FREDERICA FREYBERG:

TURNING TO OTHER NEWS, FOR A STATE THAT GENERATES 62% OF ITS ELECTRICITY FROM COAL-POWERED PLANTS, WISCONSIN CAME DOWN HARD AGAINST THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S CLEAN POWER PLANT. NO SOONER HAD THE E.P.A. RELEASED ITS FINAL RULE FOR REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS THIS WEEK THAN WISCONSIN ANNOUNCED IT WOULD FILE A LAWSUIT TO STOP IT. THE NEW RULE WOULD FORCE WISCONSIN TO CUT EMISSIONS FROM ITS POWER PLANTS BY NEARLY 34% BY THE YEAR 2030. PRESIDENT OBAMA CALLED TAKING A STAND AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE A, QUOTE, MORAL OBLIGATION SAYING THERE IS SUCH A THING AS BEING TOO LATE. WE WILL HEAR BOTH SIDES ON THIS TONIGHT STARTING WITH AN ORGANIZATION THAT LAUDS THE PLAN. KEITH REOPELLE IS THE SENIOR POLICY DIRECTOR AT CLEAN WISCONSIN. AND THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

KEITH REOPELLE:

THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

SO IF THESE CARBON EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ARE IN FACT PUT IN PLACE, HOW MEANINGFUL IN YOUR MIND WOULD THEY BE TOWARD STEMMING CLIMATE CHANGE?

KEITH REOPELLE:

THEY WOULD BE VERY, VERY MEANINGFUL. AND THERE’S A COUPLE REASONS FOR THAT. NUMBER ONE IS THE UNITED STATES HAS THE SECOND HIGHEST CARBON EMISSIONS OF ANY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET, ONLY CHINA HAS HIGHER TOTAL CARBON EMISSIONS. AND NUMBER TWO, WE ACTUALLY — AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST PER CAPITA CARBON EMISSIONS AND THESE CARBON POLLUTION LIMITS APPLY TO POWER PLANTS WHICH ARE THE LARGEST SOURCE OF CARBON EMISSIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, WHICH HAS THE SECOND MOST EMISSIONS. SO THERE’S VERY FEW THINGS YOU COULD IMAGINE HAPPENING AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD THAT WOULD HAVE MORE IMPACT LITERALLY THAN ADDRESSING THIS. THE OTHER REALLY IMPORTANT ASPECT OF YOUR QUESTION IS THAT YES, CHINA HAS HIGHER EMISSIONS AND OTHER COUNTRIES, INDIA MOST NOTABLY, HAVE HIGH EMISSIONS THAT ALSO ARE NOT REGULATED. WE HAVE THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING IN THE WORLD AND WE HAVE THE HIGHEST PER CAPITA EMISSIONS. IT’S GOING TO BE REALLY DIFFICULT TO GET THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES TO MOVE IF WE’RE NOT SHOWING ANY WILLINGNESS TO MOVE OURSELVES.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

SO WHAT WOULD THE REDUCTIONS MEAN FOR HUMAN HEALTH POTENTIALLY?

KEITH REOPELLE:

SO THE HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS WOULD BE REALLY IMMEDIATE AND VERY SIGNIFICANT. SO E.P.A.’S ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT THEY WOULD EXPECT ANYWHERE FROM 1500 TO 3600 FEWER PRE-MATURE DEATHS AS A RESULT OF THIS RULE. AND THAT’S ANNUALLY. SO EVERY YEAR AS MANY AS 3600 FEWER PREMATURE DEATHS. AS MANY AS 90,000 FEWER ASTHMA ATTACKS AMONG OUR CHILDREN. THE NUMBER IS HIGHER OF COURSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE ENTIRE POPULATION. BUT JUST AMONG CHILDREN 90,000 FEWER ASTHMA ATTACKS EVERY YEAR ONCE THIS PLAN IS INTO EFFECT. HOSPITALIZATIONS, LOST WORKDAYS, LOST DAYS OUT OF SCHOOL BECAUSE OF ILLNESS. SO IT HAS A BIG IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON RESPIRATORY DISEASE BUT THEN BECAUSE IT’S ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE, THERE IS ALSO BIG HEALTH IMPACTS IN TERMS OF STOPPING THE SPREAD OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, WATER BORN OR INSECT BORN DISEASES WHOSE RANGE IS ALREADY SPREADING AS A RESULT OF CLIMATE CHANGE. SO HUGE HEALTH IMPACTS.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

WHAT’S ENVISIONED TO REPLACE COAL-FIRED PLANTS? FOR EXAMPLE, WIND AND SOLAR OR WHAT?

