Press Release from the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

For Immediate Release - September 26, 2012

Contact: Kristin Ruesch or Matthew Pagel (608) 266-9600

Kristin.Ruesch@Wisconsin.gov or Matt.Pagel@Wisconsin.gov

PSC Upcoming Public Hearings

MADISON - The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) will hold two public hearings in Southeastern Wisconsinon regarding the Wisconsin Electric Power Company and Wisconsin Gas (WEPCO) request to adjust its electric and natural gas rates.

Citizens are encouraged to attend the hearings, which will be held at the following locations and times:

Monday, October 1, 2012

1:00 p.m.

Ambassador Inn

Marquette Room

2301 West Wisconsin Avenue

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Monday, October 1, 2012

6:00 p.m.

Best Western Plus Midway Hotel and Suites

Underwood I Room

1005 South Moorland Road

Brookfield, Wisconsin

Customers attending either hearing may provide written or oral comments. If customers cannot attend a public hearing, but would like to provide comments, an online participation option is available on the PSC's website at http://psc.wi.gov  through October 1^st. Participants should click on the "Public Comments" button on the PSC's homepage and click on the case title.

The hearing locations are accessible to people in wheelchairs. Anyone requiring accommodations to participate should contact Docket Coordinator Candice Spanjar at 608-267-9537

Documents associated with WEPCO's application can be viewed on the PSC's Electronic Regulatory Filing System at http://psc.wi.gov/. Type case numbers 5-UR-106 in the boxes provided on the PSC homepage, or click on the Electronic Regulatory Filing System button.

-end-

To view online version, click here.

Utility's renewables program judge 'average,' We Energies disputes 'C' grade

From a blog post by Tom Content on JSOnline: 

We Energies and other Wisconsin utilities are getting average grades from a renewable energy advocacy group in ratings released this week. 

Renew Wisconsin announced a renewable energy performance report card that judges how utilities have performed on a variety of levels, including the compliance with the state’s renewable energy mandate as well as a variety of other policies. 

Most of the utilities in the state, including Milwaukee-based We Energies, received “C” grades from Renew Wisconsin, said Don Wichert, executive director of the non-profit organization that seeks to expand development of solar, wind and other types of renewable energy. 

We Energies was praised for its construction of wind farms within the state, creating jobs and providing a local source of green power. But the Milwaukee utility was faulted in part for its decision last year to cancel funding for a renewable energy commitment it gave to Renew 10 years ago. 

At that time, We Energies committed to spending $6 million a year for 10 years on a variety of renewable energy programs. In return, the renewable energy advocacy group agreed not to oppose We Energies’ bid to build its coal-fired power plants in Oak Creek. 

The shift away from helping customers finance renewable systems is one reason We Energies was graded as a “C” on the group’s report card, said Wichert.

Read More...

We Energies Gets Lowest Score on Renewable Energy Report Card

RENEW Wisconsin announces the following for immediate release:

Churches and other nonprofits in We Energies’ service area will have difficulty following the renewable-energy example of the Unitarian Universalist Church West in Brookfield, because the utility unilaterally ended the incentive program which helped the church absorb the cost of a solar system installed in 2008.

The end of the utility program resulted in WE receiving a C on a renewable energy report card issued by RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide renewable energy advocacy organization.

“We Energies agreed with RENEW and other groups to spend $6 million/year over 10 years to encourage the use of renewable energy in its service area.  As part of the program, over 100 nonprofit organizations installed renewable energy systems.  In 2011, however, WE simply announced the end of the program after only five years,” said Don Wichert, RENEW’s executive director and the report card director, at a news conference in front of the church.  

“The money was critically important to our ability to install a solar system and was needed because nonprofits are not eligible for the federal tax credits” said Amy Taivalkoski, a congregation member who headed up the project along with Dennis Briley, another member.  “The grant of $27,500 covered about a third of the total cost.”

“We were very thankful to receive the grant, which allowed us to show other congregations how to fulfill a vision for a just, sustainable world.  It’s unfortunate that the WE program won’t be there to help them as it helped us,” added Rev. Suzelle Lynch, minister of the more than 700-person congregation.

WE earned a C (2.4 out of 5) overall on the report card for its renewable energy efforts in 2011, but had the lowest score of all utilities graded.  The state’s other major utilities’ grades ranged from C to B/C -- Alliant, C (2.6); Madison Gas & Electric, B/C (3.0); Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, C (2.7); and Xcel, B/C (3.0).

