Public Service Commission of Wisconsin examines new coal technology

Daily Reporter (Milwaukee), Jun 5, 2006 by Paul Snyder

All of the sudden, integrated gasification combined-cycle technology doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin released a draft report Thursday that reviews benefits, costs and future prospects of IGCC technology for the state. The report is the result of a request from Gov. Jim Doyle for the agencies to study the technology as part of his Conserve Wisconsin agenda, announced last year.

PSC Commissioner Mark Meyer said in a statement Thursday that timing is of the essence in driving not only environmental decisions, but also cost-based decisions.

Wisconsin is in the midst of a building cycle, and the decisions we make in the next 10 years for future power plants will likely impact our economy and environment for the next half century, he said. This report is an important step to make sure we are informed about technology options.

And that information could change a few minds at the commission. In 2003, the PSC rejected a We Energies plan to build an IGCC plant at Oak Creek, saying that it was neither cost effective nor a proven means of generating energy. At the time the PSC said that We Energies could someday return with a more refined plan, but that could be much further down the road.

Capturing carbon dioxide

But the report says that if carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, can be captured during IGCC treatment, the technology appears approximately $10 per megawatt hour less expensive than conventional coal technology. If carbon dioxide can't be captured, IGCC appears $5 to $7 more expensive per megawatt hour.

Regulating carbon dioxide has yet to be officially addressed at a federal level, though Congressional leaders are reviewing the issue.

But the report states that given today's technology, the potential to capture carbon dioxide is greater for IGCC plants, which it says also have lower sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions than conventional coal plants.

Wendy Parks, a media representative for We Energies, said the company was reviewing the report and continuing to look at new technologies.

It's critical to note the progress that has been made recently and also to look at all the cost analyses involved in moving this and other technologies forward, she said.

Parks said that, while there were no plans to rush back to the PSC with a new IGCC plant proposal, it's been interesting to watch the build-up in attention to the technology in the last couple of years.

More and more companies are talking about it and looking into it, she said. It seems to be one of the ways forward.

Katie Nekola, energy program director for Clean Wisconsin, said that the group was happy to see the PSC study the benefits of IGCC technology.

Obviously IGCC is a big improvement over pulverized coal plants, and we do believe that no pulverized coal plants should ever be built in this state again, she said. The costs of energy production are widespread, and everybody needs to take those costs into consideration when they're making decisions.

Nekola added that Clean Wisconsin would be responding to the commission's calls for comments by the end of the month, most notably, she said, because it feels the PSC underestimated the operational reliability of an IGCC plant.

In the report, they only put reliability at about 80 percent, she said. It's higher than that.

The agencies are encouraging the public to offer comments on the report, and will be taking feedback at the PSC's Web site, http:// psc.wi.gov/, until June 30. The comments will be used in composing the final report.