IXONIA, Wis. -- The public comment period has ended, but opponents of proposed natural gas storage facilities in southeastern Wisconsin still hope to convince state regulators to thwart the project, arguing residents all over the state could end up paying the price.

The Public Service Commission (PSC) has been gathering feedback as it decides whether to grant WEC Energy Group a permit to build the facilities. The sites would hold liquefied natural gas in large tanks.

The company insists the extra supplies would be beneficial during peak demand in the colder months.

Cassie Steiner-Bouxa, senior campaign coordinator for the Sierra Club of Wisconsin, countered adding fossil-fuel infrastructure for only a handful of days each year is not a good idea.

"WEC customers will be on the hook to pay for this," Steiner-Bouxa asserted. "Anyone in Wisconsin who's concerned about climate impacts will be concerned about this."

Groups such as the Sierra Club contended costs would reach upwards of $460 million and would be passed on to customers. However, utility officials reported the project would save customers $200 million over 30 years.

Even though the PSC is no longer accepting comments, opponents urged residents to appeal to the commission as well as WEC Energy while deliberations continue.

One facility would be built north of the Illinois border in Bluff Creek, with the other planned for Ixonia, just west of Milwaukee.

Mary Rupnow, an activist who has led community-level opposition efforts there, worried about safety for nearby residents.

"There's asphyxiation vapors that could get released from the facility," Rupnow alleged. "There's jetting and flashing releases that could result in fires."

Environmental advocates also noted the proposed site is near a wetland, and pointed out the project runs counter to carbon emission reduction goals laid out by Gov. Tony Evers and President Joe Biden.

The company said their approach is not as expensive as connecting with interstate pipelines, but Steiner-Bouxa emphasized to meet customer demand year-round, Wisconsin should keep pursuing a robust network of renewable energy and stronger weatherization programs.

"When we have this distributed electric system of clean energy, we're seeing a lot more resiliency from the system, from the grid," Steiner-Bouxa remarked.

As for heating purposes, she added investing in demand-management programs for large-scale customers could help ease the burden when it comes to supplies in the winter.

The construction of more solar farms in the U.S. has been contentious but a new survey shows their size makes a difference in whether solar projects are favored by neighbors.

South Dakota's largest solar installation, the Wild Springs project in New Underwood, began operations in March and covers more than 1.5 square miles. The survey showed projects under 100 megawatts are generally favored by neighbors, while larger ones like Wild Springs are unpopular.

Kristi Pritzkau, finance officer for the City of New Underwood, said the construction traffic was tough on the town of just over 600 but the project's builder, National Grid Renewables, is giving back to the community.

"They had to use our well, so they paid for the water, and they paid for a new pump for it, too," Pritzkau pointed out. "They've been really great with the city."

Prtizkau noted the company donated to the town's pool and Lions Club and has created a school scholarship program, all part of the more than $500,000 of charitable giving it has promised in the project's first 20 years of operation. It is also expected to bring in $12 million of tax revenue to the county in the same time frame.

Sioux Falls-based Missouri River Energy Services has plans to build a new solar project near Brookings and build a transmission line from South Dakota into Minnesota.

Tim Blodgett, vice president of member services and communications for the company, said federal grant programs and tax credits provide incentives and South Dakota produces more energy than it can use.

"With the development of more wind, the development of solar, there's a lot planned right now to get these resources out of this area," Blodgett explained. "Into Minneapolis and other places where there's larger demand for the energy."

Currently, more than half the state's power generation comes from wind, followed by hydropower.


get more stories like this via email

Virginia officials support the Environmental Protection Agency's new emissions rule. The federal clean truck standards will reduce emissions by up to 60% in 2032 and prevent 1-billion metric tons of carbon pollution. Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Virginia and nationwide.

Phillip Jones, Newport News Mayor, said the new rule helps end the city's environmental disparities.

"We have a very large multiple coal company in downtown Newport News in the southeast part of our community," he said. "That's going to lead to higher rates of asthma for that community. There's a lot of air-quality issues in downtown Newport News."

Jones noted the city has taken steps to reduce emissions. The city's school district has been using propane-powered buses and Newport News is purchasing alternate energy-powered vehicles. He added any opposition to this work centers on larger upfront costs, but the long-term benefits are worthwhile. The EPA's rule goes into effect in 2027.

Transportation agencies are also working to cut emissions. Hampton Roads Transit has been working to cut emissions with cleaner buses.

Sibyl Pappas, chief engineering and facilities officer with Hampton Roads Transit, said the agency's upcoming bus maintenance facility furthers its emissions-reduction goals.

"It's very near where Dominion Energy is bringing offshore wind onshore. So, we've talked with Dominion about buying wind power. So, potentially, those buses are zero emissions at the tailpipe and zero emissions at the generation point," Pappas said.

The facility will open in 2029 and be net zero-ready upon completion. While HRT had some hiccups with electric buses, Pappas feels the EPA rule encourages climate-smart initiatives for all economic sectors.

As state budget negotiations continue, groups fighting climate change are asking California lawmakers to cut subsidies for oil and gas companies rather than slash programs designed to slow global warming.

Gov. Gavin Newsom's current proposal would cut oil and gas tax breaks by $22 million this year and $17 million the following year.

Barry Vesser, COO for The Climate Center, a nonprofit advocacy group, would like to see all subsidies eliminated.

"Oil and gas companies are one of the drivers of climate change, so we should not be making their profit margins bigger by providing public subsidies, and making it harder for renewables to compete against them," Vesser argued.

Gov. Newsom has also proposed to cut funding for climate-friendly programs helping lower-income families buy an electric vehicle or switch from gas to electric appliances.

Kevin Slagle, vice president of strategic communications for the Western States Petroleum Association, said in a statement, "California's already tough business climate is pushing companies to the brink. Removing incentives will drive California straight into the arms of more expensive foreign oil, ramping up costs for everyday Californians who can least afford it."

Vesser countered the threat of higher gas prices is a red herring.

"There's a lot that goes into calculating how much the cost of gas is, and this is not even pennies on the dollar," Vesser contended.

The state Senate's early action proposal estimated the budget deficit will be between $38 billion and $53 billion. The governor is expected to release new details on his budget priorities in mid-May. The Legislature must pass a balanced budget by June 15.