 “2011 was a year in which Wisconsin’s investor owned utilities cut back on their previous good performance supporting renewable energy,” said Wichert.  “At this point in 2012 it appears that this poor performance trend continues.”

 “It’s surprising and disappointing because recent opinion surveys indicate that the vast majority of Wisconsin’s population, including utilities ratepayers and stockholders, prefer renewable energy,” according to Wichert.

            RENEW graded utilities on six criteria: amount of renewable electricity sold; green energy purchasing programs; ease of connecting to the utility system; prices paid for renewable electricity; legislative activities; and other programs offered voluntarily to customers.

Wisconsin utilities performed best in meeting the state’s renewable electricity standard.  All of the utilities already meet or expect to meet the 10% standard by 2015, although some have the majority of the power coming from out of Wisconsin.

RENEW scored gave WE the following grades for 2011:

     B     Amount of renewable electricity sold (also called renewable energy standard)

B    Green energy purchasing program for customers

B    Ease of interconnecting to the utility system

F    Price paid for electricity purchased from renewable energy systems

F    Legislative activities on renewable energy policy

C-  Other programs offered voluntarily to customers.

This was the first time RENEW conducted a grading system, but RENEW plans to continue the process in the future because people are interested in how well their utilities support renewable energy. 

“The annual survey can be used by Wisconsin utilities and others to see which areas are

lacking and how they can improve their grades.  Adoption of renewable energy supports local

jobs, lower emissions of pollutants, and energy security.  These are attributes everybody wants.  There is no reason that Wisconsin utilities should be performing at average levels in clean energy,” said Wichert.

-END-

RENEW Wisconsin is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that leads and represents businesses, organizations, and individuals who seek more clean renewable energy in Wisconsin.  More information on RENEW’s Web site at www.renewwisconsin.org. 

PSC plans local hearing on We Energies rate hike

From a story by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The state Public Service Commission announced Tuesday it will hold a public hearing in Milwaukee this fall on We Energies' rate increase proposal.

Dates, times and locations will be announced later, but it's expected to take place in late September.

The commission announced its decision via Twitter after putting out a schedule last week that called for a hearing in Madison only.

The Cleaner Valley Coalition, a group concerned about pollution from We Energies' Milwaukee coal-fired power plant, had said Friday it was requesting a local hearing.

The agency typically has held hearings in the Milwaukee area, but planned the hearing in Madison while encouraging utility customers to comment on the We Energies proposal electronically on the PSC website, agency spokeswoman Kristin Ruesch said in an email.

"Typically, there is very low attendance at rate case hearings, so it was a cost-saving and staff-resource saving measure to hold the hearing here at the Public Service Commission," she said.

Because of the announcement, the Cleaner Valley Coalition canceled plans to hold a news conference on Wednesday to express its concerns on the need for a local hearing. The coalition organized to urge We Energies to stop burning coal at its Valley power plant in Milwaukee's Menomonee Valley.

RENEW Rips WPS’s Net Metering Proposal

For immediate release
May 23, 2012

More information
Michael Vickerman
608.255.4044, ext. 2  

Another example of company backsliding on renewables 

In documents filed in conjunction with its pending rate case, Green Bay-based Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPS) proposed several rollbacks to its net metering service that would, if approved, sharply restrict a customer’s ability to generate electricity from renewable energy resources and sell a portion of it back to the utility.

Net metering allows customers to sell the unused output from their solar electric or other renewable energy system back to the utility at the full retail rate from month to month, so long as the surplus electricity is less than or equal to the customers’ usage in a 12-month period.

Currently, WPS customers may install solar or wind energy systems on their premises up to 100 kilowatts (kW). Beginning in January 2013, WPS would roll back that capacity limit to 20 kW.

WPS has also proposed to cap the overall size of its net metering offering at one-half of one percent of 2011 summer peak. No other Wisconsin utility has ever sought to impose capacity-based limits to its net metering service.

“What WPS proposes would be a really bad deal for customers installing small renewable energy systems serving their homes or businesses,” said Michael Vickerman, program and policy director for RENEW Wisconsin, a nonprofit advocacy organization promoting renewable energy use in Wisconsin.

“These service changes are clearly intended to discourage its customers from investing in solar and small wind energy systems,” Vickerman said. “If WPS gets its way, the renewable energy marketplace in that part of Wisconsin will slow down significantly.”

“At a time when the customers and communities in WPS territory are looking to renewable energy to support new jobs and manage their energy costs, the company is doing its level best to take that option away from them,” Vickerman said.

