Citizen Power, Inc. Objections to El Paso's third application for CPCN.

Letters we've sent on your behalf.

Among other things, your donations to Citizen Power help pay for research and legal expenses. Citizen Power's board is all volunteers so 100% of your contributions go to fighting these proposals. See the About Us page of our web site for additional information.

Below is a draft copy of the letter we sent to the Public Service Commission stating (some) of our objections to El Paso's third application for a CPCN.

--------------------------

December 17, 2002

Lynda L. Dorr
Secretary to the Commission
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
610 North Whitney Way
Madison, WI 53707

Re: Joint Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Muskego Energy Center, LLC, Docket Number 05-CE-127

Dear Ms. Dorr:

These comments are submitted on behalf of Citizen Power, Inc., a local non-profit citizen organization, for the Commission’s consideration in evaluating the completeness of the above Application, as recently supplemented, under Section 196.491(3)(a)2, Stats. For the reasons set forth below, Citizen Power believes the Application is still incomplete at this time. Some of the bases for the application being incomplete at this time were previously addressed in the comments submitted by Citizen Power in April, and again in September of this year.

The Application Does not Provide Information Which the Commission Needs to Satisfy Statutory and Administrative Code Requirements That the Commission Consider the Reasonable Alternatives to a Proposed Facility

Under Section 196.491(3)(d)3, Stats., the Public Service Commission is required to consider alternative locations or routes before approving any facility. In addition, the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act requires the Commission to identify, describe, analyze, and consider alternatives to any proposed facility such as this. The Commission has codified its Environmental Analysis procedures in Chapter PSC 4 of the Administrative Code. A new electric generation site such as this is a Type I action under PSC 4.10, requiring an Environmental Impact Statement. PSC 4.30, which outlines EIS requirements, provides that a proposed action “and its alternatives” need to be identified and evaluated, and further provides that the scope of the Commission’s duties includes “evaluation of the reasonable alternatives” to the proposed action.

In order to enable the Commission to evaluate and consider alternative sites, the Commission has included within its “Information Requirements for Construction of an Electric Generation Facility over 100 MW” the requirement that an applicant “provide comparable information about at least two sites for the proposed project and a sound justification for their selection.” Citizen Power’s review of this Application in April, and again in September, indicated that Muskego Energy Center LLC had submitted only one site, designated Site A. Its alternate site, Site B, was so close to Site A, and was in so many ways indistinguishable from Site A, to such an extent that Sites A and B could be considered as one site. In fact, as to a number of required information elements, Muskego Energy Center LLC had itself treated them as a single site. Neither the recent supplementation, nor the previous supplementation of the application, address this problem at all.

Moreover, as previously noted, if Site B were to be treated as a separate site, the information provided regarding that site was incomplete in a number of ways. Equally importantly, Site B appeared previously to be simply insufficient as a potential site for the proposed facility. The inevitable conclusion to which Citizen Power was led by each of its previous reviews of the application was that Site B was presented simply as a mock proposal, rather than as a realistic or reasonable alternative to proposed Site A. As Citizen Power previously demonstrated, it appeared from Muskego Energy Center’s statements outside of the Application that Muskego Energy Center LLC itself did not actually consider Site B as a realistic or serious alternative location for a generating facility.

Sites A and B are located on the same parcel of property, the Payne & Dolan Quarry, within less than half a mile of one another. Figure 1 shows the actual site boundaries and a distance scale. Approximately 2000 feet, considerably less than ½ mile, separates the southeast corner of Site A from the northeast corner of Site B. Both sites are adjacent to Crowbar Road, to their east. Whether two locations, so close together on the same parcel of property, could ever qualify as alternative sites, is questionable, at best. However, examination of Figure 12, the Applicant’s own “approximation” of the site boundaries, and its designation of the area “within ½ mile of the proposed sites,” demonstrated that even the Applicant views Sites A and B as representing one, and only one, site! In similar fashion, the Applicant provided a single list of names of adjacent property owners within ½ mile of the “sites.” (Table 4.01) Citizen Power believes this does not satisfy the Commission’s requirement that the Applicant propose at least two sites, and it certainly does not enable the Commission to satisfy its duties under Wisconsin law.

Previously, Citizen Power noted further:

Moreover, if Sites A and B were to be considered as separate sites, Muskego Energy Center has inexplicably failed to submit significant items of required information regarding Site B. Thus, while the information for Site A includes an operations building, none is described for Site B. Similarly, there is no description of a water reservoir or placement of tanker trailers on Site B. Nor does there appear to be a gas heater station defined for placement on Site B, nor a drainage map or a stormwater detention pond. Figures 9 and 11 are scale drawings of the proposed Muskego Energy Center facility layouts. Site B has an area of approximately 13 acres which would require a much more compact layout than Site A, 76.6 acres. Indeed, the absence of the above-noted elements from the Application regarding Site B raises the question of whether Site B is actually large enough to be a site for a generating facility of the type proposed.

