In late June, Wisconsin utilities shared the news that they would be delaying three coal plant retirements that were announced. I won’t sugarcoat it. This isn’t good for Wisconsin.
Alliant Energy and We Energies have stated that this will NOT deter their clean energy commitment they have made and that they will still retire these coal plants. That’s good news! However, letting these coal plants run longer than slated, has big impacts.
These delays, impacting plants in Sheboygan, Portage and Oak Creek, will result in two more years of carbon pollution, asthma, mercury in Lake Michigan, and all the other harms that running coal plants causes. Customers of We Energies and Alliant Energy will continue paying expensive (and climbing) fossil fuel rates, and we will all pay the price for related climate impacts.
Lack of infrastructure and supply chain issues are the reason for the delays. Make no mistake- this is a result of poor planning and a result of the utilities waiting so long to embrace a clean energy future. This is one more example of how we’re all paying the price for the poor decisions of the past. Reluctance by utilities, lawmakers and regulators to embrace a clean energy economy and to make the necessary investments, and the plans we need to get there is at the root of the problem
We are working hard on long-term solutions, but Wisconsin can’t afford to delay taking action any longer. We can’t endure more short-sighted decisions. There are a number of immediate opportunities to allow us to continue on our path to 100% clean energy:
-
Maximize Energy Efficiency Projects: Wisconsin’s energy efficiency program, known as Focus on Energy, undergoes a review every four years. This year, Wisconsin’s Public Services Commission (PSC) is undergoing that review. We’ve been advocating for the program to prioritize projects that will reduce climate pollution and that will be targeted at reducing energy burden in Milwaukee. If we succeed, the demands on the South Oak Creek coal plant that We Energies is trying to keep online will be reduced. Learn more and take action here.
-
Incentivize Clean Energy, Not fossil fuels: We Energies has proposed a large rate increase, in part because of their bad past decisions to build coal plants and partly to pay for some new gas infrastructure. We can’t keep allowing the utilities to make money off of the backs of ratepayers for these ill-advised decisions to run fossil fuels plants.
Another issue in the rate case is customer-sited renewable energy. Similar to energy efficiency, when people use the energy created by solar panels and batteries installed on their homes, it reduces the pressure on the system and reduces carbon pollution. However, We Energies has been actively working to block customers from installing solar panels. Had this not been the case, we may not be where we are today. Stay tuned for more information about the rate case. -
Not allowing the utilities to use this as an excuse to double-down on fossil fuels: We can not allow the utilities to use this as an excuse to build more fossil fuel infrastructure. We know that’s not the direction we need to go. And investing in the things that got us into this mess isn’t gonna solve it- it’s like stopping for another errand when you’re already running late. The more we build gas plants, the more we squeeze out room for clean energy.
However, utilities continue to pursue new gas plants. We are challenging these decisions on all fronts. In fact, we filed an appeal of the decision to allow Dairyland Power Coop to move forward with building a new gas plant on the shores of Lake Superior last week.
Now, the USDA (US Department of Agriculture, part of the Biden Administration) is considering giving Dairyland a loan to build the NTEC plant. They just released an environmental analysis about the impacts of doing so, and will be deciding soon if they should help fund the gas plant. Of course they shouldn’t. Write to them here.
-
Long-term planning: Days before the retirement delay announcement came out, the PSC released its draft Strategic Energy Assessment (SEA). This is meant to be an outlook on our clean energy future and sets the direction for where we are going. There are some good points in the SEA, including an acknowledgement that we don’t have the reliability issues that the utilities are trying to suggest. It also includes some major red flags, including a suggestion that we should double-down on gas infrastructure. What are they thinking? Stay tuned for ways for you to add your comments to the SEA.
All of these decisions may seem like separate, inconsequential decisions. However, thinking that is what got us into the place we’re in now. Every decision we make going forward will be that much more important. Please take action today. For more information, contact Cassie Steiner at cassandra.steiner@sierraclub.org