As an intervenor in WPS’s rate case, RENEW Wisconsin will ask the Public Service Commission to:
• Reject WPS’s proposal to impose a system-wide cap on net metering service;
• Maintain the current maximum system size at 100 kW; and
• Base WPS’s calculation of net energy on annual usage instead of monthly usage.

“What we will ask for is a standard of service that is already offered by two Wisconsin utilities: Madison Gas & Electric (MGE) and Xcel Energy,” Vickerman said. “WPS’s proposal is a particularly egregious example of company backsliding.”

Vickerman noted that MGE, which also has a pending rate proceeding before the Public Service Commission, did not propose any changes to its net metering service for 2013 and 2014.

 “We urge the PSC to work toward a uniform net metering policy for the state using MGE’s and Xcel’s service as a template,” Vickerman said.

Vickerman added: “WPS, it should be remembered, was the driving force behind the “Outsource Renewable Energy to Canada Act,” which was signed into law in 2011. That law lets utilities apply the energy they purchase from large Canadian hydropower sources toward their renewable energy requirements, at the expense of in-state renewable energy providers. Within that context, WPS’s net metering proposal constitutes another slight to Wisconsin’s renewable energy marketplace.”

END 

RENEW Wisconsin is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) that leads and represents businesses and individuals who seek more clean, renewable energy in Wisconsin. More information on RENEW’s Web site at www.renewwisconsin.org.

Sierra Club issues notice of intent to sue We Energies for coal ash spill

A news release from the Sierra Club:

Madison, Wisconsin - Today, the Sierra Club issued a Notice of Intent to sue We Energies for the October 31 flood of coal ash into Lake Michigan when an old landfill located on the bluff collapsed at a construction site at the company’s Oak Creek coal plant.

“We Energies must be held responsible for the toxic mess at the bottom of Lake Michigan,” explained Jennifer Feyerherm of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign. “We Energies has essentially turned Lake Michigan, a national treasure that supplies drinking water to over 10 million people, into a coal ash dump. We Energies filled a ravine next to Lake Michigan with coal ash, and it is that ash that now lies at the bottom of the lake. This was a predicted and preventable disaster.”

A biologist from the Southeastern Wisconsin Planning Commission raised concerns about the structural stability of the bluff when We Energies was planning to develop the site. As construction proceeded, the bluff collapsed, covering the shoreline with an estimated 25,000 cubic yards of coal ash and soil and dumping 2,500 cubic yards of coal ash and soil into the lake.

The Notice of Intent to sue alleges that the pollutants in the coal ash at the bottom of Lake Michigan “pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment.”

Coal ash is the toxic byproduct of burning coal. Heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, chromium, and molybdenum remain in the ash after coal is burned. These toxic metals are linked to many health effects including cancer, birth defects, kidney damage, and nerve damage. In fact, studies have likened the risk of living near a coal ash site to smoking a pack of cigarettes each day. These toxic metals also put our fragile Great Lakes ecosystem at risk, threatening aquatic habitat and building up in the food chain.

“There are more than 2,000 toxic coal ash sites in the U.S. polluting our air and water, and now there is a new one on the bottom of Lake Michigan,” noted Melissa Warner, a volunteer leader with the Sierra Club that lives south of the coal ash dump. “My family’s drinking water comes from the lake. We Energies must clean up its mess and prevent any disaster like this from happening again.”

To date, there has been little information available to the local community about where the coal ash in the lake is going, what it will take to clean it up, and when the cleanup might be completed. Today’s Notice of Intent to sue is the first step in legal action against We Energies to force the company to clean up the toxic coal ash.

Ever since the TVA coal ash disaster in 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency has been trying to enact national protections to stop this kind of disastrous spill from happening.

“Communities here in Wisconsin and across the nation remain at risk and unprotected,” concluded Feyerherm. “The burning of coal is a public health menace. This spill is yet another illustration that as long as we are still mining and burning coal, our families and communities are paying the price.”

More posts on the spill and utilities.

We Energies' coal ash spill dumps toxins into Lake Michigan

A news release issued by Clean Wisconsin:

November 1, 2011

Contact:
Katie Nekola
Clean Wisconsin
608.212.8751(cell)

MILWAUKEE — Monday’s bluff collapse at We Energies’ Oak Creek coal plant sent a substantial amount of coal ash into Lake Michigan. Coal ash is a dangerous byproduct of burning coal to make electricity, yet has potentially toxic health effects if it enters our groundwater.

