Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Generation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves job order to advance 150‑MW GLU–MU peaking plant after public questions on costs and oversight
Summary
After public comment and prolonged council questions about ownership share, cost and oversight, the council approved job order 7506 to move a proposed 150‑megawatt dual‑fuel peaking plant into design and permitting. The motion covers internal job accounting and does not approve land or development agreements.
The Common Council on Dec. 2 approved a job order authorizing Marshfield Utilities to proceed with early development steps for a proposed 150‑megawatt dual‑fuel peaking plant to be jointly owned with Great Lakes Utilities. The job order, number 7506, authorizes design, permitting and initial contracting steps but does not commit the city to land sales or final development agreements.
Nicholas, general manager of Marshfield Utilities, told the council the total project cost is currently estimated at approximately $282 million and that Marshfield’s preliminary share would be about 30% (roughly $86.4 million). He said the plant would provide capacity — not base‑load energy — to meet regulatory requirements set by the regional transmission operator MISO and to reduce the city’s exposure to volatile market rates.
Why now: Nicholas said several existing power‑supply contracts held by the utility and by partner systems expire between 2028 and 2031 and that failing to replace lost capacity could force the city to buy short‑term capacity at higher, less‑predictable market prices. “Owning our own generation is a strategic hedge,” he said, arguing it would provide long‑term cost stability and local capacity for industrial customers.
Public comment and concerns: Garrett Martin of IBEW Local 953 and other speakers questioned the economics and governance of the proposal, including why Marshfield’s share is 30%, whether the municipality had run a levelized‑cost analysis and whether buying energy on the market could be cheaper. Martin said a levelized‑cost analysis he ran produced a figure of about $0.87 per kilowatt‑hour compared with an on‑peak market price he cited of $0.26/kWh. “So why would this proposal now versus procuring the energy from the market?” he asked.
Nicholas responded that the project’s primary value is capacity rather than energy and that MISO credits for nameplate capacity are typically lower (70–85% of nameplate for a gas plant). He also described the mechanics of shared ownership with GLU, said financing would rely on revenue bonds (not general‑obligation debt) and noted an estimated annual payment‑in‑lieu‑of‑tax (PILOT) benefit of about $1 million to the city from Marshfield’s share.
Council action and next steps: Council members pressed staff for more detail on cost, accreditation, financing and community impacts. The council approved the job order by roll‑call vote to allow the utilities to seek bids and begin permitting and financial planning. Nicholas emphasized that subsequent approvals would be required before land transfers, development agreements and construction contracts were finalized.
What’s next: Staff will return with procurement results, more detailed financial modeling and draft development agreements as design and permitting advance. The approval tonight authorizes the work that exceeds the council’s $1,000,000 job‑order threshold so that the project can remain on required equipment procurement schedules.
