By Nino Amato
The Energy Initiative Study that was funded by the American Transmission Company comes at an important time since the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin will be examining the cost-effectiveness of ATC’s proposed transmission lines and determining whether or not the planning assumptions used by ATC are in fact the “least-cost-option.”
As for the controversy surrounding ATC’s Energy Initiative Study, the real issue is whether or not the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) is properly staffed in order to make a technically sound and in-depth analysis of the cost-effectiveness of ATC’s planning assumptions.
Consumer groups like the Customers First Coalition and industry groups like Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group (WIEG), the Wisconsin Paper Council (WPC) and the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) are all concern that the PSCW may be substantially understaffed.
In a recent PSCW brief, WIEG, WPC and WMC specifically raised legitimate concerns about the PSCW, pointing out that the “PSC staffing levels may not be sufficient to facilitate a comprehensive, in-depth analysis” of ATC’s proposed transmission lines. They also urged the PSC “to seek adequate funding to support the necessary technical staff levels that will permit a closely detailed review of ATC’s plans, models and assumptions.” (See PSCW Docket 137-EI-100, WIEG, WPC, WMC Filing).
After a careful review of ATC’s planning assumptions, the three major industry organizations (WIEG, WPC, WMC) also concluded that “there is insufficient evidence (by ATC) to support an assumption that lower cost energy and capacity will be available (to Wisconsin),” and that “the (ATC) analysis fails to identify assumptions regarding the acquisition of low cost power from out of state.”
Compared to just 10 years ago, the PSCW staff is down by 33 percent. Both Governor McCallum and Doyle have made substantial reductions in PSCW staffing levels to offset the state budget deficit. As a result, these cuts have rendered this governmental “watch dog” agency almost ineffective when it comes to challenging ATC and the utility monopolies planning assumption to build new transmission lines and power plants at the least-cost option.
David Benforado, chair for the Customers First Coalition, has pointed out that cutting PSCW staff is not good for ratepayers and these cuts “will not help close the state’s budget shortfall,” since the PSCW isn’t funded with state taxpayers’ dollars, but through a fee on our utility bills. So far these concerns have fallen upon deaf ears and both Governor Doyle and PSCW Chair Dan Ebert continue to ignore industry and customer groups concerns.
Given the lack of independent PSCW data, how do we know if utilities are not over building new transmission lines and power plants to simply earn additional profits for their shareholders at the expense of utility ratepayers?
For instance, during the last utility building stage, utility executives insisted that Wisconsin needed to build two additional nuclear power plants and said if they are not built, we will have “rolling blackouts and Wisconsin’s economy will be harmed.” Fortunately the PSCW Chairperson at that time challenged the utilities planning assumptions with independent data from PSCW staff and denied building these new power plants. Had the PSCW authorized the building of these additional power plants, Wisconsin ratepayers would have experienced “rate shock” and our manufacturing economy would have been hurt for future business expansions.
Economic growth and business retention is key to our state’s economic health and we should make every effort to implement initiatives that improve reliability in the most least-cost manner. Therefore the State Legislature should immediately restore the staffing levels at the PSCW or call for an 180 day moratorium on approving any more power plants or transmission lines until an independent citizen committee consisting of energy consumers, environmental groups and energy experts come up with an integrated resource plan to determine what new infrastructure needs to be built in Wisconsin at the least-cost option.
These are unfortunate times for Wisconsin ratepayers, times that demand an independent and an integrated review of Wisconsin’s energy infrastructure needs. Without such a review, ratepayers will no longer have the regulatory safeguards to balance the financial interests of the powerful utility monopolies who are purely profit driven.
— Amato has been involved in energy issues for over 20 years and is the former president of the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group. He also served on the Governors Task Force on Energy Conservation and Renewables and on the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents.