“We Energies said in an update on its website today that coal ash is ‘not a hazardous material,’” says Katie Nekola, attorney for Clean Wisconsin, “but that is far from true. The fact is, coal ash contains chemicals and compounds that are dangerous to human health. This disaster proves that we need better regulation of coal ash and that the public deserves the right to know what’s in their drinking water.”

Coal ash contains 24 known pollutants, some of which, according to the National Resource Council, are toxic even in minuscule quantities. Those toxins include: arsenic, boron, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, lead, mercury, and dioxins, along with other chemicals and compounds.

These toxins can cause serious health problems including cancers, central nervous system damage, and blood and kidney disorders. Coal ash dump ponds and landfills are often unlined, and arsenic, lead, mercury and cadmium can leach into local drinking water. One Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study found that residents living near unlined ash ponds run a risk of cancer from arsenic contamination that is 2,000 times greater than the EPA's threshold for acceptable risk. At Oak Creek, the coal ash came from a decades-old, closed coal ash landfill. This spill comes at a time when Congress is considering limiting EPA's authority to regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste.

“This landslide poured toxic materials directly into Lake Michigan, which 10 million people rely on for drinking water,” said Nekola. “Area residents should insist that We Energies and state regulators ensure the safety of their water supplies as soon as possible.”

###

Bluff collapse at power plant sends dirt, coal ash into Lake Michigan

From an article by Meg Jones and Don Behm in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Oak Creek - A large section of bluff collapsed Monday next to the We Energies Oak Creek Power Plant, sending dirt, coal ash and mud cascading into the shoreline next to Lake Michigan and dumping a pickup truck, dredging equipment, soil and other debris into the lake.

There were no injuries, and the incident did not affect power output from the plant.

When the section of bluff collapsed and slid from a terraced area at the top of a hill down to the lake, Oak Creek Acting Fire Chief Tom Rosandich said, it left behind a debris field that stretched 120 yards long and 50 to 80 yards wide at the bottom.

Aerial images show a trailer and storage units holding construction equipment tumbled like Tonka toy trucks and were swept along with the falling bluff in a river of dirt that ended in the water.

"This is definitely a freak accident," U.S. Coast Guard Lt. j.g. Brian Dykenssaid.

As a company hired by We Energies began cleanup in Lake Michigan, the utility confirmed that coal ash was part of the debris.

"Based on our land use records it is probable that some of the material that washed into the lake is coal ash," We Energies spokesman Barry McNulty said. "We believe that was something that was used to fill the ravine area in that site during the 1950s. That's a practice that was discontinued several decades ago."

The Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of developing stricter regulations of coal ash following a 2008 Tennessee coal ash pond washout that created a devastating environmental disaster.

RENEW asks PSC to stop We Energies' termination of renewable program

From the testimony of RENEW presented by Michael Vickerman, who draws attention to the fact that We Energies is trying to defund its $6 million/year renewable energy development program without any justification. In fact We Energies doesn't say anything about their actions. RENEW asks the PSC not to sanction this sleight of hand maneuver:

Q. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A. The purpose of my testimony is to discuss the May 2011 decision by We Energies to cancel a 10-year, $60 million commitment to support renewable energy development in its service territory. . . .

My testimony includes a recommendation to the Commission that it not allow We Energies to reallocate in 2012 the $6 million per year it had committed to spend on renewable energy development activities for other purposes. . . .

Q. What elements of We Energies’ Renewable Energy Development program do you consider to be particularly successful?
A. Several of We Energies’ customer incentives and tariffs were unique in the way they complemented Focus on Energy’s renewable energy program. For example, We Energies was the first utility to: (1) offer a solar energy-specific buyback rate; (2) increase the net energy billing capacity ceiling for small wind systems generators to 100 kW; and (3) support renewable energy-specific conferences and events such as Solar Decade held in Milwaukee. Perhaps the most innovative element in We Energies’ program, however, was its special incentive for nonprofit customers seeking to install renewable energy systems. Every three months, We Energies would solicit proposals from schools, religious institutions, local governments, nature centers and other nonprofit entities to co-fund new renewable energy systems on their premises. This We Energies incentive supplemented Focus on Energy grants and cash-back awards. It was designed to overcome the inability of these nonprofit entities to capture federal renewable energy tax credits to offset their own system acquisition costs. As a result of this unique incentive, there are more renewable energy systems serving nonprofit customers in We Energies territory than in any other utility territory. This initiative has an educational component to it as well; We Energies posts real-time production data from these systems on its web site.

