Hulsey paid $192,000 to lobby for coal

From 2006 to 2008, Brett Hulsey undertook many activities in support of Alliant Energy's proposal to construct a new coal-fired power plant in Cassville, Wisconsin. Hulsey drew on his environmental credentials as a former Sierra Club representative to reach out to Wisconsin conservation groups and to the media, writing newspaper op-eds and even recording a radio advertisement, all in support of Alliant's proposed new coal plant.

Hulsey provided these services to Alliant in return for a $192,000 fee paid to his public relations firm, Better Environmental Solutions.

On October 7, 2008, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel printed an op-ed co-authored by Hulsey entitled "Get behind Cassville power plant cleanup."

In this op-ed, Hulsey made several claims that are contradicted by the facts, by Alliant Energy's own filings with the Public Service Commission, and by the Environmental Impact Statement for the plant.

Hulsey claimed that PSC approval of a new power plant at Cassville was needed to reduce emissions from coal-fired plants that Alliant was already operating. In fact, Alliant was already required by law to add modern pollution controls to its existing coal plants. As the Sierra Club's Jennifer Feyerherm wrote in a response to Hulsey's op-ed, Hulsey was "claiming credit for things that Alliant already is required to do", and "Alliant must do these things with or without the proposed coal-fired plant."[1]

Hulsey claimed that permitting Alliant to build a new coal plant would reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions because it would remove the necessity for Alliant to import even dirtier energy from outside the state. But Alliant's own testimony to the Public Service Commission showed that the energy Alliant was purchasing from the Midwest grid was coming from plants that were actually less polluting (1667 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour on average) than the new coal-fired plant Alliant proposed to build (1960 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour at best.)[2]

Hulsey made much of the claim that the new coal-fired plant could burn up to 20% biomass, and all his claims for reduced CO2 emissions are based on the supposed use of biomass. But Alliant's own consultants showed that Alliant's choice of a less efficient design for the plant meant that even if 20% biomass was used, the plant would still produce higher CO2 emissions than existing plants that burn 100% coal. Thus Hulsey's claim that the plant used "cleaner coal technology" was not supported by Alliant's own reporting to the PSC.[3]

Hulsey claimed that the new coal-fired plant at Cassville was "designed to burn 20% biomass", but the manufacturer's warranty specifically prohibited the burning of biomass in the amounts that Hulsey claimed the plant was "designed" to burn. In reality, the plant was of a standard coal-burning design that is decades old, and incorporated no special features in order to burn biomass.[4]

Alliant's own filing with the PSC said that Alliant's "preferred" fuel mixture was a combination of coal and a refinery waste product known as petroleum coke. Petroleum coke is a fossil fuel and not a renewable fuel. Had the PSC followed Hulsey's advice and approved the plant, Alliant would not have been required to include any biomass in the fuel mixture, and would have been free to use its "preferred" mixture of 100% fossil-fuels.[5]

While Hulsey emphasized that the new plant could burn a mixture of biomass and coal, the Environmental Impact Statement produced by the Public Service Commission and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources raised serious questions about whether Alliant actually intended to use any biomass at all. According to the statement, Alliant "did not provide any plan for how it would acquire, transport, or store the additional RRF [Renewable Resource Fuel] necessary." Plants that use biomass need special facilities to transport, store and process the biomass before use. But Alliant's application showed that it had not included these facilities in its plans. Why not? Was it because, as indicated by Alliant's own testimony, it's "preferred" blend of fuels did not include biomass?[6]

In summary, the claimed potential use of biomass at Cassville was most likely a smokescreen to confuse the public and conservation groups into supporting the construction of a new coal plant that was designed to burn 100% fossil fuels and would have very high levels of Carbon Dioxide emissions per unit of energy generated, higher even than other coal plants. In return for a sizeable consulting fee, Brett Hulsey lent his name and environmental credentials to this effort, recruiting conservation groups to support the coal plant and using his former employment with the Sierra Club to sow confusion about Sierra Club's position on the Cassville plant (Sierra Club was, not surprisingly, totally opposed to the coal plant.) Thankfully, the Public Service Commission saw through this deceptive scheme and cited the project's CO2 emissions and climate impact as a reason to unanimously reject the Alliant/Hulsey plan.

Sources:

[1] Jennifer Feyerherm, "Call it what it is: a dirty, inefficient coal plant" Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Oct. 14, 2008

[2] 1667 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour on average for energy purchased by Alliant from Midwest grid: WPL Response to strategic energy assessment, Attachment A, Schedule 2 Page 3, Weighted Average CO2 emissions rate (found on page 10 of .pdf document here) 1960 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour at best for proposed Alliant coal plant: Testimony of Charles Hookham, Schedule 3, page 10, Total Equivalent CO2 Production, Tons/MWH (found on page 40 of .pdf document here.)

[3] Feyerherm, Oct. 14, 2008

[4] A Coal Plant Wrapped in Green, Madison Isthmus newspaper, "Hulsey says the 10% figure in Alliant's application to the PSC was necessary because its boiler manufacturer won't guarantee the warranty above 10%."

[5] WPL Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Page 47: "Based on all the described benefits, an 80 percent PRB coal blend with a 20 percent pet coke blend was selected for preferred use in NED 3." (.pdf document here)

[6] WP&L 300 MW Power Plant Final Environmental Impact Statement, Commission and DNR Staff Response, Page 359: "Because WP&L did not provide any plan for how it would acquire, transport or store the additional RRF necessary to co-fire 20 percent biomass, the potential environmental impacts associated with growing and aggregating the biomass fuel stocks necessary, processing them, and transporting them to the plant site cannot be assessed.  Nor can it be determined whether such a plan would be cost-effective or actually feasible." (.pdf document here)