PSC approves NSPW acquisition of Elk Creek solar and battery project

Chairperson Strand said the Public Service Commission on Oct. 16 approved Northern States Power Company Wisconsin’s request to acquire the Elk Creek Solar Electric Generating Facility and an associated battery energy storage system in the town of Springbrook, Dunn County (docket 4220BS101).

The commission approved the acquisition after a staff‑reviewed record and multistate integrated resource plan (IRP) modeling that, according to Strand, demonstrate the project’s consistency with NSP system planning and Wisconsin law. "It is clear to me that this project meets Wisconsin statutory requirements ... and, therefore, I do support approving the acquisition," Strand said during the meeting.

The Elk Creek facilities comprise about 300 megawatts of solar nameplate capacity and 76.6 megawatts AC of battery energy storage nameplate capacity. The applicant estimated total project costs at approximately $752,200,000, including AFUDC. The applicant told the commission Elk Creek was identified as a cost‑effective, technically feasible resource to fulfill a portion of solar and storage needs identified in the NSP multistate IRP and that the project has an executed MISO interconnection agreement; the applicant targets an in‑service date in 2028.

Commission staff and Strand reviewed whether the acquisition satisfied the statutory criteria discussed on the record: that the transaction would not substantially impair utility efficiency, would not provide facilities unreasonably in excess of probable future requirements, and would not add to the cost of service without proportionately increasing value or quantity of service. Strand concluded the record shows the acquisition meets those criteria. He also noted the energy priorities law applies to noncombustible renewable resources and said no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment was required here because environmental review was completed in the earlier CPCN docket.

Commissioners debated proposed modifications to the staff’s standard order conditions. Commissioner Nieto proposed striking conditions 9, 10, 13 and 14 as duplicative or inapplicable; Commissioner Hawkins proposed removing 9, 13 and 14 but retaining 10 because of its specific tie to the underlying CPCN. Strand said he was "not strongly opposed to keeping [condition 10] in for this one," and the commission agreed to remove conditions 9, 13 and 14 while keeping the remaining staff‑proposed conditions.

After discussion, a motion was made and seconded to approve NSPW’s request consistent with the discussion. The motion passed on a voice vote.

The commission record for the docket includes the prior CPCN issued to Elk Creek PV 1 LLC and referenced modeling in a Minnesota IRP that covers NSP system planning. The commission’s decision, as reflected in the meeting, is an approval of the acquisition with the staff conditions adopted as discussed; details of the final order will be reflected in the docket filing.