Rather than repeating here all of Citizen Power’s previous criticisms of the adequacy of Site B, which we believe are still valid, we will refer the Commission once again to our previous submission in September.

Moreover, the additional review occasioned by examination of the Applicant’s recent submission indicates to Citizen Power that Site B has been presented to the Commission in bad faith, apparently with the purpose of misleading the Commission. According to the Applicant, it proposes to install 4 General Electric Model PG7121(EA) simple-cycle combustion turbines and associated equipment, as well as electrical switching and transmission facilities, at either Site. At either Site, it proposes to utilize the same equipment. Examination of Figure 2b, showing Site A, indicates that each of the four turbine islands occupies a space slightly smaller than 200 feet by 300 feet, perhaps 190 feet by 290 feet. The four turbines, together with the roadways separating and surrounding them, occupy an area of roughly 450 feet by 890 feet. These dimensions for the electric generation equipment are consistent with those which can be derived from the scales on the plans for Site A which were submitted previously (Figures 5 and 16). However, in Figure 2c in the Applicant’s recent submission, which shows Site B, the same turbines have somehow “shrunk,” enabling each turbine to fit within an area of about 90 feet by 110 feet, and for all four turbines together to occupy an area of roughly 250 feet by 580 feet. Nowhere does the Applicant describe the shrinking process by which General Electric Model PG7121(EA) turbines and their associated equipment can have a smaller footprint on Site B than on Site A. It is not necessary to examine two separate Figures, and to compare measurements made from those Figures to reach the above conclusions.

Examining Figure 29, which lays out the proposed developments at both Sites A and B on a single drawing, confirms that the dimensions of the generating equipment placed on Site B have been drastically reduced, compared to those on Site A. Moreover, Figure 29 indicates that the footprint of the turbine pads on Site B would extend into the Payne & Dolan quarry lake – and what is not shown is that the presumed stormwater management pond and the substantial lay down area to the northwest of the pads would be largely if not entirely in the lake! This is the case, even after the Applicant’s use of reduced-scale equipment. In addition, it is not clear whether even this reduced-scale equipment has been moved about on Figure 29, from the actual location as shown on Figure 2c, in order to make the installation appear to fit. What is clear is that there is no chance whatsoever that true to scale equipment could be placed on Site B.

From the outset, Citizen Power has questioned whether Site B is large enough for the project which the Applicant seeks to develop. Careful review of the Applicant’s own drawings confirms that criticism. Unless the turbines and other equipment are shrunk in some undefined way (perhaps through magic, or through the use of toy equipment, rather than real equipment?) the Applicant can’t even fit them on its Site plan! Citizen Power respectfully suggests that the Commission should weigh heavily the Applicant’s lack of candor, both in failing to disclose the inadequacy of Site B, and in attempting to cover up the inadequacy by arbitrarily shrinking the equipment footprints on its drawings.

In view of the dimensional inadequacy of Site B, it is not surprising that the Applicant’s plans still fail to show the Administration Building, a gas heater station or any housing for the same, an electrical distribution station, parking lots, a demineralization unit, or a stormwater detention pond on Site B (nor any reason to believe that there is sufficient depth to construct one, considering the porosity of the soil, the proximity of the water table, and the proximity of the site to the proposed quarry lake). Nor has it been demonstrated that Applicant has the ability to develop that Site, through ownership or option which would need to include the access routes and lay down areas, which appear to extend well beyond the “Site” itself (and even onto the proposed quarry lake). Considerable land preparation and construction occurs directly over the existing pipelines at Site B. Is this safe, and is it allowable under applicable regulations?

Even after the recent second supplementation of its application, Site B remains deficient as a potential site, for the reasons noted above. Under the circumstances, it is clear that the Applicant still has not presented two reasonable alternative sites, as required by the applicable statute and by the Commission’s own regulations.

The Application is Incomplete Because Required Information is Missing, and Because Some Of the Information Provided is Inaccurate or Misleading

The PSC’s Information Requirements, at 1.14, calls for an Application to set forth “Fuel types (primary and backup), and likely fuel source(s). “ As noted in April, no backup fuel appeared to be contemplated for this facility, at either site. This deficiency has not been remedied in the supplemented application, nor is any location for backup fuel shown on either site.

