Case Title: Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

Citation: 2005 WI 93

Docket Number: 2004AP003179

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
2005 WI 93 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP3179 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
Clean Wisconsin, Inc. p/k/a Wisconsin's  
Environmental Decade Institute, Inc., SC  
Johnson & Son, Inc. and Calpine Corporation,  
          Petitioners-Respondents-Cross- 
          Appellants-Cross-Respondents, 
Town of Caledonia,  
          Petitioner-Cross-Respondent, 
     v. 
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin and 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,  
          Respondents-Co-Appellants-Cross- 
          Respondents, 
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, W.E. Power, 
LLC and Wisconsin Energy Corporation,  
          Interested Parties-Appellants- 
          Cross-Respondents, 
Dairyland Power Cooperative,  
          Interested Party-Cross-Respondent, 
Madison Gas & Electric Company and  
Wisconsin Public Power, Inc.,  
          Interested Parties-Co-Appellants- 
          Cross-Respondents, 
City of Oak Creek,  
          Interested Party-Respondent-Cross- 
          Appellant, 
Robert H. Owen,  
          Interested Party-Respondent- 
          Cross-Respondent. 
__________________________________ 
Calpine Corporation,  
          Petitioner, 
     v. 
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin and 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,  
          Respondents, 
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin 
Energy Corporation, W.E. Power, LLC, Dairyland 
Power Cooperative, Madison Gas & Electric 
Company, Robert H. Owen, Jr. and City of Oak 
Creek,  
          Interested Parties. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
__________________________________ 
Clean Wisconsin, Inc. p/k/a Wisconsin's  
Environmental Decade Institute, Inc. and SC 
Johnson & Son, Inc.,  
          Petitioners, 
     v. 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,  
          Respondent, 
Wisconsin Public Power, Inc., City of Oak Creek, 
Dairyland Power Cooperative, Madison Gas & 
Electric Company, Wisconsin Electric Power 
Company, Wisconsin Energy Corporation and W.E. 
Power, LLC,  
          Interested Parties. 
__________________________________ 
Calpine Corporation,  
          Petitioner, 
     v. 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,  
          Respondent, 
City of Oak Creek, Dairyland Power Cooperative, 
Madison Gas & Electric Company, Wisconsin Public 
Power, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, 
Wisconsin Energy Corporation and W.E. Power, 
LLC,  
          Interested Parties. 
__________________________________ 
City of Oak Creek,  
          Petitioner, 
     v. 
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin,  
          Respondent. 
__________________________________ 
Town of Caledonia,  
          Petitioner, 
     v. 
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin,  
          Respondent, 
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin 
Energy Corporation, W.E. Power, LLC, Dairyland 
Power Cooperative, Madison Gas & Electric 
Company, Robert H. Owen, Jr. and Wisconsin 
Public Power, Inc.,  
          Interested Parties. 
 
 
 
 
ON BYPASS FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 28, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
 
 
 
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
March 30, 2005   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Dane   
 
JUDGE: 
David T. Flanagan, III   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
BUTLER, JR., J., concurs (opinion filed).   
 
DISSENTED: 
BRADLEY, J., dissents (opinion filed). 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., joins the dissent.    
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: CROOKS, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondents-co-appellants-cross-respondents, Public 
Service Commission of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Department of 
Natural Resources, there were briefs by David J. Gilles and 
Edward S. Marion, Madison, and oral argument by Edward S. 
Marion. 
 
For petitioner-respondent-cross-appellant-cross-respondent, 
Calpine Corporation, there were briefs by Peter L. Gardon, Bryan 
K. Nowicki and Reinhart Boerner VanDeuren, S.C., Madison, and 
oral argument by Peter L. Gardon. 
 
For the petitioners-respondents-cross-appellants-cross-
respondents, Clean Wisconsin, Inc. and S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 
there were briefs by Carl A. Sinderbrand and Wickwire Gavin, 
P.C., Madison (on behalf of S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.); and 
Pamela R. McGillivray and Garvey & Stoddard, S.C., Madison (on 
behalf of Clean Wisconsin, Inc.), and oral argument by Carl A. 
Sinderbrand. 
 
For the interested parties-co-appellants-cross-respondents, 
Wisconsin Public Power, Inc. and Madison Gas & Electric Company, 
there were briefs by Richard K. Nordeng, Barbara A. Neider and 
Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, Madison, and oral argument by Richard K. 
Nordeng. 
 
