Marshfield’s Common Council voted Nov. 11 to approve Job Order 7506, clearing the way for Marshfield Utilities to move into the next design, permitting and financing phases of a proposed roughly 150‑megawatt peaking power plant to be developed with Great Lakes Utilities (GLU).

Nicholas Kum, general manager of Marshfield Utilities and managing director of GLU, told the council the dual‑fuel plant (natural gas and fuel oil) would address an anticipated capacity shortfall when several power‑supply contracts expire between 2028 and 2031. Kum said the total project cost is currently estimated at about $282 million, with Marshfield’s ownership share proposed at roughly 30% (about $86 million). "Owning our own generation is a strategic hedge," Kum said, adding the project is intended to "ensure a long‑term reliable resource and cost stability for Marshfield residents and businesses." He said the plant would be financed with revenue bonds rather than general obligation debt.

The project would be sited in Yellowstone Industrial Park and require about 15 acres; Kum said the approval that night covered only the job order to advance the project, not any future land conveyance or development agreements. "With your approval tonight, we can move forward with the next phase of development, which includes design, permitting, [and] financial planning," he said.

Public comment and council questions focused on cost allocation, oversight and how the project compares with buying capacity or energy on the open market. Garrett Martin, a business agent with IBEW Local 953, said the packet listed a total cost of about $288.2 million and Marshfield’s share at $86.4 million, and he urged the council to explain why Marshfield was proposed to take a 30% ownership share when Marshfield’s customer base is about 18.5% of GLU. Martin also said a levelized cost of energy (LCOE) analysis his group ran showed about $0.87 per kilowatt‑hour, which he contrasted with a reported market on‑peak price of about $0.26 per kilowatt‑hour.

Kum and staff responded that the project’s principal value is capacity, not energy, and that MISO (the regional transmission operator) accredits capacity from combustion turbines at roughly 70–85% of nameplate, reducing the capacity credited relative to nameplate megawatts. Kum said Marshfield’s 30% share roughly equates to about 50 MW nameplate — which, after MISO accreditation, would yield about 40 MW of capacity — and that the 30% figure remains subject to change as bids and accreditation details are finalized. He also said GLU currently has 13 members and that GLU’s ownership would not be socialized to Marshfield customers beyond Marshfield’s retained share.

Council members asked about household impacts, funding sources and reserves. Kum said the utility expects the generation portion of customers’ bills to be influenced by this project, but that transmission and distribution costs also drive bills; he said financing will likely include some upfront cash deposits and long‑term debt and that the utility expects to build reserves for maintenance and contingencies. He noted the project would produce approximately $1 million per year in additional payment‑in‑lieu‑of‑tax (PILOT) revenue to the city, and that additional state utility tax revenue would flow back to the city and county from the GLU portion.

After discussion, Alderman Garcia moved to approve the job order; Alderman Tompkins seconded. The motion passed on the council vote taken that evening. The approved action authorizes Marshfield Utilities to proceed with the next development steps for Job Order 7506; final land conveyance, infrastructure improvements and any development agreement would return to the council for separate approval.

What’s next: staff will pursue design, permitting and financial planning and return with bids, accreditation details and any land or development agreements for the council’s review before contract awards or property actions.