew for another
FOUR years.

I hope you will support strong, science-based emission reduction targets. We
need a specific pollution reduction timeline and amounts for those
reductions. Reductions stabilize now. They wouldn't start reducing (and
then only to 2005 levels) until 2012. This is not putting a strain on
Business and we know only Business counts. People don't count. The Planet
doesn't count. Business Counts. Your changes prove that. We need to work
now, by creating incentives to help the people.
You've offered a lot of benefits to Business already in your plans.
Please, do something to help the People and the Planet. Thank you for your
attention to this critical idea and policy.

Yours Respectfully,
Bonnie Aller
Hartland, WI


From: Michael T Neuman
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:36 AM
To: DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS
Subject: Global Warming Task Force Comprehensive Strawman Proposal

I read the Governor's Global Warming Task Force's report entitled
"Comprehensive Strawman Proposal" (June 10, 2008), as published on the DNR's
website this month. I have commented during various stages of the Task
Force's work on this report, including testifying at public informational
hearings, and my remarks are intended to be consistent with my earlier
submissions.

The transportation sector in Wisconsin and the nation contributes more
greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, when measured in terms of end
uses, than any other sector. Therefore, I concur with the comprehensive
strawman that it is essential that the state implement a comprehensive set of
policies to lower emissions by increasing the efficiency of vehicles in the
Page 8 of 26 state, to substitute low carbon fuels, and to enable individuals and business
to drive less miles.

It is the third of the above transportation measures -- enabling individuals
and business to drive less miles -- that is the most urgent.
The Governor needs to recommend programs that will provide financial
incentives for Wisconsin's citizens to drive many fewer miles per year then
they do now. The high gasoline prices of today will help with those
reduction but they will not be nearly enough to reduce driving to more
sustainable levels in the state. The state needs to provide additional
positive financial incentives for individuals and families in the state to
minimize their driving levels over the year, ideally to reduce vehicle miles
traveled in the state by 25% by 2010.

The billion dollar transportation fund would be the obvious source of
revenues for such a program. A program that reduces the number of miles the
public drives in our state would reduce the need to expand the capacity of
highways, so that less money would be needed to build new highways. The
current practice of expanding highways throughout the state is both
economically and environmentally unsustainable and needs to stop.

Similarly, the state needs to provide financial incentives for its citizens
to use less energy in their homes, above and beyond the cost savings from
using less electricity and fuel, on a per capita in the household basis.
Additional details on how to implement this measure -- as well as the drive
less incentives -- can be found at the following
link:

[EXIT DNR] http://www.danenet.org/bcp2006/neuman_gw.pdf

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the June 10, 2008 Comprehensive
Strawman Proposal.

Mike Neuman
Madison


From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:39 AM
To: DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS
Subject: Do NOT pass the recommendations of the global warming task force


Our economy is energy... they are, and you will destroy the economy.

How about we have a real debate about Global Warming?


Terry Glembo
Lead Engineer
Schneider National
Schneider National, Inc.
Green Bay, WI


Page 9 of 26 From: Lloyd LaDuke
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:43 AM
To: DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS
Subject: Global Warming
I do not want anything from the global warming task force implemented, we can not afford to
raise the cost of energy! What we need to do is lift the moratorium on nuclear energy!

Lloyd LaDuke
Menomonee Falls, Wi


From: Rick Sovitzky
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:44 AM
To: DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS
Subject: Comment
Please stop regulating energy so much. I am a life-long resident of WI, but am mostly embarrassed to
say so. Wisconsin needs to throw off the tentacles of the environmentalists. They do NOT represent
most of us. Wisconsin is already more anti-industry than many states. We need cheaper energy to grow
and thrive. Sensible solutions are more nuclear plants, reduction of restrictions on conventional power
plants, reduction of gas taxes, elimination of ethanol in gas requirement.

This is the direction Wisconsinites desire.

Rick


From: Bruce Weimer
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:47 AM
To: DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS
Subject: Global Warming Task Force
You need to clear the way for the use of Nuclear Energy. It is a safe form of energy and will
greatly reduce the oil demand. You have strangled us for so many years that we need to move
forward even if it take 10 years. If we don't start now we will never get there. You have been
duping the public long enough. You need to end ethanol subsidies to wisconsin ethanol
producers. It is time to think of the people of the Great State of Wisconsin and not your political
agendas.

Bruce L Weimer
President
Elite Medical Services


From: WICPA - Sherry Albrecht
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:45 AM
To: DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS
Subject: Strawman proposal
Page 10 of 26