For the interested parties-appellants-cross-respondents, 
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, W.E. Power, LLC and Wisconsin 
Energy Corporation, there were briefs by Larry J. Martin, John 
A. Casey, Brian D. Winters and Quarles & Brady LLP, Milwaukee; 
Matthew W. O’Neill and Friebert, Finerty & St. John, SC, 
Milwaukee; Linda H. Bochert and Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, 
Madison; R. Ryan Stoll and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, 
LLP, Chicago, IL, and oral argument by R. Ryan Stoll. 
 
For the interested party-respondent-cross-appellant, City of Oak 
Creek, there were briefs by William J. Mulligan, Tyson A. 
 
 
 
Ciepluch and Davis & Kuelthau, S.C., Milwaukee; and Lawrence J. 
Haskin, Oak Creek, and oral argument by William J. Mulligan. 
 
For the interested party-cross-respondent, Dairyland Power 
Cooperative, there were briefs by Jeffrey L. Landsman, Janet L. 
Kelly and Wheeler, Van Sickle & Anderson, S.C., Madison. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Lee Cullen, Kira E. Loehr 
and Cullen Weston Pines & Bach LLP, Madison, on behalf of the 
Wisconsin Energy Customers. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Gerardo H. Gonzalez, J. 
Manuel Raneda and Gonzalez, Saggio & Harlan, L.L.P., Milwaukee, 
on behalf of The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Wisconsin, The 
African American Chamber of Commerce, Inc., and The Metropolitan 
Milwaukee Association of Commerce, Inc. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Brady C. Williamson, 
Jennifer Cotner, and LaFollette Godfrey & Kahn, Madison, on 
behalf of American Transmission Company, LLC, Wisconsin 
Manufacturers and Commerce, and Wisconsin Merchants Federation. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Lisa Madigan, Attorney 
General, Matthew Dunn, Chief, Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos 
Litigation Division, Ann Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, 
Chicago, IL and David C. Bender and Bender Law Offices, Madison, 
on behalf of the State of Illinois. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Howard A. Learner, Shannon 
Fisk, Meleah Geertsma, and Environmental Law & Policy Center, 
Chicago, IL; and Bruce Nilles and Sierra Club, Madison, on 
behalf of Clean Air Task Force, Citizens for Responsible Power, 
Environmental Law and Policy Center, Lake Michigan Federation, 
Physicians for Social Responsibility of Madison, River Alliance 
of Wisconsin, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, 
Wisconsin Interfaith Climate and Energy Campaign, and Wisconsin 
Public Interest Research Group. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Dennis P. Birke and DeWitt 
Ross & Stevens S.C., Madison, on behalf of the Wisconsin 
Utilities Association. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2005 WI 93 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP3179  
(L.C. No. 
03 CV 3478/3731 & 04 CV 133/149/530/533) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Clean Wisconsin, Inc. p/k/a Wisconsin's  
Environmental Decade Institute, Inc., SC  
Johnson & Son, Inc. and Calpine  
Corporation,  
 
          Petitioners-Respondents-Cross- 
          Appellants-Cross-Respondents, 
 
Town of Caledonia,  
 
          Petitioner-Cross-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin  
and Wisconsin Department of Natural  
Resources,  
 
          Respondents-Co-Appellants-Cross- 
          Respondents, 
 
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, W.E.  
Power, LLC and Wisconsin Energy  
Corporation,  
 
          Interested Parties-Appellants- 
          Cross-Respondents, 
 
Dairyland Power Cooperative,  
 
          Interested Party-Cross- 
          Respondent, 
 
Madison Gas & Electric Company and  
Wisconsin Public Power, Inc.,  
 
FILED 
 
JUN 28, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
          Interested Parties-Co- 
          Appellants-Cross-Respondents, 
 
City of Oak Creek,  
 
          Interested Party-Respondent- 
          Cross-Appellant, 
 
Robert H. Owen,  
 
          Interested Party-Respondent- 
          Cross-Respondent. 
 
__________________________________ 
Calpine Corporation,  
 
          Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin  
and Wisconsin Department of Natural  
Resources,  
 
          Respondents, 
 
Wisconsin Electric Power Company,  
Wisconsin Energy Corporation, W.E. Power,  
LLC, Dairyland Power Cooperative, Madison  
Gas & Electric Company, Robert H. Owen,  
Jr. and City of Oak Creek,  
 
          Interested Parties. 
 
