Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Energy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council holds decision on We Energies plan to convert Elm Road plant from coal to LNG, build turbines

2771874 · March 26, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Oak Creek’s common council on Feb. 17 held action on a conditional‑use amendment for We Energies’ Elm Road generating station after a public hearing in which company representatives described plans to install five gas turbines and a large LNG storage tank as part of a conversion away from coal.

Oak Creek’s common council on Feb. 17 held action on a conditional‑use amendment for We Energies’ Elm Road generating station after a public hearing in which company representatives described a multi‑hundred‑million‑dollar conversion from coal to natural gas and related LNG storage.

We Energies’ local affairs director Jennifer Bogner and project manager Rick O’Connor told the council the plan includes installing five General Electric combustion turbines producing roughly 1,100 megawatts combined, a large on‑site LNG liquefaction and storage facility, and related gas and electric interconnections. The company said the adjacent coal piles would be removed and coal‑fired operation would be phased out as part of the broader transition.

The company representatives described the combustion turbines as a “flexible” resource to meet seasonal and short‑term demand when renewables and storage are not available. O’Connor said the turbines were expected to operate at a low capacity factor (staff characterized it as roughly 10–20 percent) and could start quickly compared with coal units. The project timetable presented to the council anticipated construction starting as early as August 2025, with the first turbine online by the end of 2027 and full commercial operation of all units by mid‑2028. We Energies said the LNG tank would be filled and in service by the end of 2027.

Why it matters: We Energies described the work as part of a regional shift away from coal to meet changing federal requirements and grid reliability needs. The plan would replace older coal generation while adding large‑scale gas‑fired resources and on‑site LNG storage intended to support the gas system during high demand.

Key project details summed up at the hearing: the combustion‑turbine block was described as about 1,100 megawatts total capacity; the company proposed a large LNG storage tank the presentation described as about 2 billion cubic feet of capacity, with the core tank roughly 170 feet high and about 206 feet in diameter and a full containment concrete envelope. The combustion‑turbine stacks were presented as about 90 feet tall. Company presenters gave a headline cost estimate of roughly $1.2 billion for the turbines and about $456 million for the LNG facilities.

Council concerns and company responses: Council members asked about emissions, visual impacts, cooling, timing and rate impacts. We Energies said emissions would meet applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards and that the proposed gas units would be significantly cleaner than the station’s coal operations. Company staff confirmed the site would retain existing once‑through cooling that draws from Lake Michigan. On cost and rates, company representatives said the projects are planned to be paid through utility customers and are subject to Public Service Commission review.

Public process and next steps: Christie Lane, the city’s community development director, said the planning commission reviewed and recommended the amendment on Jan. 14 and no objections were on file with the city. Because the project requires state regulatory approvals, city staff asked the council to hold the city resolution so conditions and the permit text can reflect any outcomes from pending Public Service Commission (PSC) and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) reviews. The council voted to hold the resolution to the March 4 meeting so staff can incorporate PSC and DNR approvals or conditions into the city’s conditional‑use decision.

The PSC was scheduled to hold a public meeting on the company’s applications on March 25 at the Oak Creek Community Center, according to the company’s presentation.

The council’s procedural action: Alderwoman Marshall moved to hold the resolution; roll call vote to hold was recorded and carried.

The presentation and the city’s decision to hold action means the matter will return to the common council after the city receives further filings or decisions from PSC and DNR.