Tiffany warns about prematurely closing coal-fired power plants

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany recently sent a letter to Summer Strand, the chairwoman of the state’s Public Service Commission, warning of the dangers of prematurely closing coal-fired power plants, but Strand says neither she nor the commission has any role to play in determining the type of generation resource power the state approves.

Power plant retirement decisions are made by the utilities themselves, Strand wrote in response to the congressman.

However, Strand may have understated the commission’s influence in determining Wisconsin’s electric generation direction, given that state law charges the commission with deciding whether large electric generation facilities are in the public interest, have adverse impacts on the environment, or interfere with land use plans.

Tiffany (R-Wisconsin-07) sent the letter outlining his energy concerns in June, saying Wisconsin can take advantage of a new regulatory climate in Washington to optimize the use of more affordable energy sources.

“In the first months of the Trump administration, the White House has focused on unleashing American energy and improving grid reliability by rolling back Biden era regulations that largely serve to destabilize baseload power,” Tiffany wrote. “This shift in focus presents an opportunity for Wisconsin and other states to undertake their own efforts to prioritize ample and affordable energy rather than continuing down the dangerous path of taking reliable power plants offline.”

The U.S. as a whole is moving in the right direction, Tiffany wrote.

“The EPA has reconsidered several short-sighted regulations on power plants — particularly coal-fired power plants — and now is the right time for Wisconsin’s regulatory body to follow suit,” he wrote. “Doing so will help ensure energy is widely available at more affordable prices. This will not only benefit local ratepayers, but it will also help make our state more competitive regionally, nationally, and globally.”

If Wisconsin is going to maintain its role as a world-class manufacturing state, Tiffany asserted, the state must keep all its current power plants online and bring new generation online for the future. 

“This is particularly critical as we enter a new era of artificial intelligence and data centers, which require a steady supply of reliable, and low-cost energy, such as coal, natural gas, and nuclear power generation,” he wrote.

As the regulatory entity charged with ensuring the provision of safe and affordable utility services, Tiffany urged the agency not to ignore coal.

“As you evaluate the future of Wisconsin’s grid, I urge you to resist pressure to close any coal-fired plants prematurely,” he wrote. “As you know, shuttering these facilities presents risks — which helps explain why we’ve already seen planned closures of existing coal plants delayed, such as Columbia Energy Center. In short, coal fired plants are a backbone of baseload power and cannot simply be replaced with intermittent generation provided by wind and solar.”

At the same time, Tiffany wrote, it is also important to resist broad fuel switching mandates that could potentially put all of the state’s baseload eggs in one basket by relying too heavily on a single form of energy. 

“Take liquified natural gas, for example,” he wrote. “While natural gas is a reliable feedstock, it should not be the only one we rely on. If we close and convert our remaining coal plants to [liquified natural gas], even short-term nominal market disruptions, supply crunches, or price spikes could lead to harmful consequences for power users.”

Diversification is key, Tiffany asserted.

“Moreover, it is important to remember that many of the special interest groups most opposed to coal-fired power generation in the past have now mobilized in opposition to natural gas,” he wrote. “While this has undoubtedly been an effective ‘divide and conquer’ political strategy, its logical consequences will be catastrophic for our state. If these anti-human groups prevail, we will inevitably be left with a grid powered by unreliable wind and solar energy — which is a recipe for endless taxpayer subsidies, higher electricity bills, rolling blackouts, and a stagnant economy.”

As the Trump administration removes barriers to growth and opportunity, the choice is crucial, the congressman stated. 

“Will our state keep up with the growing demand for energy, or will we play second fiddle to other states?” he wrote. “Will we move to shore up our state’s industrial prowess and prepare for the family-wage jobs of the future by tapping into Made in America energy, or will we allow the radical ‘climate’ lobby to make Wisconsinites poorer while enriching the ‘green energy’ crony capitalists who finance them? We must make sure we are in a position to win and continue to grow, otherwise we run the risk of becoming California; or even worse, Spain er Portugal.”

