Wisconsin Public Service Corp. challenges payments to cities

Daily Reporter (Milwaukee), Nov 17, 2006 by Joe Grundle

The Wisconsin Public Service Corp. agrees it should pay to relocate utility lines for safety's sake.

But the WPSC draws the line when it comes to relocating lines for the sake of economic development.

That's what the Green Bay-based utility, which serves the northeast part of the state, maintains in a complaint it filed with the state's Public Service Commission.

In that complaint, WPSC contends that Manitowoc, Oshkosh and Oconto asked it to relocate utility lines for road reconstruction in their respective cities done for economic development and not public safety.

"It boils down to a difference of opinion, and we believe our customers should not have to pay for unnecessary work done for the beautification or economy of another area," said Kerry Spees, corporate communications leader for WPS Resources Corp., WPSC's parent company.

In the Manitowoc case, WPSC contends that improvements made this summer to Paul Road and South 19th Street were out of the city's desire to accommodate a large condominium development at the end of Paul Road, therefore WPSC should not have to pay the approximately $8,000 cost of relocating its gas lines.

"They asked us to move our facilities a much longer distance than would be required for health and safety reasons," said Spees.

In its response to WPSC's complaint, Manitowoc countered that the improvements were made to bring the roads up to compliance with the city's engineering design standards and noted that both roads were listed on its five-year Capital Works Program and would have been reconstructed regardless of the condominium development.

Manitowoc annexed Paul Road, which was about 22 feet wide, in 1998. City standards call for a minimum street width of 36 feet.

The city also contended both roads were in poor condition and improving them served the public health, safety and welfare.

Spees said Manitowoc had agreed before the job to pay for the relocation, but the city denied that allegation in briefs filed with the PSC.

Manitowoc also argued that the PSC has no jurisdiction on the case because there is no contract WPSC seeks to void and lacks the authority to grant WPSC its requested monetary relief.

The Oshkosh case revolves around electric lines WPSC relocated so the city could widen four streets. WPSC's complaint contends Oshkosh refused to identify a health or safety justification for the widening and rejected reasonable alternatives that would have limited the cost to WPSC.

In its response, Oshkosh maintained the construction projects provided adequate health, safety and public welfare and, like Manitowoc, asked the PSC to dismiss WPSC's complaint.

Oconto required WPSC to relocate electric lines and poles for street widening and the installation of a curb and gutter. WPSC filed a similar complaint on Oconto as it did with Oshkosh, adding that Oconto also refused to choose a plan offered by WPSC that would have reduced cost to the company.

WPSC is seeking $52,249 from Oshkosh and $51,750 from Oconto.

While the amount of money at stake in all three cases is relatively small, WPSC is hoping the PSC will use the complaints to clarify rules determining whether WPSC can charge for relocating facilities.

"We are looking for some clarification from the commission, and then we'll be able to consistently apply the rules as to when we will be charging for relocation of facilities and when we won't," said Spees, who noted WPSC's inconsistency in the past with charging for relocating lines.

"We operate in 20 Wisconsin counties and are asking the commission for guidance in applying the rules."

The PSC has scheduled pre-hearing conferences for all three cases on Dec. 11, when the PSC will review each case and determine a hearing date.