January 3, 2025

Take Action Now: Climate MUST be a consideration in fossil gas expansion decision-making!

Tell the Public Service Commssion: We need a FULL Environmental Impact Statement for the Oak Creek fossil gas plant! Comments due by 1/13/25.

Tell the Public Service Commission:
We Need a FULL Environmental Impact Statement for the Oak Creek Fossil Gas Plant!

In July, we asked you to send comments to the Public Service Commission (PSC) about the need for a full environmental impact statement (EIS) on We Energies’ proposed Oak Creek methane gas plant – we just learned that the PSC and DNR do not intend to go further than the lesser environmental assessment (EA) they recently released. Now through 1/13, we have another opportunity to respond and request a full EIS.

Why is an EIS necessary?

In 2021, the World Health Organization declared climate change to be “the single biggest health threat facing humanity.” Taking a deeper dive into the impacts of this proposal is critical in determining how human and environmental health will be affected now and in the future. The EA itself states that “the greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed facilities have the potential to contribute to long-term regional and global climate change impacts, and overall emissions from the facilities have the potential to result in local and regional public health impacts”, but at the same time concludes that the plant will have “no significant impact”. Allowing fossil gas infrastructure expansion to move forward will also directly undermine efforts to achieve Wisconsin’s climate goals, putting us even further behind.

Additionally, the lack of an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) in Wisconsin creates the risk of utilities planning actions that could lead to both redundant and inefficient infrastructure investment. This makes it difficult to look holistically and cumulatively at our energy needs, which is extremely concerning regarding setting a precedent for other proposals that could unnecessarily lock us into using – and paying for – fossil fuels for decades. Consider that We Energies customers are still paying the $2.3 billion price tag for the company’s Oak Creek “Power the Future” coal plant completed in 2011, the most expensive construction project in the history of the state, while shareholders earned about a 12.5% rate of return profit on that project.

Wisconsinites deserve better.

Take Action Now!

We’ve provided some sample comment language and talking points below for you to use, but we encourage you to make it your own… your comments will have much greater power if they’re written in your own words and bring in your own personal experiences and concerns!

Submit your comment requesting a full EIS on the Oak Creek Facility by 1/13

There will be additional opportunities via public hearing to provide input on the EA and Oak Creek proposal, as well as on the final EIS on the Paris proposal. Your comments will help ensure the PSC considers the full range of impacts these projects will have, and will help fuel our advocacy later on in the process!

Paris: Feb 5th @ 2pm & 6pm Union Grove or Online

Oak Creek: March 25th @ 1pm & 6pm Oak Creek or Online

 

Sample Talking Points

  • The PSC needs to conduct a full and comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Oak Creek gas plant proposal. The Environmental Assessment (EA) states that “the greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed facilities have the potential to contribute to long-term regional and global climate change impacts, and overall emissions from the facilities have the potential to result in local and regional public health impacts” – with this kind of potential impact, we need the most rigorous environmental review possible. 
  • New fossil fuel infrastructure like this proposed gas plant creates a number of public health and environmental concerns, which should be addressed thoroughly in the EIS.
  • The EIS should include:
    • All direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from the project on the climate throughout its lifecycle – including the ongoing impacts of Wisconsin’s other fossil fuel generating facilities
    • Alternatives to using fossil fuels for energy generation and benefits (public health, economic, environmental, climate) to reducing reliance on fossil fuels
    • Air and water pollution, and impacts on local ecosystems and wildlife
    • Public health impacts of pollution on the local community, and more broadly impacts from climate change on public health
    • Environmental justice impacts, including the energy burden outcomes for already-struggling We Energies ratepayers and the impacts of burning fossil fuels on the local community’s health
  • The EIS should also describe how building new fossil fuel infrastructure contradicts Governor Evers’ Task Force on Climate Change report that listed “no new fossil fuel infrastructure” including new gas infrastructure as a key solution to stopping the worst impacts of climate change. It is also in direct contradiction to the State of Wisconsin’s goal to ensure that all electricity consumed in the state should be 100 percent carbon free by 2050. 
  • The EIS should also address the cumulative impacts of the various proposals for expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure in Wisconsin. While the EA states that this single plant would have “no significant impact”, we know that the collective effects of fossil fuel expansion will negatively impact Wisconsinites for generations to come.