PSC approves Paris RICE project, selects alternate site 2 and requires incremental cost reporting

The Public Service Commission on May 22, 2025, approved a certificate of public convenience and necessity for Wisconsin Electric Power Company to construct, own and operate the Paris RICE project: seven reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) generators with a combined capacity of approximately 128 megawatts and a 138-kilovolt generator tie line to the nearby Paris solar collector substation. The commission authorized the project at the applicant’s alternate site 2 and attached conditions requiring detailed cost reporting and standard environmental and construction conditions.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the project would provide flexible, dispatchable capacity to back up renewable generation as the applicant serves expected near‑term load growth. The proceeding included a jointly prepared environmental impact statement under the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA), extensive modeling and multiple interveners. Commissioners weighed timing, interconnection capacity, and local land‑use considerations when choosing the site.

Key facts

- Project description and cost: The Paris RICE project is comprised of seven generators, each with a stated 18.8 MW capacity for approximately 128 MW total. The applicant estimated project construction costs of approximately $279.6 million with an allowance for funds used during construction of $23.7 million.

- Environmental review and interveners: PSC and DNR staff prepared a joint environmental impact statement (EIS) under WEPA. Interveners and parties included Citizens Utility Board, Clean Wisconsin, the City of Milwaukee, Kenosha County, Renew Wisconsin, the Town of Paris, the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group and the Wisconsin Local Government Climate Coalition.

- Modeling and interconnection issues: The record included modeling and sensitivity scenarios; some sensitivities (for example, removal of greenhouse-gas constraints or greatly reduced demand) did not select the Paris RICE units, but the overall modeling package included scenarios where Paris was selected. Commissioners discussed concerns about surplus interconnection service and whether surplus capacity could materially change project economics; applicant testimony showed most of the project’s energy was expected to be scheduled at high-priced, non-solar hours, limiting the economic effect of early surplus service.

- Siting decision and local input: The applicant evaluated three potential sites in the Town of Paris. The Town of Paris expressed strong opposition to the applicant’s preferred site, raising land‑use, drainage and aesthetic concerns and supporting alternative site 2. Commissioners balanced those local concerns against schedule and cost impacts. After deliberation the commission authorized the project at alternative site 2.

- Reporting on alternative-site incremental costs: Commissioners required the applicant to provide post‑approval reporting on any incremental final project costs attributable to the use of alternative site 2. The commission directed the applicant to itemize incremental costs in three categories: (1) engine-related warranty extensions, additional storage/handling and similar equipment-owner charges; (2) procurement and transport of equipment, reperforming site-specific design and geotechnical work and inflation; and (3) owner’s costs for land acquisition, permit modifications, inflation, and insurance. Commissioners said the requirement is intended to provide transparency and a basis for later review in rate or other proceedings should costs increase.

Commissioner statements and attribution

- Chairperson Strand framed the proceeding around statutory CPCN criteria and the modeling record, and said the commission’s decision would include site‑specific conditions.

- Commissioner Nieto said she supports a reporting requirement in the event a very large customer’s load forecast significantly decreases, and she supported alternative site 2 given the record and the Town of Paris’s participation.

- Commissioner Hawkins, who emphasized local participation, stated that the Town of Paris raised valid concerns about impacts to land use and that alternative site 2 would limit impacts to non‑residential properties. Hawkins proposed the specific incremental-cost reporting elements the commission adopted and asked that the commission keep the baseline cost estimate (the $279.6 million figure) as the reported cap for the project so that any incremental costs above that baseline would be tracked and subject to later review.

What the commission did not adopt

- The commission did not adopt intervener proposals that would impose prescriptive project changes judged legally or procedurally infeasible; several such topics were referred into the generic cost‑overrun investigation instead.

Outcome and next steps

- The commission granted the CPCN for the Paris RICE project (docket 6630CE316) with the conditions described above and with standard environmental and construction conditions.

- Staff was directed to continue project oversight, to accept the incremental-cost reports identified above if they arise, and to include any relevant scope items in the generic cost‑overrun investigation authorized the same day.

Ending

The commission’s written order will list the approved site, the cost-reporting template and the specific standard conditions. The motion to grant the CPCN passed unanimously. The commission noted it will address cost‑recovery and other ratemaking questions in future proceedings if and when project costs are presented for recovery.