David Michael Miller
Opinion-ATC-Rebecca-Valqc-08292019
I was prepared, even eager, to say that I was wrong. In the spring, I wrote a piece for Isthmus that was critical of Gov. Tony Evers’ first, and so far only, appointment to the Public Service Commission.
Before Evers appointed Rebecca Cameron Valcq to the PSC, she had spent her career as a lawyer for WE Energies, the state’s largest utility and the one identified by environmental and consumer advocates as the state’s least friendly to anyone and anything other than its shareholders.
While there were outspoken critics, some environmental groups, like Clean Wisconsin, supported her appointment. They essentially said that they trusted Evers’ promises during the campaign that he would side with consumers and clean-energy initiatives and that Valcq’s background would make her more effective. In essence they were saying that nobody knows more about hen house security than a fox.
On the other side were those who were concerned that a woman who has built a career representing utilities and who is only in her early 40s is likely to return to the industry after her stint as a regulator. So, what are the chances that she will burn her bridge back to a lucrative career?
Valcq’s first real test came Aug. 20 when the commission preliminarily approved the highly controversial Cardinal-Hickory power line through the picturesque and sensitive Driftless Area of southwest Wisconsin. While there were some renewable energy groups supporting the American Transition Company’s proposal because they hope it will bring wind energy in from the West, most environmental, consumer and local preservation groups strongly opposed it. In hearings and written responses, virtually all of the voluminous public comment was in opposition. Even Dane and Iowa counties took official positions against the line.
So it wasn’t unrealistic to expect that Evers’ PSC appointee would oppose the ATC plan. And in her capacity as chair of the commission, Valcq might have had even more influence over her two fellow commissioners, both of whom were appointed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker. Those close to the debate say that if the chair had signaled a desire to move toward a compromise, as suggested by both line opponents and the commission’s own staff, the other commissioners might well have gone along. And, in fact, even Republican legislators representing the route did not openly support the ATC plan.
In testimony on April 26 and June 11, responding to questions from lawyers representing intervening groups opposed to the line, commission staff answered that the line was not economically justified and not needed for reliability. They gave the commission an out in a so-called “low voltage alternative” that would have upgraded existing lines at far less cost and without the 17-story towers that the high-voltage ATC line will require.
It’s possible that the line still would have been approved on a two-to-one vote, but at least the opponents would have felt that they were being heard. Opponents also say that the dissent of the commission chair would have helped as they took their case to other approving authorities and, quite possibly, to court. And, in fact, leading opposition groups will soldier on nonetheless. The Driftless Area Land Conservancy and the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation have said they will appeal the decision in the relevant venue once the decision is made final some time in September.
But Valcq failed the test. She joined the Walker appointees in making the pro-ATC decision unanimous. She even raised eyebrows as the decision was announced when she passed leadership of the discussion among commissioners to Walker-appointee Mike Huebsch. We got exactly the same decision as we would have gotten if Walker had made all three appointments.
It’s not insignificant that WEC Energy Group, the parent company of WE Energies, Valcq’s former and perhaps future employer, owns about 60 percent of ATC and ATC only makes money when it builds power lines. To claim that Valcq was able to somehow set aside that reality and rule purely on the merits of the case strains credibility.
Back in the spring Evers’ office said that he was proud to have appointed the first Latina to the PSC. He didn’t offer any explanation for how a person’s gender and ethnicity would have anything to do with utility regulation, while Valcq’s career as a utility lawyer seems highly relevant and plenty concerning.
Tony Evers can’t dodge responsibility for this outcome. He had lots of good choices for the PSC who could have balanced out the pro-utility bias of the Walker appointees or, at the very least, been seen as an honest broker. But instead he chose a utility industry lawyer and we got exactly what we should have expected out of that choice.
Rebecca Valcq is an accomplished woman who could serve the Evers administration in a variety of posts. It was a disservice to her and to Wisconsinites to put her into a position where she has such an obvious conflict of interest.