__________________________________ 
Clean Wisconsin, Inc. p/k/a Wisconsin's  
Environmental Decade Institute, Inc. and  
SC Johnson & Son, Inc.,  
 
          Petitioners, 
 
     v. 
 
Wisconsin Department of Natural  
Resources,  
 
          Respondent, 
 
 
 
 
Wisconsin Public Power, Inc., City of Oak  
Creek, Dairyland Power Cooperative,  
Madison Gas & Electric Company, Wisconsin  
Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Energy  
Corporation and W.E. Power, LLC,  
 
          Interested Parties. 
 
__________________________________ 
Calpine Corporation,  
 
          Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Wisconsin Department of Natural  
Resources,  
 
          Respondent, 
 
City of Oak Creek, Dairyland Power  
Cooperative, Madison Gas & Electric  
Company, Wisconsin Public Power,  
Wisconsin Electric Power Company,  
Wisconsin Energy Corporation and W.E.  
Power, LLC,  
 
          Interested Parties. 
 
__________________________________ 
City of Oak Creek,  
 
          Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
__________________________________ 
Town of Caledonia,  
 
          Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
 
 
 
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin,  
 
          Respondent, 
 
Wisconsin Electric Power Company,  
Wisconsin Energy Corporation, W.E. Power,  
LLC, Dairyland Power Cooperative, Madison  
Gas & Electric Company, Robert H. Owen,  
Jr., and Wisconsin Public Power, Inc.,  
 
          Interested Parties. 
 
 
 
 
APPEAL from an order of the Circuit Court for Dane County, 
David T. Flanagan, III, Judge.  Reversed. 
 
¶1 
JON P. WILCOX, J., DAVID T. PROSSER, J., PATIENCE 
DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J., and LOUIS B. BUTLER JR., J.   This case is 
before 
the 
court 
on 
a 
motion 
to 
bypass, 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 
809.60 
(2001-02).1 
 
It 
represents 
a 
consolidation of five separate actions seeking judicial review 
of a final decision and order of the Public Service Commission 
(PSC) that issued a Certificate of Public Convenience and 
Necessity (CPCN) to Wisconsin Electric Corporation (WEC)2 for the 
construction of two large super-critical, coal-fired electric 
power plants on the shore of Lake Michigan in the City of Oak 
                                                 
1 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2001-02 version unless otherwise indicated.   
2 WEC owns Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO), another 
party in this suit.  In this opinion, we refer to both 
interchangeably.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
2 
 
Creek.  The Dane County Circuit Court, David T. Flanagan, III, 
Judge, vacated the PSC's order and remanded for further 
proceedings.  Specifically, the circuit court concluded that the 
PSC erred in determining that WEC's application was complete and 
that the PSC erred in commencing the CPCN approval process based 
on that application.  Additionally, the circuit court concluded 
that the PSC erroneously issued its order because the PSC did 
not comply with an assortment of statutes governing the granting 
of CPCNs.  Finally, the court vacated the PSC's modification of 
a mitigation payment agreement between the City of Oak Creek and 
WEC.   
¶2 
Various parties seek review of the circuit court's 
decision.  We reverse the order of the circuit court and uphold 
the PSC's final decision and order in all respects.   
¶3 
We begin our discussion by explaining the historical 
role of the PSC and setting forth the factual background and 
procedural posture of this case.  We then systematically address 
the issues presented by the parties in an analysis divided into 
three principal sections.  Due to the complexity of this case, 
we set forth the following table of contents to aid the reader:3   
Table of Contents 
I. 
The Public Service Commission  
 
 
 
¶4 
II. Factual Background/Procedural Posture 
 
 
¶11 
III. Standard of Review  
 
 
 
 
 
¶35 
                                                 
3 Attached at the end of this opinion is an appendix 
compiling the relevant terms and acronyms utilized in this 
opinion.    
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
3 
 
IV. Analysis  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
¶47 
A. 
Completeness of CPCN Application 
 
 
 
¶48 
B. 
Issuance of the CPCN 
 
 
 
 
 
¶98 
1. 
Wisconsin's Energy Priorities Law  
 
¶98 
2. 
The Plant Siting Law 
 
 
 
