Wisconsin Energy, PSC say rates will rise unless justices hear appeal soon

Electricity rates for businesses and residents will go up significantly unless the state Supreme Court agrees quickly to hear an appeal of a court decision that blocked construction of two coal plants in Oak Creek, the state's largest utility and energy regulators said Tuesday.

Both Wisconsin Energy Corp. and the state Public Service Commission filed requests with the state's highest court, asking that the case skip over the state Court of Appeals and be heard directly and soon by the Supreme Court.

The utility enlisted the support of nearly 40 businesses, unions and organizations, including the construction workers unions, Miller Brewing Co. and the Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives, to sign affidavits supporting their request for a quick hearing.

The state Supreme Court rarely accepts requests to hear cases without those cases going first to the Court of Appeals, said Janine Geske, a retired Supreme Court justice who now teaches law at Marquette University.

Even more unusual, she said, is Wisconsin Energy's second request, that the Supreme Court hear the case on a fast-track schedule, with the utility's law firm, Quarles & Brady, asking to file its first arguments two weeks from now.

"That would be very, very rare if they did that, and I would be shocked," Geske said.

Utility spokesman Thad Nation said the company recognizes the unusual nature of its request, "but we felt that this case was so compelling because of its statewide implications that we chose to go down this route."

Opponents, who object to the use of coal, the most polluting form of generating electricity, will continue to fight the project, said Mark Redsten, executive director of the environmental group Clean Wisconsin, one of the groups that sued to block the plant.

"We're going to be there at every step of the way. This is something that we believe very strongly about, and we'll be there."

Wisconsin Energy says electricity reliability in southeastern Wisconsin is threatened by a delay, noting that the commission and even the judge who ruled against the project, Dane County Circuit Judge David Flanagan, agreed there was a need for the coal plants late in this decade.

Dan Ebert, executive assistant to Burnie Bridge, who leads the Public Service Commission, agreed.

"Concerns about reliability and increased costs for ratepayers are very significant, and we would hope that the Supreme Court will review this as quickly as possible," Ebert said.

In its motion, the utility says Bechtel Corp., the contractor on the project, has projected that costs could rise by $70 million to $260 million if construction doesn't start in the spring on the first of two coal plants envisioned in the project. If Bechtel isn't notified to proceed with construction by May 1, the plants could open nine to 18 months late, the utility said.

In addition, Wisconsin Energy says that if Flanagan's decision stands, it would require the utility to undertake three more years of studies just to get back to the point in the process the company and state regulators reached in November 2002.

Project opponents say they consider the utility's warnings about possible electricity shortages unnecessarily dire and see no crisis warranting hasty action.

Redsten noted the project still awaits several permits, including a water permit from the state Department of Natural Resources and a water intake and wetlands permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Copyright 2004, Journal Sentinel Inc. All rights reserved. (Note: This notice does not apply to those news items already copyrighted and received through wire services or other media.)