Wind project holds down utility's costs by$12 million, coal pushes them higher

From an article by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

We Energies customers could see a small increase in electric bills in 2012 linked to the higher price of coal and other power plant fuels expected next year, the company said Wednesday.

The state's largest utility filed a plan with the state Public Service Commission that said costs linked to power plant fuels are projected to rise by about $50 million in 2012.

The utility wants to delay an increase in non-fuel rates until 2013. Whenever that increase hits customers' bills, it would result in a hike of about 6%, the utility projects.

Under the utility's plan, rates would rise in 2012 only because of power plant fuel prices, and the bottom line for customers would be an overall 2012 increase of less than 1%.

Residential customers would see a 0.7% increase, adding 77 cents a month for a typical residential customer now paying $104.90 a month for electricity, utility spokesman Brian Manthey said. Business customers would see increases of about 1% to 1.1%. . . .

The higher price of coal is projected to lead to $28 million in higher costs next year, including the price of the fuel itself and cost to deliver it by train to Wisconsin. Other increases include $10 million for power it buys from the Point Beach nuclear plant and about $8 million for natural gas.

Offsetting these increases somewhat is the state's newest and largest wind farm, set to open late this year. Generation from the Glacier Hills Wind Park would decrease 2012 fuel costs by more than $12 million, We Energies said.

We Energies may not meet renewable energy standard

From an article by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

We Energies won final approval to build a $255 million biomass power plant in north-central Wisconsin Thursday.

The utility had wanted a decision this week to help it keep on target to complete construction by late 2013.

But the utility hasn’t decided whether it will proceed with the building the plant at this point. Utility spokesman Brian Manthey said We Energies and Domtar Corp., its partner in the project, are reviewing conditions that regulators attached to the deal – conditions that aim to bring down the overall cost of the project for utility customers.

The biomass plant at the Domtar paper mill in Rothschild is being proposed at a time when the utility has enough power to meet the needs of its customers but is required because of the state’s renewable portfolio standard.

That standard, adopted by the state Legislature in 2006, requires that 8.25% of We Energies’ power come from renewable sources by 2015.

If the project does not move forward, We Energies executives told investors last week they would want to have discussions with the Walker administration about alternatives, including a possible way of delaying the company's compliance with the law.

There have been discussions of possible legislation that would help the utility delay the time frame for complying with the law, or it could take advantage of “off-ramps” built into the 2006 law that would allow it more time to comply.

Valley plant could switch to gas

From an article by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

We Energies plans to take initial steps toward converting its Milwaukee coal-fired power plant to burn natural gas, the utility's chairman told shareholders Thursday.

The Milwaukee utility has been under pressure to address air pollution from the power plant located south of downtown in the Menomonee River Valley.

To comply with new federal pollution rules, the utility has been studying whether to convert the plant to natural gas or to add environmental controls that could allow it to continue burning coal.

"We believe we will need to convert the plant from coal to natural gas," Chairman and Chief Executive Gale Klappa told shareholders at Wisconsin Energy Corp.'s annual meeting at Concordia University Wisconsin in Mequon.

We Energies will file an application with the state Public Service Commission in the second half of this year for an initial project that would be needed for that conversion to take place.

"That first step would be to put in a larger natural gas pipeline that could . . . supply natural gas to that facility," Klappa said. "That will be a significant project. It will require PSC approval, it will require City of Milwaukee approval, and it will require us to update a 1949 natural gas line that runs through the area."

Klappa did not announce a timeline for converting the plant from coal to gas. Utility spokesman Brian Manthey said the utility needs to ensure it has the approval and the ability to supply gas to the power plant before it makes a final decision.

"The (Cleaner Valley) coalition encourages We Energies to move as quickly as possible," said the Rev. Willie Brisco, president of Milwaukee Inner City Congregations Allied for Hope. "People's lives are impacted by Milwaukee's dirty air each and every day."

Built in the late 1960s, the Valley plant is the utility's only major coal-fired plant in Wisconsin that lacks modern pollution controls. A much smaller coal plant in Wauwatosa provides steam to businesses at the Milwaukee County Grounds.

Environmental groups and a consortium of other groups in the Milwaukee area formed the Cleaner Valley Coalition to urge the utility to clean up the plant. In addition, the Sierra Club and Clean Wisconsin challenged an air pollution permit for Valley, saying it doesn't go far enough to protect public health.

