Opinion ID: 1713897
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Failure to Evaluate Higher Priority Fuel Sources

Text: ś 152. Clean Wisconsin next argues that the PSC failed to run a modeling analysis of natural gas power comparable to the EGEAS runs of coal power it performed. It states that it is critical to the public interest test, which requires consideration of `alternative sources of supply,' as well as economic, safety, and environmental factors. The PSC argues that it indeed ran models assuming wind power, natural gas, biomass, and conservation alternatives, and also conducted an integrated alternative combining various higher priority sources. Clean Wisconsin argues that the models are not fully comparable unless they are premised on the same mega wattage for each source. However, it provides no basis for this requirement. In fact, it provides no basis for the foundation of this argument:that computer modeling is required. ś 153. Our great weight deference review of the alternate source comparison is not concerned with the actual procedures utilized by the PSC, but rather we examine whether there is a rational basis for the determination of the PSC. The record contains significant evidence supporting the PSC's selection of coal over gas for baseload capacity in this case, including: 1) a need for significantly expanded baseload facilities; 2) the cost and volatility of natural gas prices; 3) the possible difficulty of supplying baseload natural gas plants; 4) the lack of coal-powered plants built in the last twenty-five years, coupled with the aging and retirement of existing coal plants; 5) the desire for diversifying the utilities' fuel mix; and 6) multiple EGEAS runs selecting a coal plant, even after the PSC specifically altered inputs in response to such criticisms.