Wisconsin Public Service Commission OK's We Energies' power plant

Daily Reporter (Milwaukee), Nov 11, 2003 by Jeremy Harrell

The state Public Service Commission on Monday put its final stamp of approval on We Energies' plan to build coal-fired power plants in Oak Creek.

The commission took less than five minutes to approve unanimously a written order ratifying the decisions it reached last month. As expected, the PSC gave We Energies permission to spend $2.15 billion on two 615-megawatt plants but denied the Milwaukee-based utility's request to build a third plant that would use a more speculative and significantly more expensive coal technology.

We Energies acknowledged those shortcomings in a recent filing with the state and had essentially abandoned serious consideration for the third plant.

In finding in favor of the coal plants, the PSC dismissed alternative proposals that called for plants powered by natural gas, a fuel proponents said emits fewer pollutants. Bernie Bridge, PSC chairwoman, said the commission staff's extensive computer modeling pointed clearly to coal as the fuel source for cheap, reliable energy, in part because natural gas prices are predicted to be volatile.

It's not just do you want expensive gas or dirty coal, she said after the vote. You have to have both of them, and one is more expensive, and one is less environmentally preferable. We always have to be sure you have a balance of sources, and you don't just put all of your eggs in one basket.

With the written order in hand, We Energies can start directing more attention to the actual construction project, the largest in state history. Thad Nation, spokesman for the utility, said We Energies had initially envisioned starting in the first quarter of next year, but the PSC decision to delay the Oak Creek project by one year will likely push the schedule back by at least a few months.

That time line also depends on the possibility of lawsuits challenging the PSC's decision, he said.

Still to come

And litigation is all but guaranteed, said Marc Looze, air pollution campaign director for Clean Wisconsin, a founding member of opposition coalition Responsible Energy for Southeastern Wisconsin's Tomorrow, which advocated for natural gas. He said RESET would begin immediately examining the PSC's written order, but the group had already started contemplating an appeal after the commission gave its verbal assent last month.

By approving a plan to burn more coal in Oak Creek, the PSC is effectively sentencing southeastern Wisconsin to more pollution, more health problems and higher energy costs for decades to come, Looze said. It's the wrong decision and bad for Wisconsin.

We Energies still has yet to gain environmental permits from the state Department of Natural Resources. But the agency already issued a draft air permit clearing the Oak Creek project, though the comment period on the final permit is still open.

Despite the PSC's decision not to approve the third plant, which relies on a newer, coal-gasification technology, Bridge said she remains optimistic that research and broader use will eventually make it viable. Coal gasification powers facilities in only a handful of locations around the world, but its promise of burning cleaner than more conventional coal plants is encouraging, she said.

Bridge also repeated her contention that the PSC could have delayed the Oak Creek project by more than one year by mandating that We Energies conserve more and rely more on alternative fuels. She was overruled by the other two commission members, Ave Bie and Robert Garvin.