Construction of the facility and its operation will obviously require heavy truck traffic. However, Crowbar Road north of the Payne & Dolan entrance is a Class B highway with a 10,000 pound weight limit. Clearly, the semi-trailer tanker trucks hauling approximately 6,000 gallons of water to the facility for fogging system cooling will greatly exceed this limit. Presumably, so will trucks to haul wastes generated by the demineralizer, or to remove the demineralizer for regeneration. Thus, if Site A is approved, a frontage-type access road from the Site to County L will need to be added to the project. This was not mentioned in the initial Application; the supplemental information simply notes that the Applicant would request an increased weight limit for some 2,700 feet of Crowbar Road, and would expect to pay any additional maintenance costs. Whether Muskego is willing to change the classification of this road has still not been addressed. Existing gas pipelines run underneath the road near site A, and might be affected by increased heavy traffic. The recent supplement provides nothing beyond the Applicant’s conclusory statement that there is no danger to the ANR pipeline.

Moreover, the initial drawings of “SITE A” and “SITE B” on Figure 15 bore little resemblance to the actual shapes and sizes of Site A and Site B as shown on Figures 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Figure 15, like Figure 12, appeared to have been created by arbitrarily transforming the actual proposed sites into convenient-sized rectangles and then placing those rectangles somewhere in the general area of where Sites A and B are actually located. Comparison of actual Sites A and B with the zoning presented by the Applicant on Figure 15 shows that significant portions are within the “conditional use” zoned areas of the Payne & Dolan property, not “small portions,” as claimed at page 90 of the Application. While additional site drawings for both sites have been submitted, the discrepancy between the actual site plans and the conditional use zoned area remains.

In the applicant’s new supplemental information, it is noted that demineralizing of water may be conducted on site. However, there is still no location for such a process noted on either Site A or Site B site plans. (The building shown on Site A may be the proposed location, by default, but as noted above, while a “building” has been mentioned on a Site B site plan, no building is actually shown, and it is apparent that there is no room for a building on the proposed site, giving consideration to necessary setbacks, and to the need to “reinflate” the turbines and associated equipment to their real-world size.)

In addition, the previously supplemented application included information demonstrating that the planned land use in neighboring Vernon is Medium Density Residential, within ½ mile of both sites. It appears that this project is inconsistent with community planning. The Applicant now suggests that the surrounding area is incompatible with residential development, but a new residential subdivision bordering the Muskego landfill on the north (with its entry off Field Drive) was developed and sold almost all of its lots within a year.

In April and again in September, Citizen Power noted its belief that the connection to the gas supply pipeline for Site A is located very close to Crowbar Road, and for Site B close to Janesville Road. There was no mention in the Application of a hot line tap isolation valve, or of any above-ground protective structure to provide protection to the public in these locations. We believe this deficiency remains.

The applicant apparently has not yet determined where the water to cool the combustion turbines will come from: either by truck from Milwaukee, in the Lake Michigan watershed, from the City of Muskego, or from a private well with demineralization on site. Apparently little consideration has been given to water quality or other environmental concerns arising from locating a new private well in very close proximity to a Superfund site (the Muskego Landfill Site) with already-existing off-site groundwater contamination problems.

In Section 1.02.1.2 of the Application, it was noted that to avoid potential damage to the combustion turbine, the inlet cooling can be operated only when ambient temperatures are above approximately 60 degrees F. In April and again in September, Citizen Power noted that Southeastern Wisconsin has experienced incidents of turbine failure in the past, and it appeared that the structures proposed to enclose the turbines were insufficient to provide any significant protection to nearby residents in the event of a destructive failure of a turbine. The recent supplemental application fails to address this, even though the applicant proposes to locate generation turbines within about a quarter mile of residences.

The project is proposed to be located on the property of Payne & Dolan, which is currently the site of an extractive mining (gravel pit) operation. The applicant now indicates that development at Site B will require the quarry lake which is part of Payne & Dolan’s reclamation plan to be reduced by several hundred feet. There is nothing to support the Applicant’s conclusory statement that this is a small revision, nor any discussion of whether approval for such a change can be obtained under NR 135. In addition, the reclamation plan provides for public access to the quarry lake through the southeast corner of the Payne & Dolan property, which seems to precisely describe the location of Site B. The reclamation plan does not call for siting of a power plant as a final use of any portion of the quarry property, meaning that either proposed site would require approval for changing the reclamation plan. Any impacts on the reclamation plan for the property ought to be evaluated as part of the environmental impact analysis of this project, so such information should have been included within the application.

Finally, the Application fails to indicate that the fenced off area on Figure 30 will close off an area used by the public as a recreation trail running under the power lines.

Conclusion

For the above reasons, Citizen Power, Inc. respectfully requests that the Public Service Commission determine that the above Application is still not complete, even after the Applicant’s “third try.” The Applicant has now had three strikes, and it should be ruled “out.” Particularly in view of the games being played by the Applicant with Site B, neither Citizen Power nor the Public Service Commission should be forced to devote any more of their limited time and resources to this proposed project.

Very truly yours,

Dennis M. Grzezinski

Enclosures