 
¶135 
 
a. 
Reasonable Needs/Public Interest 
 
¶141 
 
b. 
Adverse Impact on Environmental Values ¶163 
c. 
Effect on Wholesale Competition 
 
¶169 
d. 
Common Systems Approval  
 
 
¶182 
3. 
Environmental Impact Statement 
 
 
¶187 
4. 
Conditional Issuance of CPCN  
 
 
¶227 
C. 
Mitigation Payments  
 
 
 
 
 
¶263 
V. 
Conclusion 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
¶281 
I. 
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
¶4 
As we evaluate the PSC's action in this matter, we 
find it helpful to consider the historical role of the PSC.  
Wisconsin's progressive roots made this state a leader in the 
trend toward increased utility regulation at the dawn of the 
twentieth century.  Under Governor Robert M. La Follette, this 
state became known for progressive reforms.  Paul D. Carrington 
& Erica King, Law and the Wisconsin Idea, 47 J. Legal Educ. 297, 
299, 314 (1997).  One of the main features of La Follette's 
"Wisconsin Idea" was the regulation of railroads and other 
public utilities.  Id.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
4 
 
¶5 
In 1905 Wisconsin created the Railroad Commission and 
charged it with the duty of regulating railroad rates.4  To this 
end, the Railroad Commission had the power to "fix and order" 
rates it determined to be "just and reasonable" if it found a 
railroad's practices "unreasonable" or its service "inadequate."  
Wis. Stat. ch. 87, § 1797-12 (1911).   
¶6 
Two 
years 
later, 
the 
legislature 
substantially 
expanded the Railroad Commission's power.5  First, the Railroad 
Commission 
was 
given 
the 
power 
to 
regulate 
all 
"public 
utilit[ies]," including companies providing telephone service, 
heat, light, water, or power to the public.  Wis. Stat. ch. 87, 
§ 1797m-1(1) (1911).  The Commission's power was very broadly 
defined:  "The railroad commission of Wisconsin is vested with 
power and jurisdiction to supervise and regulate every public 
utility in this state and to do all things necessary and 
convenient in the exercise of such power and jurisdiction."  
                                                 
4 See ch. 62, Laws of 1905.  The Railroad Commission was 
comprised 
of 
three 
commissioners, 
as 
is 
the 
PSC 
today.  
Wis. Stat. ch. 87, § 1797(1) (1911).  The Act required every 
railroad 
to 
"furnish 
reasonably 
adequate 
service," 
Wis. Stat. ch. 87, § 1797(3) (1911), as current law requires of 
all public utilities.  Cf. Wis. Stat. § 196.03(1).   
5 Chapter 499, Laws of 1907.  One of the principal drafters 
of the law was Professor Eugene Gilmore of the University of 
Wisconsin Law School who celebrated the bill's passage by 
proclaiming it "the consummation of the movement towards a more 
effective control of public service companies."  Paul D. 
Carrington & Erica King, Law and the Wisconsin Idea, 47 J. Legal 
Educ. 297, 325-26 (1997).  Gilmore hoped that the law would spur 
privately owned utilities with monopolies to provide better 
service.  Id. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
5 
 
Wis. Stat. ch. 87, § 1797m-2 (1911) (emphasis added).  Every 
public utility was required to furnish "reasonably adequate 
service."  Wis. Stat. ch. 87, § 1797m-3 (1911).6  
¶7 
In 
Wis. Stat. ch. 
87, 
§ 1797m-60(2) 
(1911), 
the 
legislature reiterated that if the Commission determined that 
any "service is inadequate or that any service which can 
reasonably be demanded cannot be obtained, the commission shall 
determine and declare and by order fix reasonable . . . service 
to be furnished . . . in the future . . . ."7  
¶8 
In 1931 the legislature faced a crisis caused by the 
confluence of the Great Depression and the "electrification" of 
Wisconsin farms.  Paul W. Glad, The History of Wisconsin Volume 
                                                 