The choice should be clear, Tiffany urged Strand. 

“Our state’s families, farmers, factories, healthcare providers, and entrepreneurs need dependable, reliable, low-cost electricity — not market distorting subsidies and Madison mandates that prioritize the politically connected over prosperity,” he wrote.

Not our job

In a response sent to Tiffany last week, Strand said she appreciated the congressman’s concerns but it wasn’t the commission’s job to determine the type of electric generation sources the state provides, and that it had no control over the retirement of coal-fired power plants.

While the commission is an independent regulatory body charged with ensuring the provision of safe, reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible utility services, Strand wrote, its long-standing regulatory authority and related processes are enumerated in and bound by various state statutes and administrative rules. 

“It is critically important that the commission work within its existing regulatory authority and not encroach on the legislative branch’s power to craft law and policy,” Strand wrote.

Generally speaking, Strand continued, the role of the commission is to react and respond.

“Regulated entities file applications, and the commission engages in evidence-based decision-making to issue decisions on the applications,” she wrote. “This process entails a thorough review and analysis of information presented in the record of evidence, the application of pertinent laws/rules, and the weighing and balancing of various factors. This is a deliberative, measured, and informed decision-making process that often results in the issuance of measured and informed decisions.”

The commission strives to not preempt, predetermine, prejudge, or mandate actions outside of its regulatory authority, Strand stressed.

“Wisconsin has not enacted any significant energy generation legislation in a number of years — there is nothing on the books directing the [the commission] to approve one generation type over another,” she wrote. “Instead, utilities and generation providers independently choose the types of generation projects they pursue. These entities then file applications seeking commission approval of generation construction projects, and the commission reacts and responds to those filings within its existing statutory parameters.”

The commission does not dictate the type of generation resource power providers seek approval of, and the standards for approval do not vary by project type but are the same regardless of generation source, Strand stated.

Ditto for power plant retirements, Strand added.

“Relatedly, under Wisconsin law, the commission does not have authority to approve power plant retirement decisions,” she wrote. “Therefore, any decision to retire a coal power plant is made solely by the operating utility or energy provider, after consultation with the Midcontinent Independent System Operator. As such, you may wish to direct your concerns about the premature closure of coal power plants to utilities and energy providers in Wisconsin.”

Strand also addressed Tiffany’s concerns about the state “putting all of our eggs in one basket” and the importance of resource diversification. 

“I am happy to report that Wisconsin maintains a well-diversified mix of generation resources,” she wrote. “With the caveat that the most recently available data provided a point in time snapshot, the state’s current energy supply comes from approximately 35 percent natural gas, 30 percent coal, 15 percent wind/solar, 15 percent nuclear, 3 percent hydropower, and 2 percent other. Ultimately, the makeup of Wisconsin’s generation mix is and will continue to be driven by utility and energy provider planning decisions, and not commission mandates or regulatory overreach.”

Strand’s assessment of the commission’s role aside, the law gives the commission the power to approve power plant permits, and charges the commission with making the call on whether such facilities are in the public interest.

According to a 2024 memorandum by the Wisconsin Legislative Council, its regulatory authority is broad. In reviewing a proposed facility, the commission must make a range of determinations before granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity, in effect a permit for the facility.

“For instance, the [commission] must generally determine that the design and location of a facility are in the public interest considering alternative sources of supply, alternative locations, individual hardships, engineering, economic, safety, reliability, and environmental factors,” the memo stated. “The [commission] must further determine that the proposed facility will not have undue adverse impact on ecological balance, public health and welfare, historic sites, geological formations, the aesthetics of land and water, and recreational use.”

The commission must also find that a facility will not unreasonably interfere with the orderly land use and development of the area, the council observed.

“When approving a [certificate of public convenience and necessity] application, the [commission] may impose conditions necessary to ensure that a proposed facility complies with the requirements specified under state law,” the memo stated.

Richard Moore is the author of “Dark State” and may be reached at richardd3d.substack.com.