"We're very happy to hear that they're taking a step in the right direction," said Emily Miota of the Sierra Club. "The biggest concern now is that they move quickly to make this happen."

From an article by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Utility customers could be on hook for extra cost

We Energies customers may be on the hook for more money to pay for the Oak Creek power plant, based on latest estimates that indicate the project came in 8.7% over budget - adding $191 million to the price tag for the largest construction project in state history.

The project initially was approved with a budget of $2.19 billion. Project delays blamed on litigation and permitting delays, as well as weather-related construction problems, have contributed to rising costs. The total price tag is now pegged at $2.38 billion.

A report by R.W. Beck & Co., a consultant hired by We Energies to review the progress of the construction, indicated that the cost for the second phase of the plant would come in about 9% over budget. An earlier report said the cost of building the first unit and facilities - including coal-handling machinery and a giant pipe beneath Lake Michigan that draws water to cool the plant - was projected to go 7% over budget.

In a filing with securities regulators on Friday, Wisconsin Energy Corp. announced the $191 million in overruns. The amount to be collected from We Energies customers is expected to be provided to the PSC in coming months as part of a proceeding to set rates in 2012 and 2013, utility spokesman Brian Manthey said.

The utility maintains the plant is a bargain based on rising steel and construction expenses that boosted the costs for similar projects around the country in recent years. The utility was able to lock in prices before steel and other commodity prices soared in the middle of the decade.

We Energies ponders Valley plant's future

From an article by Thomas Content in the Milwaukeee Journal Sentinel:

Stricter EPA pollution rules leading to changes

We Energies managers expect to decide this year how the utility will clean up the Menomonee Valley power plant to comply with new environmental rules.

The Milwaukee power company is studying whether to add pollution controls at the downtown plant or to convert the plant to burn natural gas.

A coalition of health and environmental groups plans a petition drive calling on the company to make changes more rapidly.

The Valley plant has come under fire because it is the only large utility plant the company operates in Wisconsin that hasn't been outfitted with state-of-the-art pollution scrubbers or shut down.

As part of a federal court settlement resolving alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, the state's largest utility has added pollution controls to power plants in Oak Creek and Pleasant Prairie, and converted its oldest coal plant in Port Washington to burn natural gas.

The Cleaner Valley Coalition has expanded its coalition with the addition of the Milwaukee Inner-City Congregations Allied for Hope and the Wisconsin Interfaith Power & Light coalition, among others. Other members include the Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Latino Health Coalition, Midwest Environmental Advocates, Sierra Club and Clean Wisconsin.

"We are demanding We Energies to clean up its mess and the Environmental Protection Agency to hold We Energies accountable to meet modern and protective health standards," said Virginia Zerpa, leader of the Cleaner Valley Coalition.

Business energy bills will increase by 13%

From an article by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Household prices will rise less than 5%, still much higher than inflation
By Thomas Content of the Journal Sentinel
We Energies customers will see their electric bills rise Jan. 1, with double-digit increases projected for the utility's biggest ratepayers.

The utility's largest energy-users - factories and other large businesses -can expect their bills to jump about 13% on average, said Brian Manthey, utility spokesman. Most other business customers can expect electric bills to rise 8% to 10%.

Residential customers can expect an increase of less than 5%.

By comparison, the rate of inflation increased 1.1% from a year ago, according to the latest report from the U.S. Labor Department.

The culprit behind the Jan. 1 increase is the loss of credits that were linked to the sale of the Point Beach nuclear power plant several years ago. Those credits, which have expired, helped mask a substantial rate increase in 2008.

Since 2008, We Energies has refunded more than $700 million to Wisconsin customers from the $1 billion sale of the Point Beach nuclear plant to NextEra Energy Resources, a subsidiary of FPL Group Inc. of Juno Beach, Fla.

For business customers in particular, the credits have helped offset increases on their bills, even as the utility has received approval to raise rates to compensate for higher fuel costs and power plant construction.

Todd Stuart, executive director of the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, said his members who are We Energies customers face increases in the range of 12% to 15%, although one energy-intensive firm faces a 20% increase.

"Most of our members have been aware of it for some time, but that doesn't mean it's not going to hurt when those credits come off," he said. "There's going to be a sting; there's no doubt about it."

Stuart was lobbying the state Public Service Commission to reject a big rate increase three years ago when the commission also authorized the credits to start flowing back to customers.

"That's truly the underlying problem, that the increase in 2008 was 17%," Stuart said. "And the credits have been masking that, until now."