6 The primary duties of the Railroad Commission were set out 
in Wis. Stat. ch. 87, § 1797m-46(2) (1911): 
If 
[the 
Commission 
finds] 
any 
 . . . service 
complained of is  . . . insufficient . . . or if it be 
found that any service is inadequate or that any 
reasonable service cannot be obtained, the commission 
shall have power to substitute therefor such other 
regulations, measurements, practices, service or acts 
and to make such order respecting, and such changes in 
such regulations, measurements, practices, service or 
acts as shall be just and reasonable. 
7 One commentator noted that because of this legislation, 
"[c]redit for the first development of the public service 
commission type of control is shared jointly by Wisconsin and 
New York."  William E. Mosher & Finla G. Crawford, Public 
Utility Regulation at 22 (Harper & Bros. 1933).  Between 1907 
and 1914, 27 other states followed Wisconsin's lead, and nearly 
every state had a public service commission by 1920.  Robert L. 
Swartwout, Current Utility Regulatory Practice from a Historical 
Perspective, 32 Nat. Res. J. 289, 301 (1992).  Most of the laws 
authorizing public service commissions in other states are 
modeled on Wisconsin's law.  Id.    
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
6 
 
V:  War, a New Era, and Depression, 1914-1940 at 382 (State 
Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1990).  The legislature 
responded by broadening the Commission's ratemaking authority 
and renaming it the "Public Service Commission of Wisconsin."  
§ 2, ch. 183, Laws of 1931; Wis. Stat. § 195.01(9) (1931).  The 
new PSC retained the authority of the Railroad Commission to 
require 
utilities 
to 
upgrade 
inadequate 
service.  
Wis. Stat. § 196.37(2) (1931).   
¶9 
The legislature also gave the PSC the authority to 
issue 
"conditional, 
temporary, 
emergency 
and 
supplemental 
orders."  Wis. Stat. § 196.395 (1931).  Later, this court 
construed this authorization to include the power to set 
temporary and emergency rates under certain circumstances.  See, 
e.g., Friends of the Earth v. PSC, 78 Wis. 2d 388, 401, 254 
N.W.2d 299 (1977). 
¶10 In 1977 some of the PSC's auxiliary functions related 
to transportation regulation were assigned to other agencies, 
making the PSC's primary focus the regulation of public 
utilities.8  Today, 100 years after the establishment of the 
Railroad Commission, the PSC retains much of the form and 
authority of the original Commission, especially the power to 
"make any just and reasonable order" to ensure that utilities 
provide adequate service.  Wis. Stat. § 196.37(2). 
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
                                                 
8 See § 1291m, ch. 29, Laws of 1977 (creating Chapter 189, 
authorizing the Transportation Commission).   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
7 
 
¶11 Wisconsin utilities must provide "reasonably adequate 
service and facilities" to the public.  Wis. Stat. § 196.03(1).  
The 
PSC 
must 
determine 
whether 
a 
utility 
is 
providing 
"reasonably adequate service" and may make "any just and 
reasonable 
order" 
to 
correct 
the 
problem.  
Wis. Stat. § 196.37(1)-(3); 
Weyauwega 
Tel. Co. 
v. PSC, 14 
Wis. 2d 536, 550 n.5, 111 N.W.2d 559 (1961).9   
¶12 To 
ensure 
that 
it 
satisfies 
this 
statutory 
requirement, an electric utility must plan ahead.  Due to the 
long lead time associated with constructing new power generation 
facilities, the PSC recommends planning at least five years into 
the future.  In the late 1990s, sharply increased energy demands 
led both WEC and regulatory agencies to identify "a need for new 
baseload [power] generation after 2007."  WEC determined that 
its peak customer demand would grow from a peak rate of 5764 
megawatts (MW) in 2002 to 7612 MW in 2011——an annual growth rate 
of 2.9 percent.   
¶13 WEC subsequently determined that it could not satisfy 
this need without a "substantial increase in electric generation 
resources."  Accordingly, it designed a plan styled "Power the 
Future" (PTF).  WEC planned to implement PTF in two stages.  In 
the first stage, (PTF-I), WEC proposed to construct two 545 MW 
gas-fueled units at its site in Port Washington, Wisconsin.  In 
                                                 
9  In this opinion, we need not attempt to fully define the 
phrase "reasonably adequate service" or delineate its scope.  It 
seems 
plain 
enough 
that 
to 
provide 
"reasonably 
adequate 
service," an electric utility must amass and maintain the 
capacity to provide reliable electric service to its customers.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
8 
 
the second stage, (PTF-II), WEC proposed to construct three 
coal-fired units (two 615 MW units and one 600 MW unit), 
described as its Elm Road Generating Station (ERGS), near its 
existing facility in Oak Creek, Wisconsin.10  WEC filed a 
combined CPCN application for both phases of PTF on January 31, 
2002.11    
¶14 WEC's 
filing 
triggered 
several 
statutory 
time 
deadlines and substantive requirements relating to the PSC's 
review of CPCN applications.  Within 30 days of such a filing, 
the PSC must determine whether an application is "complete."  
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)2. 
 
