A choice of values

Corporate Report Wisconsin, Nov 2003 by Johnson, Samuel C

MY VIEW:

Southeastern Wisconsin has been home to our family for five generations. It is home to our four family businesses, and home to 4,200 Johnson people and their families. We care about our people and our communities, and we believe that every place we operate should become a better place because we are there.

That is why we have added our voice to those opposing expanded coal-power generation in Oak Creek.

We Energies' proposed Oak Creek expansion would turn what is now the nation's 113th-largest coal plant into the seventh largest, and the largest located within 15 miles of a major U.S. city. This will not make southeastern Wisconsin a better place to live, raise families or run a business.

We Energies' plan is one of the largest, most expensive energy proposals in our state's history. The Public Service Commission is expected to make a decision on the plan in November. Meanwhile, PSC staff and experts from the Department of Natural Resources have studied the plan in detail, considered information from experts on all sides, and heard public comment. They published their findings in a joint Environmental Impact Statement in August. This well-documented report concluded the following:

* The Oak Creek expansion proposal is the highest-cost alternative to meet future energy needs. Monthly bills could rise as much as 20 percent.

* There are cleaner, cheaper and more viable alternatives compared to burning more coal in Oak Creek.

* Total emissions from Oak Creek will increase if coal expansion is approved. Air quality will be worse and Lake Michigan's ecosystem severely impacted.

* Sulfur dioxide and particulate pollution will be at the highest levels allowed under federal law. This means increased health risks to children, older adults, and those suffering from respiratory illness.

* The economic fallout of building too much, too soon could result in the loss of an estimated 3,900 permanent jobs per year for each of the three proposed new plants.

The Wisconsin PSC/DNR staff - who have studied We Energies' plan more thoroughly than anyone - say it is too big, too dirty, and too costly. They say there are better ways to meet our growing energy needs.

I think we should listen to these experts.

Our companies oppose the proposed coal expansion for many reasons, particularly the economic impact to the region. We appreciate the need for jobs - remember, we employ 4,200 people here. We know cleaner energy will mean new construction jobs, too.

We also know southeastern Wisconsin is a severe ozone nonattainment area. That means businesses and residents here face greater restrictions with higher price tags, such as costlier reformulated gasoline and expensive environmental controls. Such restrictions make it difficult, if not impossible, to expand existing manufacturing operations. They also make a region less attractive to new businesses seeking locations where quality of life is high and restrictions are low.

Some have used intermittent volatility in natural gas prices to cloud the real issue. This is not a choice about coal vs. gas. It is a choice about balanced energy. Currently, We Energies provides less than 3 percent of its energy from natural gas, and 70 percent from coal. Other states have far more balance and diversity, averaging 50 percent from coal and 50 percent from cleaner energy sources. More coal in Oak Creek would increase our state's coal dependence, not reduce it.

The intricacy of energy pricing was a major focus during the dozen-plus years I sat on the board of Mobil Oil. What I learned is that you do not make long-term decisions based on short-term price spikes. I think We Energies knows this, too. If natural gas prices were a real concern, We Energies would neither have requested nor received approval to construct a natural gas plant in Port Washington or its Guardian Pipeline project to bring more natural gas to our state.

I can see why We Energies wants coal. It is the best choice for their bottom line. But I have been a businessman for more than 50 years. I have seen companies put profits ahead of what is best for their people and their communities. Most of those companies are out of business now.

Our family of companies is solid proof of the value of making business decisions with an eye on the next generation, not just the next quarter. Nearly 30 years ago, we became the first to voluntarily remove chlorofluorocarbons from our aerosol products. People still tell me it was one of the most important environmental decisions any company has ever made. I tell them it was also one of the best business decisions we ever made.

We Energies has a choice between two sets of values - one that values the quality of life, and one that values the quality of their bottom line.

If their bottom line wins, we will lose. We'll lose the battle for cleaner air, cleaner water, and a chance for a better quality of life for all of us.

Samuel C. Johnson is chairman emeritus of S.C. Johnson & Son Inc.