NEWS
Judge overturns power plant order
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ryan Masse:
Related Stories:
- UW responds to FORE's lawsuit (November 10, 2003)
- Campus power plant proposal spurs controversy (December 9, 2002)
- Coal plant encouraging residents to speak up (February 20, 2008)
- Campus to see new power plant (September 19, 2003)
Share This:
by Ryan Masse
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Dane County Circuit Court Judge David Flanagan overturned an order by the state Public Service Commission Monday, finding the commission had acted against state law in approving Wisconsin Energy Corporation’s application to build two coal power plants in Oak Creek, Wis.
The PSC issued Wisconsin Energy Corp. a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Nov. 10, 2003, authorizing the construction of the controversial plants in the Milwaukee suburb, but Flanagan said the corporation’s application was incomplete.
Specifically, the application “does not propose at least two alterative sites for the new plant, it does not present the required regulatory approvals, and it does not include agreements for the use of the substantial transmission line facilities that inevitably must be constructed as an integral part of this project,” Flanagan wrote in his decision.
In approving the incomplete application, the PSC violated the Wisconsin Energy Priorities Law, Flanagan wrote. The PSC furthermore failed to include cost and design information about the transmission lines, the judge said.
Flanagan vacated the Nov. 10, 2003, order, sending it back to the PSC for additional consideration.
Since proposing the construction of the two plants in 2000, Wisconsin Energy Corp. has created a storm of controversy in Southeast Wisconsin. The two plants would be capable of generating 615 megawatts of electric power each and form the largest plant ever built in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin Energy Corp. says the plants are needed to meet the growing energy needs of the state, and, through improved technology, would reduce overall emissions in the Southeast corner of the state.
But critics have opposed the plan for its use of heavily polluting coal power instead of cleaner sources of energy like natural gas. Concern has also been raised about the financial impact on ratepayers from the $2.15 billion project.
In a statement issued after Flanagan’s ruling, PSC General Counsel David Gilles defended the commission’s review of the proposal as “both thorough and complete.” Gilles indicated the PSC would review the decision further before deciding whether to hold additional proceedings on the application or appeal Flanagan’s ruling.
Wisconsin Energy Corp. said they would review their options before deciding on how best to get the project back on track.
The case was a consolidation of five separate lawsuits filed in Dane County Court. One of the plaintiffs, environmental group Clean Wisconsin, expressed satisfaction with the ruling against a “fatally flawed” decision.
“We hope this will lead to a thoughtful planning process from an environmental and health perspective,” said Mark Redsten, executive director of Clean Wisconsin.
Although Redsten acknowledged the need for additional energy sources in Wisconsin, he said the state could not react by casting environmental issues by the wayside.
“There is plenty of time to meet Wisconsin’s energy needs in an environmentally sound way,” he said.
Wisconsin Energy Corp. had planned on both units being in service in 2010.
Anonymous (November 30, 2004 @ 1:30pm):
"But critics have opposed the plan for its use of heavily polluting coal power instead of cleaner sources of energy like natural gas."
Gas is a great fuel for residential heating. Why use it up at central power plants which could use coal? Coal can be used in a manner which is not "heavily polluting" in a big power plant while using coal at home is a real pain as well as "heavily polluting".
Anonymous (November 30, 2004 @ 11:29pm):
This isn't coal.
***
Ceramatec, Inc. and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Lab have just come up with a cheaper, more efficient way to produce hydrogen for fuel cells. While this would be a boon to advocates of alternatives to gasoline, it does come with a catch -- we would need new nuclear power plants in order to produce hydrogen in this way.
http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=04/11/30/05583414;cmt=42
