Controversy is arising over a WE Energies proposal to build two coal plants near Oak Creek. WE Energies is the utility provider for much of the state, including the Milwaukee area.

WE Energies sees the plan for new plants as a necessary step to accommodate the growing need for electricity in their coverage area, according to Thad Nation, a spokesman for WE Energies.

Nation said average energy growth in the state has grown 2 to 3 percent each year over the past decade, and if we do not do anything about the increases, it will become a big problem.

"Over the past decade the state of Wisconsin has seen power usage go up, and there is a definite need for more energy," Nation said.

He said some states are able to buy surplus energy from other states. This allows them to avoid energy shortfalls, but in the case of Wisconsin, transporting that energy would be a problem.

"Wisconsin is on essentially an energy island," Nation said. "Most states have many (energy) connections with other states but Wisconsin only has four options, one connection that goes into Minnesota and three going into Illinois."

Nation said these connections are already capped and are not a viable option for bringing additional energy into the state.

But some groups claim that WE Energies is simply using misleading information to get the plants built.

WE Energies has $2.2 billion invested in the project, and they stand to make a substantial profit if the plants are built, according to Steve Bulik, spokesman for Citizens for Responsible Power.

"The real reason WE Energies wants to build the coal plants is not because we have an energy crisis, but because they can make a 12.7 percent profit on their $2.2 billion investment," Bulik said.

He said the proposed coal plants are simply too costly and an environmental risk.

"When the Public Service Commission looked at all possible power plant scenarios, this plan (using coal) was the most expensive," Bulik said. "It costs more than natural gas and other options like wind power."

Bulik said building a natural gas plant rather than a coal plant is more expensive, but once up and running, a natural gas plant is much cheaper and would save money in the long run.

The Citizens Utility Board is also questioning some of WE Energies' claims. The board is a non-profit group that advocates for reliable and affordable utility services, according to the group's Web site. When contacted, no one was available for comment.

The board's report said that when plans for the two coal plants were first being discussed, WE Energies projected that energy usage would increase 2.5 percent between 2001 and 2012.

So far, those numbers have not panned out. The actual energy use in WE Energies coverage area has declined by 0.1 percent since 2001, according to a report WE Energies filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2004.

Besides the numbers' discrepancy, there are environmental factors that need to be considered when building a coal plant, Bulik said.

"Factors such as air pollution and damage to surrounding wetlands are all things that need to be considered," Bulik said.

This article appeared in The Marquette Tribune on April 7 2005.