A proposal for an on-campus power plant is finding resistance among some legislators and local residents alike.
State Rep. Spencer Black, D-Madison, has voiced opposition to the 150-megawatt energy plant that has been proposed to be built on University of Wisconsin-Madison land by Madison Gas and Electric.
Early in 2001, according to Steve Kraus, spokesman for MG&E, the University of Wisconsin, MG&E, the Department of Administration and Alliant Energy committed to participate in the plant project. The plant will be built on Walnut Street near the Natatorium and will provide cooling and heating for buildings on campus.
The building plans were approved by the building commission division of the Department of Administration in May 2002, and the Board of Regents approved the plans in June 2002, Kraus said. When the Legislature passed the provision in July 2002 on the Budget Repair Bill, it was simply a way for the parties involved to be assured they were moving toward construction and the building would be supported by the Legislature, Kraus said.
According to Kraus, because the Legislature has the final say in what is built, if it had not given the OK, millions of dollars would have been lost in planning. Kraus said if the provision had not been passed in July those involved would have no idea if the Legislature would allow the project to continue.
According to Kraus the new legislation will not affect the project; it will simply take the provision out of the Budget Repair Bill.
“It was a go-ahead, so the parties knew that when it came to the Legislature, they would pass it (the building plans) when needed,” Kraus said.
The provision was passed with the support of Chuck Chvala and Scott Jensen, Black said.
“I believe it was wrong for Scott Jensen and Chuck Chvala to sneak this provision on the Budget Repair Bill. First, it has nothing to do with the budget repair. Second, the Chvala-Jensen provision had no public notice, no public hearings and no public discussion. I don’t believe this provision would have had a chance of passing if it had to go through the normal and proper legislation process,” Black said.
“The Chvala-Jensen provision is legislating at its worst. If we had comprehensive campaign finance reform, this sort of secret and unwise provision would be much less likely to be imposed on us,” Black said.
There are currently two independent studies being conducted, Black said. One is a fiscal study to determine whether a plant this large makes economical sense for the state of Wisconsin. The other is an environmental study that focuses on the possible impact of the plant on air and water quality.
“I have introduced legislation with the support of other local legislators to repeal the unwise Chvala-Jensen provisions so that the university can consider all of the options and choose the one that makes the most sense fiscally and environmentally,” Black said.
Kraus said the new plant is going to be both the most efficient and the cleanest energy center in the state.
Members of the community are concerned about the size of the proposed plant, Black said.
“I have heard a great deal from constituents who are concerned that the plant is much larger than it needs to be to meet the needs of the university,” Black said. “They don’t object to a plant being built to meet the needs of the campus, but they question whether the size of the proposed plant makes sense. They contend that only a 50-megawatt plant is needed to meet the needed to meet current and future campus heating, cooling and electrical needs. The plant that is planned right now is primarily designed to supply MG&E with power to market off-campus.”
University Physical Plant director John Harrod said at this time he does not know if the legislation will have an impact on the process.
“Right now we continue to be in negotiation and in the process of working on the project,” Harrod said.