KEITH REOPELLE:

YEAH, TWO THINGS, REALLY. THE PLAN ENVISIONS THAT STATES WOULD REDUCE THEIR OUTPUT OF ELECTRICITY FROM COAL-FIRED PLANTS AND ACTUALLY PICK UP A LOT OF THAT WITH NATURAL GAS PLANTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE ROUGHLY HALF THE CARBON EMISSIONS. SO ONE OF THE IMPORTANT UNDERLYING STRATEGIES BEHIND THE GOALS THAT THEY SET WAS SHIFTING A LOT OF THAT GENERATION TO EXISTING NATURAL GAS PLANTS BUT THE OTHER PIECE IS SHIFTING IT TO CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES. YOU NAMED THE BIGGEST ONES I THINK, WIND AND SOLAR WOULD TAKE UP THE MOST. BUT GEO-THERMAL IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT OPTION AND THEN IN WISCONSIN, BIOENERGY ACTUALLY PRODUCING ENERGY, FROM DAIRY FARMS AND FOOD PROCESSING PLANTS IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT OPTION.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

OPPONENTS SITE THE COST OF SWITCHING TO CLEAN ENERGY IN WISCONSIN AT UP TO $13 BILLION WITH A PROJECTED 29% HIKE IN ELECTRICITY RATES. BUT YOU SAY THE PLAN WOULD LOWER ELECTRICITY BILLS. HOW CAN BOTH BE TRUE?

KEITH REOPELLE:

BOTH PROBABLY CAN’T BE TRUE. WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO IS THAT THE ANALYSIS THAT E.P.A. DID OF THEIR OWN PROPOSED PLAN — AND THE REASON THAT THEY SHOW AN ACTUAL LOWERING OF ENERGY BILL BY THE END — BY THE TIME THE PLAN IS FULLY IMPLEMENTED IS IN PART BECAUSE ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS IS TO INVEST IT IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY. WHEN YOU DO THAT YOU LOWER ENERGY BILLS FOR THE HOMES OR BUSINESSES WHERE THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY RETRO FITS OCCUR. WE HAVE A REALLY STRONG, ROBUST PROGRAM IN WISCONSIN CALLED FOCUS ON ENERGY THAT DOES A REALLY GOOD JOB OF THAT NOW. AND ONE OF THE BEST THINGS WE CAN DO IS EXPAND THAT PROGRAM AND IF WE EXPANDED IT, CARBON EMISSIONS GO DOWN AND PEOPLE’S ENERGY BILLS GO DOWN. BUT PLEASE LET ME ALSO RESPOND TO THE STUDY — $13 BILLION IS — WE WOULD NEED HOURS TO TALK ABOUT ALL OF THE WAYS IN WHICH THAT ESTIMATE IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PLAN. IT IS THE HIGH-END OF A RANGE THAT THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION CAME UP WITH WHEN THEY DID ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSAL, NOT THIS FINAL PLAN, BUT IT ALSO HAS — THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PROPOSAL AND THE FINAL PLAN ARE HUGE BUT IT ALSO ONLY LOOKED AT THE COSTS OF THE PLAN. THE ENERGY BILL REDUCTIONS FROM ENERGY EFFICIENCY I JUST DESCRIBED WERE IGNORED. INTENTIONALLY SORT OF BUT THEY WERE NOT FACTORED IN AT ALL. SO THAT IS A WILDLY — WILD ANALYSIS THAT- IT’S NEVER GOING TO COST NEARLY THAT MUCH.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

WE NEED TO LEAVE IT THERE. KEITH REOPELLE, THANKS VERY MUCH

KEITH REOPELLE:

THANK YOU.