Minnesota’s Clean Energy Policies
Outpace Wisconsin’s
A Tale of Two States
Table of Contents
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................1
2. Renewable Energy Policy Results.....................................................................................1
2.1. Electricity Generation & Capacity............................................................................1
2.2. Clean Energy Job Creation.......................................................................................4
2.3. Pollution....................................................................................................................5
2.3.1. Carbon Dioxide..............................................................................................5
2.3.2. Mercury..........................................................................................................5
2.3.3. Sulfur Dioxide.................................................................................................5
3. Smart Policies Drive Progress...........................................................................................6
3.1. Renewable Electricity Standard...............................................................................6
3.2. Interconnection Standards.......................................................................................7
3.3. Community Solar Garden Policy...............................................................................7
3.4. Net Metering............................................................................................................7
3.5. Recognizing the Value of Solar.................................................................................8
3.6. Pollinator-Friendly Solar Standards..........................................................................9
3.7. Energy Efficiency.......................................................................................................9
4. Conclusions............................................................................................................................9
Authors – Samantha VanDyke and Andy Olsen
Editor – Lena G. Reynolds
Designer – Steve Connell
Neighboring Minnesota and Wisconsin have much in
common, but different renewable energy policies have
created very different results. Minnesota is larger in area,
but slightly less populous than Wisconsin. Both states have
large agriculture and manufacturing sectors, in addition to
abundant natural resources like forests, lakes, and wetlands
that support tourism and recreation.
While Minnesota is transitioning quickly from a fossil fuel-
dominated economy to a healthy clean energy economy,
Wisconsin has made much slower progress. Fossil fuels
impose many costs on society, producing numerous pollutants
and harming human health. Carbon pollution is especially
dangerous for its broad-sweeping effects. Minnesota and
Wisconsin must import expensive fossil fuels from other
states because neither has fossil fuel resources in-state.
Renewable energy enables each state to increase energy
self-reliance while keeping energy dollars at home.
Today, renewable wind and solar continue to tumble in price
while fossil power is an increasingly expensive source of
electricity, by comparison. Minnesota has a suite of clean
energy policies that help drive the development of wind and
solar power, while Wisconsin has a few modest and outdated
policies.
This report demonstrates how Minnesota became a clean
energy leader, while Wisconsin’s policies have lagged behind.
As a strong manufacturing state, Wisconsin benefits from
the national growth of the renewable energy industry and
could grow even more with modern and robust renewable
energy policies.
Minnesota has made great progress toward producing clean energy with modern technology, thanks to a suite of innovative
energy policies, while Wisconsin remains heavily reliant on burning coal with old technology. Wisconsin can learn a lot from
Minnesota to move “Forward.”
Find references and additional information at ELPC.org/issues/clean-energy
Introduction
Renewable Energy Policy Results
Electricity Generation and Capacity
1
Montfort Wind Energy Center, WI
Find references and additional information at ELPC.org/issues/clean-energy
Source: SEIA
Source: WindExchange
Figures 1 and 2 show dramatic growth in
Minnesota’s installed solar and wind capacity,
while Wisconsin lags behind.
2
Find references and additional information at ELPC.org/issues/clean-energy
Source: EIA
Source: EIA
Figures 3 and 4 show Minnesota has much
less coal generation and far more
renewable power generation
than Wisconsin.
3
Find references and additional information at ELPC.org/issues/clean-energy
Sources: EIA, WindExchange, SEIA
Sources: SEIA, AWEA
Growing national markets for wind and solar power have spurred business growth and job creation across Minnesota and
Wisconsin. Figure 7 illustrates strong job creation in both states. Minnesota has created a better state policy environment
for renewable energy that has produced manufacturing and development jobs. Wisconsin already benefits from clean energy
development in other states due to its large manufacturing sector. (Wisconsin’s growing clean energy industry will be featured
in this year’s ELPC forthcoming renewable energy supply chain report.) However, the Wisconsin economy misses out from
in-state development opportunities. State policies are vital to encouraging investment that can grow the in-state renewable
energy production capacity, thereby creating more jobs and economic growth. Wisconsin would benefit even more with better,
more robust state renewable energy policies encouraging development and installation within the state.