Essentially, 
the 
PSC 
must 
determine whether an application contains all the information 
required in Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53 (June, 2000)12("CPCN 
applications for large electric generating facilities.").   
¶15 After it determines that an application is "complete," 
the PSC has 180 days to approve or reject the application.  
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(g).  The PSC may petition the Dane 
                                                 
10 WEC's PTF-II application proposed two Super-Critical 
Pulverized Coal (SCPC) electric generating units one Integrated 
Gasoline Combined-Cycle (IGCC) unit.   
11 After submitting this application to the PSC, WEC 
negotiated an agreement with the PTF-II host municipality, the 
City of Oak Creek, under which WEC would make mitigation 
payments to offset the impacts of the project on the City.  With 
certain minor exceptions, the parties agreed that the agreement 
would 
"not 
[become] 
effective 
until, 
and 
[would 
become 
effective] only so long as, the PSCW issues the CPCN for the New 
Facilities in the City . . . ."   
12 All subsequent references to Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111 
are to the June 2000 version unless otherwise indicated.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
9 
 
County Circuit Court to extend that deadline by an additional 
180 days.  Id.  If the PSC does not act within that time limit, 
the CPCN is issued by operation of law.  Id.   
¶16 During the review period, the PSC must comply with all 
of the requirements expressed in Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d), 
known as the Plant Siting Law, and must make certain express 
findings regarding a project.  For example, the PSC must find 
that a proposed facility "satisfies the reasonable needs of the 
public for an adequate supply of electric energy,"13 that "the 
design . . . is in the public interest,"14 that "[t]he proposed 
facility 
will 
not 
have 
undue 
adverse 
impact 
on . . . environmental 
values,"15 
and 
that 
"[t]he 
proposed 
facility will not have a material adverse impact on competition 
in the relevant wholesale electric service market."16  Its 
approval decision must also take the legislative policy embodied 
in Wisconsin's Energy Priorities Law (EPL) into account.  
Wis. Stat. § 1.12(4).  See also Wis. Stat. § 196.025(1).   
¶17 Simultaneously, the PSC must prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 1.11(2) and Wis. 
                                                 
13 Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)2. 
14 Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)3. 
 
In 
making 
this 
determination, the PSC must consider a variety of factors, 
including "alternative sources of supply, alternative locations 
or routes, individual hardships, engineering, economic, safety, 
reliability and environmental factors . . . ."  Id. 
15 Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)4. 
16 Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)7. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
10 
 
Admin. Code § PSC 4.30 (June, 2000).17  Generally, an EIS must 
"inform the [PSC] and the public of significant environmental 
impacts 
of 
a 
proposed 
action 
and 
its 
alternatives, 
and 
reasonable 
methods 
of 
avoiding 
or 
minimizing 
adverse 
environmental effects."  Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.30(1)(a).  The 
PSC may prepare the EIS in conjunction with the Department of 
Natural Resources (DNR).  See Wis. Admin. Code § 4.60(3). 
¶18 After 
undertaking 
this 
analysis, 
the 
PSC 
may 
ultimately issue a CPCN authorizing the applicant to construct 
the facility. 
¶19 In this case, the PSC split WEC's application into two 
parts, one covering PTF-I and the other covering PTF-II.  Only 
WEC's PTF-II application is before us.18  Several times, the PSC 
asked WEC to submit additional information.  Finally, on 
November 
15, 
2002, 
the 
PSC 
determined 
that 
the 
PTF-II 
application was complete.  Clean Wisconsin, Inc. and S.C. 
Johnson & Son, Inc. challenged the PSC's interim order declaring 
WEC's application to be complete.  The PSC issued an order on 
April 18, 2003, rejecting the challenge and refusing to reopen 
its determination.   
                                                 
17 All subsequent references to Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4 are 
to the June 2000 version unless otherwise indicated. 
18 After WEC made several additional PTF-I filings at the 
PSC's request, the PSC deemed the PTF-I application complete on 
April 25, 2002.  On December 20, 2002, the PSC mailed its final 
decision and order conditionally approving the CPCN application 
for PTF-I.  That decision is not before us.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
11 
 