Wisconsin utilities continue progress toward renewable energy standard

From a news release issued by the Public Service Commissiion of Wisconsin:

MADISON – Two reports released today by the Public Service commission of Wisconsin (PSC) indicate that Wisconsin’s electric utilities and cooperatives continue to make steady progress in adding renewable energy to the state’s energy supplies. All of the electric providers meet or exceed state requirements and many offer incentives to customers who want to generate their own renewable electricity.

Renewable Portfolio Standard Compliance

Wisconsiin’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) law requires retail electric providers to produce 66 percent of the state’s eelectricity from renewable resources by the year 2010, and 110 percent by 2015. each year, Wisconsin utilities and cooperatives are required to report to the PSC their progress in meeting thee renewable milestones. Today the PSC released the 2009 RPS compliance Report which indicates:

+ All 118 Wisconsin electric providers met their RPS requirement for 2009;
+ 113 providers exceeded their requirements for the year, creating excess renewable resource credits that can be banked and used for compliance in future years; and,
+ In 2009, 6.29 percent of the electricity sold by the state’s utilities and cooperatives was generated from renewable resources, up from 4.90 percent in 2008.

Distributed Renewable Generation

PSC also released a status report on its investigation into “advanced a term renewable tariffs,” a term used to describe long-term contracts whereby utilities and cooperatives offer to purchase electricity at premium prices from customers who generate electricity from small, renewable systems such as solar panels. Highlights of the status report include:

+ More than 300 of Wisconssin’s electric providers, representing about 90% of the state’ s electricity market, have voluntarily offered this kind of incentive;
+ Customers have responded by installing more than 10 MW of small, distributed capacity utilizing biogas (from manure digesters on farms), solar panels, and wind turbines; and,
+ An additional 8.2 MW off generation capacity, mostly from biogas projects, is under construction and will soon be generating electricity.

We Energies' Valley plant operates under more lenient standards

From an article by Tom Content and Lee Bergquist in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Many old coal-fired power plants are shutting down or being upgraded, but Valley escapes change

Many of Wisconsin's oldest coal-fired power plants are shutting down or are being upgraded as regulators tighten standards to improve air quality.

But We Energies' Valley plant - with its twin 400-foot smokestacks that tower over the High Rise Bridge a mile south of downtown Milwaukee - is a glaring exception.

The utility has avoided installing costly pollution controls by capitalizing on the plant's age, its unique role in producing steam to heat many downtown buildings and a court settlement with environmental regulators.

Valley is We Energies' oldest power plant that lacks modern emission controls. As a result, it exposes metro Milwaukee - an area with longstanding air quality problems - to more air pollution.

"Valley is the poster child for the oldest and dirtiest coal plants in the state," said Jennifer Feyerherm of the Sierra Club, an organization that has been active in forcing utilities to clean up operations of old power plants.

We Energies' No. 2 executive said the company has installed equipment to bring down pollution.

"We have not ignored Valley," said Rick Kuester, the utility's executive vice president.

He signaled for the first time that the company is studying the future of Valley and considering adding more pollution controls or switching to a cleaner burning fuel.

Kuester also emphasized the critical role the plant plays in the financial health of downtown Milwaukee by relying on steam to keep heating costs stable. The plant also provides supplemental electricity for the broader power grid on hot summer days when usage is high.

Will we create a grid smart enough for the 21st century?

As daylight fades, Manhattan continues to gorge on power. New York City is tied to fuels like natural gas, with less than one percent of its electricity coming from wind or solar.

From an article by Joel Achenbach in National Geographic, with photos by Joe McNally

Can we fix the infrastructure that powers our lives?

We are creatures of the grid. We are embedded in it and empowered by it. The sun used to govern our lives, but now, thanks to the grid, darkness falls at our con­venience. During the Depression, when power lines first electrified rural America, a farmer in Tennessee rose in church one Sunday and said—power companies love this story—"The greatest thing on earth is to have the love of God in your heart, and the next greatest thing is to have electricity in your house." He was talking about a few lightbulbs and maybe a radio. He had no idea.

Juice from the grid now penetrates every corner of our lives, and we pay no more attention to it than to the oxygen in the air. Until something goes wrong, that is, and we're suddenly in the dark, fumbling for flashlights and candles, worrying about the frozen food in what used to be called (in pre-grid days) the icebox. Or until the batteries run dry in our laptops or smart phones, and we find ourselves scouring the dusty corners of airports for an outlet, desperate for the magical power of electrons.