Clean Energy Job Creation
4
Source: Clean Jobs Midwest
Figure 5 shows Minnesota has over 5 times the wind capacity and over 16 times the solar capacity
as Wisconsin. Figure 6 shows Minnesota ranks much higher in terms of power generated by wind and
solar. Wisconsin regulators recently approved several large solar projects that will result in more than
500 MW of new solar in Wisconsin. This is a positive development, but to achieve growth of a wider
array of renewable energy projects at any size Wisconsin needs stronger statewide clean energy policies.
Burning fossil fuels creates air pollution, which increases healthcare and cleanup costs. Renewable energy is cost competitive,
and still increases our quality of life by improving public health.
Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere, increasing global warming and, in turn, harming human health. A recent report released
by ELPC in 2019, authored by several leading Midwestern scientists, shows the Great Lakes region is already warming faster than
the rest of the nation. Recent natural disasters like flooding and excessive heat are expected to get worse, causing displacement of
people, agricultural uncertainty, infrastructure damage, and threats to public health.
Minnesota has made great strides in reducing reliance on fossil fuels, leading to lower per capita carbon dioxide pollution compared
to Wisconsin. Minnesota’s main source of carbon dioxide pollution is now transportation, followed closely by agriculture and power
plants, while Wisconsin’s main source of carbon dioxide pollution is still power production.
Just this August, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers announced a goal of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2050, but Wisconsin still needs
a policy environment to get there. A number of Wisconsin cities and utility companies have also made reduction commitments.
Mercury pollution harms the environment and human health with toxic effects on the nervous and immune systems. It is
especially harmful to infants, who can suffer permanent brain damage from even minor exposure. Due to mercury accumulation
in waterways, both Minnesota and Wisconsin have fish consumption advisories. Coal power plants release the most mercury
in each state. Wind and solar farms produce no mercury emissions.
Sulfur dioxide pollution imposes costs on society through respiratory disease, decreased plant growth, and damage to fish. The
main source of sulfur dioxide pollution in each state is fossil energy power plants. All Minnesota counties are in compliance
with federal sulfur dioxide pollution standards. Wind and solar power release no sulfur dioxide pollution.
Find references and additional information at ELPC.org/issues/clean-energy
Pollution
Carbon Dioxide
Mercury
Sulfur Dioxide
Minnesota and Wisconsin must import expensive fossil fuels from other states
because neither has fossil fuel resources in-state. Renewable energy enables
each state to increase energy self-reliance while keeping energy dollars at home.
5
Find references and additional information at ELPC.org/issues/clean-energy
Smart Policies Drive Progress
A Renewable Electricity (or Portfolio) Standard (RES) sets minimum levels for renewable power generation. Minnesota has a much
stronger and more robust RES than Wisconsin and achieved their goal over five years ahead of time. Meanwhile, Wisconsin has
one of the weakest renewable electricity standards in the Midwest. Having already achieved their modest goal of 10% by 2015,
Wisconsin’s outdated RES now does little to spur the growth of renewable energy in the state.
Renewable Electricity Standard
Sources: DSIRE, EIA
6
Source: DSIRE
Gearbox Express, WI
Interconnection standards define how distributed renewable generation systems can connect to the electric grid. Clear
rules encourage clean energy development. Both Minnesota and Wisconsin first enacted such standards in 2004. In 2018,
Minnesota adopted modern interconnection standards to make the process more efficient, affordable, and faster. Wisconsin
has not updated their standards to reflect modern technology, so the renewable energy industry remains hampered by red tape
and obstruction from monopoly utilities.
In 2013, Minnesota established itself as a clean energy leader by creating one of the nation’s most effective community solar
policies. Community solar expands access to solar energy to those who cannot otherwise implement their own projects. Xcel
Energy implements the Community Solar Garden Program, which led to substantial growth in community solar and business
activity in Minnesota. As of July 2019, there are 585 MW’s of operational community solar capacity, and 400 MW in the
queue. This program saves Xcel Energy customers money, whether or not they subscribe. Wisconsin currently has no specified
statewide community solar legislation; however, a few utilities have installed individual projects totaling 6.2 MW of operating
capacity and 10.7 MW of planned capacity.
Net metering policies provide that
customers who generate their own
renewable electricity can sell excess
electricity that they produce to the
grid in exchange for a credit on their
bill. Minnesota was the first state to
adopt a net metering policy in 1983.
