Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oak Creek council approves conditional-use permit for Elm Road plant fuel conversion amid resident concern
Summary
The Oak Creek Common Council voted to approve a conditional-use permit for We Energies’ Elm Road generating station to convert operations from coal to liquefied natural gas and construct related equipment. City staff said the vote concerns local conditions; at least one resident said the council was "uninformed" and urged more public notice.
The Oak Creek Common Council voted unanimously at its March 31 meeting to adopt a resolution approving a conditional-use permit for changes at the We Energies Elm Road generating station, authorizing conversion-related equipment and construction tied to a shift from coal to liquefied natural gas (LNG).
City community development staff presented the item as an amended set of conditions tailored to the company’s filing with the state utility regulator. Christie Lane, community development director, said the amended conditions had been adjusted to align with the applicant’s Public Service Commission (PSC) application and with the original approving ordinance.
The permit was a holdover from the council’s Feb. 17 meeting so staff and legal counsel could ensure language in the city’s conditions matched We Energies’ PSC filings. Lane said there were no public comments at the February hearing and that city staff recommended finalizing the amended conditions so the council could act.
Alderman Rosemary Marshall moved to adopt the resolution; the motion carried on a roll call vote with council members recorded as voting in favor.
During public comment immediately after the vote, a resident who identified himself as Mike (920 East Ryan Road) told the council, “I’m very disappointed in your vote. I think you’re voting uninformed and I don’t think that you informed the public.” Mike said he had listened to the Feb. 17 public hearing and questioned whether plant units were being retired and whether the project would expand to neighboring properties. He told the council he believed the project still required PSC approval.
Mayor Daniel J. Bakkevich responded to procedural points, saying the council’s action applied to the city’s conditions and that the PSC retains authority over state-level approvals. “We’re not here to debate that; we’re just on the conditions and restrictions,” he said, and noted that PSC review remains a separate step.
The council’s action approves the city-level conditional-use permit and the updated conditions and restrictions that staff and the city attorney negotiated with We Energies. Council members and staff repeatedly emphasized that subsequent state approvals by the PSC would still be required before construction proceeds.
The resolution and the city’s amended conditions do not, by themselves, authorize on-site construction under state jurisdiction; those steps depend on the PSC and any other applicable state permits.
What’s next: With the city’s conditional-use permit adopted, the city record will reflect the amended local conditions; We Energies and the PSC will continue through the state review and permitting process.