The grid is wondrous. And yet—in part because we've paid so little attention to it, engineers tell us—it's not the grid we need for the 21st century. It's too old. It's reliable but not reliable enough, especially in the United States, especially for our mushrooming population of finicky digital devices. Blackouts, brownouts, and other power outs cost Americans an estimated $80 billion a year. And at the same time that it needs to become more reliable, the grid needs dramatic upgrading to handle a different kind of power, a greener kind. That means, among other things, more transmission lines to carry wind power and solar power from remote places to big cities.

Most important, the grid must get smarter. . . .

With biomass, green and not-so-green lines blur

From an article by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Wisconsin power projects spark questions about emissions from biomass vs. fossil fuels

How green can the energy produced by a biomass power plant be if it releases carbon dioxide into the air just like a coal or natural gas-fueled plant?

That's the question being raised about biomass projects, including one proposed by We Energies in Rothschild and another Xcel Energy Corp. is considering in Ashland.

"You can't assume that biomass is carbon-neutral. It depends on how many trees you plant and how fast they grow, and all sorts of variables," said Katie Nekola, energy program director at the conservation group Clean Wisconsin. "It's right to look at it case by case to see exactly what the carbon balance is going to be for any plant. . . ."

Milwaukee-based We Energies is proposing a $255 million, 50-megawatt power plant at the Domtar Corp. paper mill in Rothschild. Some residents in Rothschild, south of Wausau, have objected to the project because of concerns about air pollution that would be released by a new power plant located not far from a $770 million coal-fired power plant in Weston and south of Rothschild.

The utility said it proposed the biomass project as a way to help it comply with Wisconsin's renewable power mandate because it can generate electricity around the clock, unlike a wind farm. The project would supply steam to Domtar's paper mill and create up to 150 jobs, the utility said.

Critics call for a review

Critics of the project are asking the state Public Service Commission and Department of Natural Resources to do a full environmental review of the project.

A detailed review is not required and was not performed for the proposed Xcel Energy biomass plant in Ashland.

The agencies have not decided whether the review, known as an environmental impact statement, will be done for the We Energies project.

"Stop this biomass project now, please," Rebecca Simms of Rothschild said in a public comment filed with the state. "Biomass should no longer be considered an alternative to fossil fuels and should no longer be considered carbon-neutral, because it is not."

In a filing last week in response to an inquiry by state regulators, We Energies disclosed that carbon dioxide, or CO2, emissions from the Rothschild plant would be about 590,000 tons a year.

The utility says that will be offset by the replanting of trees in the forest that will absorb carbon dioxide. . . .

In Madison, the state of Wisconsin has proposed a $250 million biomass and natural gas plant to replace a coal-fired plant that serves the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

In Ashland, Xcel Energy would replace a coal-fired power plant with a biomass gasifier. The status of that project is uncertain, however, after the utility's cost estimate for the project ballooned by nearly 37% to $79.5 million.

PSC should approve the settlement with We Energies

From an editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The state Public Service Commission [PSC] appears to have taken a reasonable approach to We Energies' request for an increase in rates for electricity customers, granting some but not all of what the utility was asking. While any increase hurts consumers during a time of recession, the reality is that We Energies needs to cover costs related to building power plants, transmission lines costs and employee pensions.

Wisconsin needs reasonable power costs to attract and retain businesses, but it also needs reliable power. The PSC is striving to make sure the state has both.

But commissioners delayed making a decision on one aspect of the rate request. That delay could hurt Wisconsin consumers and the environment. Commissioners should reconsider, and grant the request without any delay.

At stake is a settlement We Energies reached in 2008 with environmental groups involving cooling methods for its new coal plants in Oak Creek. The settlement was a victory for all sides, allowing the utility and its partners to complete the plants in a timely manner, providing help for Lake Michigan in the form of funds for restoration initiatives and expanding renewable energy in Wisconsin.

The $105 million settlement will be paid for mostly by electric customers, but that price tag will be far less than it could have been under a protracted legal battle over the plant's cooling system. The utilities involved and the environmental groups who fought the plant worked hard to reach a compromise that serves everyone.

But that compromise could be put in jeopardy if the PSC rejects the portion of the rate hike request designed to cover the cost of the settlement. The environmental groups could decide that their work was wasted if there is a significant delay in getting the restoration money for Lake Michigan. And re-opening the lawsuit could mean more costs to ratepayers if the groups prevail.