Since then, the state has maintained a
statewide program that helps promote
market stability and transparency for
smaller distributed generation projects.
Wisconsin has a patchwork of widely
varying net metering policies and
lacks a single, focused policy. Overall,
Minnesota’s net metering policy is more
customer-friendly and promotes more
renewables generation.
Interconnection Standards
Community Solar Garden Policy
Net Metering
Find references and additional information at ELPC.org/issues/clean-energy
7
Sources: SEIA, ILSR
Find references and additional information at ELPC.org/issues/clean-energy
In 2014, Minnesota was the first state to adopt a “Value of Solar” policy that utilities could use instead of net metering. This
methodology reflects the full value of solar and considers the environmental and economic benefits of solar energy. No utilities
currently implement this policy for distributed generation; however, the Value of Solar rate is used to compensate subscribers
in Minnesota community solar projects. This innovative approach can serve as a model for other Midwestern states, such as
Wisconsin, to recognize the value of solar.
Recognizing the Value of Solar
Sources: ILSR, Xcel Energy
8
Sunvest Attic Angels, WI
Pollinator-friendly solar incorporates deep-rooted, native pollinator plants underneath and around solar panels. These plants
provide a habitat for necessary pollinators and can contribute to reduced storm water runoff, increased water quality, and
improved soil health.
Minnesota was the first state to establish science-based standards in 2016 to encourage development of “pollinator-friendly
solar.” Solar projects that claim pollinator benefits must follow the Minnesota Habitat Assessment scorecard. Wisconsin does
not have official pollinator-friendly solar standards.
Minnesota has an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard that was established in 2007 to set an energy savings target for utilities.
Wisconsin does not have this standard, but has an incentive-based program called Focus on Energy that was established in
2001. Though both programs are successful, Minnesota ranks 8th and Wisconsin ranks 29th according to the American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy’s 2018 scorecard that assesses energy efficiency policy and program efforts, performance,
best practices, and leadership.
Minnesota and Wisconsin each have ample renewable energy resources, but state policies to utilize these resources vary
greatly – and it shows. Minnesota’s strong clean energy policies have resulted in greater growth and strong economic
development across the state. Wisconsin has ad hoc, disjointed policies that are not standardized or updated and result in
limited economic development. Minnesota’s leadership supports policies that lead to clean energy development and growth
and provide a good model for other states, like Wisconsin, to follow.
Pollinator-Friendly Solar Standards
Energy Efficiency
Conclusions
Find references and additional information at ELPC.org/issues/clean-energy
9
Connexus Energy, MN
Environmental Law & Policy Center
headquarters
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1600
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 673-6500
www.ELPC.org
/ELPCenter @ELPCenter
regional offices
Columbus, OH
Des Moines, IA
Grand Rapids, MI
Indianapolis, IN
Madison, WI
Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN
Washington, D.C.
Printed on recycled paper
The Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest is a leading public interest environmental
legal advocacy and eco-business innovation organization. We develop and lead successful strategic
advocacy campaigns to improve environmental quality and protect our natural resources. We are
public interest environmental entrepreneurs who engage in creative business dealmaking with diverse
interests to put into practice our belief that environmental progress and economic development can be
achieved together. ELPC’s multidisciplinary staff of talented and experienced public interest attorneys,
environmental business specialists, public policy advocates and communications specialists brings a
strong and effective combination of skills to solve environmental problems.
ELPC’s vision embraces both smart, persuasive advocacy and sustainable development principles to win
the most important environmental cases and create positive solutions to protect the environment. ELPC’s
teamwork approach uses legal, economic, scientic and public policy analysis, and communications
advocacy tools to produce successes. ELPC’s strategic advocacy and business dealmaking involves
proposing solutions when we oppose threats to the Midwest environment. We say “yes” to better
solutions; we don’t just say “no.”
ELPC was founded in 1993 after a year-long strategic planning process sponsored by seven major
foundations. We have achieved a strong track record of successes on both national and regional clean
energy development and pollution reduction, transportation and land use reform, and natural resources
protection issues. ELPC brings a new form of creative public advocacy effectively linking environmental
progress and economic development that improves the quality of life in our Midwest communities.
