For
Immediate Release
Contact:
Eric Uram (Sierra Club)
(608) 257-4994
december
28, 2004
Steve Bulik (CRP) (262)
488-5952
ENVIRONMENTAL AND
COMMUNITY GROUPS support bringing Dane County
Circuit Court ruling to the Supreme Court
Coalition members refute
utility’s
allegations of a pending energy crisis
MADISON – RESET Wisconsin, a
community advocacy group comprised of 48 Wisconsin businesses and
organizations
including The Sierra Club and Citizens for Responsible Power (CRP),
today
voiced their strong support for SC Johnson and Clean Wisconsin’s
official
response to the Supreme Court to review the recent ruling by the Dane
County
Circuit Court Judge David Flanagan.
Last month, Judge Flanagan’s decision overturned the Public
Service
Commission of Wisconsin’s 2003 approval to build two coal-burning units
in Oak
Creek.
“Judge
Flanagan’s decision goes to the heart of We Energies’ flawed Oak Creek
proposal,” said Eric Uram, Midwest Regional Representative of the
Sierra
Club. “We believe the Supreme Court
should review this matter since it is clear We Energies will appeal
each
decision until the state’s top justices weigh in.”
Judge
Flanagan’s ruling last November highlighted
many substantive flaws in the PSCW’s permit, including:
—
We
Energies failure to follow state law requiring the utility to conduct
an
alternatives analysis.
o
The
alternative site analysis enables regulatory agencies to determine if a
project
proposal is in the state’s best interest.
Instead of following the law, We Energies offered four
“alternatives”
all located on the current Oak Creek site.
Judge Flanagan correctly ruled that these alternative sites were
not
“viable alternatives.”
—
We
Energies failed to account for the cost of power transmission and
numerous
other costs that will be borne by the ratepayers.
o
The
power company’s original proposal ignored an estimated $260 million in
transmission upgrade costs.
For
these reasons, coalition members remain confident the Supreme Court
will uphold
Judge Flanagan’s ruling in reversing the PSC permit in Oak Creek.
Steve
Bulik, spokesperson for Citizens for Responsible Power said, “The PSCW and
the DNR have
no regard for laws that are in place to protect the public and the
ratepayers. During the permitting
process, these state agencies made decisions that were in the best
interest of
We Energies and not the public. By the
PSCW allowing We Energies to submit an incomplete application, they can
only
blame themselves for self-inflicted delays.”
Contrary
to We Energies’ claims however, coalition members feel it is
unnecessary for
the State Supreme Court to adapt an accelerated briefing and argument
schedule
for this case. They also call into question We Energies claims that
Wisconsin
would be facing an energy crisis if the Oak Creek case does not receive
an
expedited review by the Supreme Court before early 2005.
Bulik
said, “We Energies is misleading the public and the Supreme
Court by making its case for expedited review by claiming Wisconsin is
facing
an energy crisis. We Energies has been
making these claims from the start while additional capacity is being
added
that is cleaner and far less expensive than the Oak Creek coal plant
proposal.”
Based
on the PSCW’s 2003 planning analysis, proposed ERGS generating units
would not
be needed until 2011-2013. In addition,
We Energies’ growth forecasts call for 2.5 percent growth per year from
2001-2009. However the utility’s actual
sales increased by only 0.2 percent in the past two years.
#####
RESET, or Responsible
Energy for Southeastern Wisconsin’s Tomorrow, is a coalition of
concerned
citizens, businesses, organizations and others who care about the
region’s
future. Coalition members agree that Wisconsin needs new power plant
options,
but realize the economic,
environmental, business, health, community and quality of life problems
associated with the coal aspect of the current “Power the Future”
proposal are
just too great to ignore.
