An analyst with the Citizens Utility Board is calling for “better system planning” for Wisconsin’s electric grid as it undergoes rapid change driven in part by data centers.
Corey Singletary, director of regulatory affairs for CUB, this week told a meeting of the Wisconsin Technology Council that data center growth has “shone really big, really bright spotlights on existing fractures … or vulnerabilities” in the state’s utility regulatory system.
“I think there are policy improvements that can build onto that rich legacy of regulation,” he said of the state Public Service Commission’s role.
He noted CUB supports implementing integrated resource planning in Wisconsin, a different approach from the state’s existing framework. Currently, the PSC requests information from utilities on a biennial basis to create the Strategic Energy Assessment or SEA.
But Richard Heinemann, an attorney at Boardman Clark who represents municipal electric utilities in Wisconsin, criticized the SEA process as “flawed” and inherently backward-looking.
“It’s just kind of presented to level-set what the energy landscape looks like in a moment in time, and as soon as those data requests are responded to and the SEA is published, it’s obsolete,” he said.
The state used to have an advanced planning process that’s largely similar to an IRP, which was abandoned in the early 2000s. Still, Singletary noted key differences between the state’s original advanced planning process of the late 1990s and existing IRPs, pointing to Minnesota’s system as an example.
Within Minnesota’s IRP framework, an individual utility such as Xcel Energy submits its plan to regulators for its own needs, separately from other energy providers. By comparison, Wisconsin’s old advanced planning process involved all the utilities creating one resource plan for the entire state at the same time, according to Singletary.
“So you can imagine that’s like herding a lot of cats,” he said, arguing Minnesota’s approach is less complicated and adding “there are good reasons why maybe it didn’t work so great the first time.”
He said going through an IRP process would allow utilities’ planning processes to be vetted by regulators, to ensure they’re consistent with state statute and policy priorities. Ultimately, moving to such a system would result in greater public trust in the outcomes of utility regulation, he argued.
But while Heinemann said the SEA process has its own issues, he questioned “if it makes sense” to go back to an IRP in Wisconsin.
“Especailly now with all these changes, almost as soon as you present something it’s no longer relevant, so it becomes a very difficult tool to utilize,” he said.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Alliant Energy said the PSC is struggling to deal with the increased workload. Catherine Giljohann, assistant vice president of regulatory affairs for the Madison-based utility, said the agency does a “fantastic job” but emphasized the greater pressure on the regulatory body.
“Whether we can improve processes, there’s always going to be tweaks to processes we can fix. You can’t improve a process when you’re trying to keep your head above water,” Giljohann said. “The PSC really doesn’t have the amount of resources it needs.”
