This proceeding will consider the March 15,2010, application of Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) for authority under Wis. Stat. § 196.49 and Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 112 to construct and place in utility service a 50 MW biomass-fueled cogeneration facility to be located in the village of Rothschild, at an estimated total cost of $290.1 million.  At present, the only party in this case is the applicant.   Questions regarding this matter may be directed to docket 6630-CE-305 coordinator Paul Rahn at (608) 267-8967.

On February 18, 2010, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) filed an application with the Commission for approval of a contract for electric service under the terms of Wis. Stat. § 196.192 with Charter Steel (Charter) for the provision of electric service to Charter’s integrated steel melting and hot rolling mill located in Saukville, Wisconsin.
The proposed contract adds a third layer to the Cp-FN rate schedule’s “firm” and “non-firm” prices. The third energy pricing tier, LMP plus 20 percent, would be applied to energy use (“New Usage”) that exceeds the Threshold Usage for each month. Wisconsin Stat. § 196.192, which was enacted as part of 1999 Wisconsin Act 9, required investor-owned electric utilities to file with the Commission “market-based pricing options and options for individual contracts that allow a retail customer, through service from its existing public utility, to receive market benefits and take market risks for the customer’s purchases of capacity or energy. ”
The Commissioners determined that, under the original proposal, Charter did not accept enough risk and directed that Charter should accept the contract for an initial period of one year.

Docket 6630-GF-132

Commission staff has concluded its review of MGE’s 2009 monitored fuel costs, and has determined that, after application of the interim fuel credit, MGE has approximately $278,000 of 2009 fuel cost overcollections, including accrued interest. The company has proposed that the 2009 fuel cost overcollections and accrued interest be refunded to customers via a $0.00014 per kWh credit to bills mailed between April 12 and May 10, 2010.

Docket 3270-FR-103

Under Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 116.07, an extraordinary rate increase can be granted only if the utility’s average cost of fuel under Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 116.03(9) is an extraordinary increase in the cost of fuel to the extent the actual monthly fuel costs exceed the ranges set in its rate proceeding and the annual fuel costs will be affected so as to exceed the annual range.
Despite intervenor objections, the PSCW granted We Energies’ request to increase rates to compensate for the cost of fuel. The increase is granted, subject to refund with interest.

Docket 6630-FR-102

The PSCW will hold a hearing on March 19, 2010, on WEPCO’s request to increase rates by $60.5 million
to cover increases for fuel costs. WEPCO’s application states its fuel costs have exceeded January’s monthly fuel range and will exceed its annual variance for the 2010 test year allowed in the December 18, 2009, Final Decision. WEPCO’s application requests an electric fuel-only increase of $60.5 million or about a 2.8 percent increase on a Wisconsin retail basis.

Docket 6630-FR-102

The PSC Chairman called this a ‘unique and unfortunate situation.” In 2004, Menasha undertook a project to refurbish its existing unused coal-fired electric generating plant to produce steam which it proposed to supply to several nearby industries. As it evolved, the city experienced substantial cost overruns and failed to contract with enough steam-host industries for the full output of the plant. As a result, the city defaulted on steam revenue bonds and risks defaulting on general obligation bonds. Several of the revenue bond holders have sued the city in federal court in Indiana.
WPPI is involved in this matter because Menasha is one of its largest members and the fallout of consequences to Menasha would have serious consequences to the financial integrity of WPPI and its other members.
The Commission approved the Menasha-WPPI request for Menasha to sell its electric distribution system and related facilities to WPPI at net book value; sell its ownership shares in ATC; lease back the electric system facilities from WPPI to continue its obligations as an electric public utility; raise its rates for electric service (by less than 2 percent) to cover its ongoing costs of the electric utility on a cash-flow basis; and use the proceeds from the sale of facilities and ATC ownership shares to meet a substantial portion of its debt requirements.

Docket 05-EI-149

Today the Commission laid over the decision on order language which would approve the sale of property from MGE to ATC.  Azar and Callisto split over the inclusion of indemnification language in the order.  Azar
Azar stated she believed MGE should indemnify ATC for any potential environmental contamination that exists at the time of closing.  Callisto said he was comfortable that due diligence was done by ATC on the environmental concerns.  He said he saw no evidence of contamination or potential contamination to support additional indemnification by MGE or to question the validity of the property value made by the independent assessor.
Meyer, holding the deciding vote, said he would need time to consult with Commission staff legal counsel before he could make the tie-breaking decision.

Docket 5-AE-198

Sierra Club intervened in dockets 6680-UR-116 and 6690-UR-119 (Wisconsin Power and Light Company (WP&L) and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC) rate cases in 2008) to present evidence about the utilities’ renewable energy initiatives. In those rate cases, Sierra Club submitted extensive testimony about the viability of utility-owned solar generation. The record developed as a result of this testimony was a driving force in the establishment of the investigation docket for which Sierra Club now requests IC. The Solar Collaborative includes members representing Alliant Energy, American Transmission Company LLC, Clean Wisconsin, Cooperative Network, IBEW Local 2150, Johnson Controls, Madison Gas and Electric Company, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., RENEW Wisconsin, Sierra Club, We Energies, Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corporation, Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, WPSC. WPPI Energy, and Xcel Energy. To date, members of the Solar Collaborative, including representatives from the Sierra Club, have been engaged in a technical and economic analysis. In the future, the Solar Collaborative will conclude the economic analysis, issue a draft report for public comment, conduct an analysis of policy matters, and draft a final report to the Commission regarding the results of the investigation. Many of the issues under the group’s consideration are complex and require a significant amount of attention to detail.

Docket 5-EI-147

The 2007 Report on 16 Megawatt Off-Grid Industrial and Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Systems: World Market Segmentation by City at Amazon.com.

This is the largest wind farm in Wisconsin approved to date. It will increase installed wind capacity in this state by 30 to 46%, depending upon the size of the final turbines. On October 30, 2008, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3) and Wis. Admin. Code§ PSC 111.53, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) filed an application with the Commission for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to construct a new wind electric generation facility. The facility, known as the Glacier Hills Wind Park (Glacier Hills, GHWP), is proposed to be located in the towns of Randolph and Scott, Columbia County, and would have a total generating capacity of up to 207 megawatts (MW).

Docket 6630-CE-302

Wind Energy Handbook at Amazon.com.

On February 23, 2009, Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin (NSPW) applied to the Commission for authority to construct, install, and place in operation equipment that would produce synthetic gas (syngas) from biomass for the production of electricity at the company’s existing Bay Front Power Plant in Ashland, Wisconsin. The Commission, if it approves the project, will issue a Certificate of Authority to NSPW under Wis. Stat. § 196.49.
The project requires regulatory reviews and approvals by the Commission, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, and the North Dakota Public Service Commission. It also needs air emissions permit revisions for the facility from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR). With all approvals in hand and construction complete, NSPW forecasts that it would begin commercial operation of the new facility in late 2012.

This is the first gasifier of its size for biomass electric generation in the United States, according to the applicant.

Docket 4220-CE-169