¶20 The PSC's "completeness" determination triggered the 
statutory provision requiring the PSC to issue its final 
judgment 
on 
the 
application 
within 
180 
days.  
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(g).  Eventually, the PSC exercised its 
option to petition the Dane County Circuit Court for a 180-day 
extension to this time period.  See id.  The circuit court 
granted the extension on April 29, 2003.  Accordingly, the PSC 
had until November 10, 2003, (360 days after the November 15, 
2002 completeness determination) to make its final decision.   
¶21 During 
the 
PSC's 
evaluation, 
Calpine 
Corporation 
(Calpine) entered the case in opposition to the project, arguing 
that 
it 
could 
meet 
WEC's 
power 
generation 
needs 
more 
economically than WEC's proposal.  S.C. Johnson & Son also 
intervened, alleging that the WEC proposal was not in the public 
interest and was not the least cost alternative.   
¶22 The PSC mailed its final decision on November 10, 
2003.  The PSC made 14 findings of fact, including the 
following: 
1. 
Energy conservation, renewable resources, or 
other energy priorities listed in Wis. Stat. §§ 1.12 
and 196.025, or their combination, are not cost-
effective or technically feasible alternatives to the 
projects proposed in this docket. 
. . . .  
3. 
Part 
II 
of 
PTF . . . satisfies 
the 
reasonable needs of the public for an adequate supply 
of electric energy. 
4. 
The public convenience and necessity require 
WEC to construct the two [615 MW] units, subject to 
the conditions specified in this final decision.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
12 
 
5. 
The two [615 MW] units are reasonable and in 
the public interest after considering alternative 
sources of supply, individual hardships, engineering, 
economic, 
safety, 
reliability, 
and 
environmental 
factors.  The [600 MW] unit does not meet this 
standard. 
. . . .  
7. 
The two [615 MW] units will not have undue 
adverse impact on other environmental values. 
. . . .  
9. 
The two [615 MW] units will not have a 
material 
adverse 
impact 
on 
competition 
in 
the 
Wisconsin 
Upper 
Michigan 
System 
(WUMS) 
wholesale 
electric service market. 
. . . .  
12. The conditions attached to the CPCN for the 
two [615 MW] units, as described in this Final 
Decision, are reasonable. 
¶23 The 
PSC's 
decision 
concluded: 
 
"W.E. 
Power 
LLC . . . may commence construction of two 615 MW Super-Critical 
Pulverized Coal (SCPC) electric generating units, as described 
in WEC's project application . . . ."  However, the PSC listed 
26 conditions and instructions relevant to its CPCN approval, 
including the following: 
1. 
W.E. Power LLC and its subsidiaries may 
construct [the two 615 MW units] . . . subject to the 
conditions specified in this Final Decision.  Although 
the application to construct [the 600 MW unit] is 
denied, W.E. Power LLC and its subsidiaries may 
construct common facilities with the [615 MW] units to 
accommodate up to 3000 MW of generation at this site. 
. . . .  
26. This Final Decision takes effect on the day 
after it is mailed.  The CPCN for the ERGS facility 
only takes effect when the DNR issues all permits and 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
13 
 
approvals 
that 
it 
identified, 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.a., 
as 
being 
required 
prior to construction of the facility. 
¶24 In a split decision, the PSC also ordered WEC to 
reduce the amount of its mitigation payment to the host 
municipality, Oak Creek, in light of increased shared revenue 
payments that were available to Oak Creek under 2003 Wis. Act 
31.  See generally Wis. Stat. § 79.04.   
¶25 S.C. 
Johnson 
& 
Son, 
joined 
by 
Clean 
Wisconsin 
(hereinafter collectively referred to as Clean Wisconsin), 
Calpine, and Oak Creek sought review of the PSC's decision in 
the 
Circuit 
Court 
for 
Dane 
County, 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. Stat. § 227.52.19  The circuit court consolidated the 
actions and issued an order dated November 29, 2004, vacating 
the PSC's order. 
¶26 In its order, the court addressed various points of 
alleged error in the PSC's decision.20  First, the court 
concluded that the PSC erred when it deemed WEC's CPCN 
application "complete."  The court gave three reasons for this 
conclusion:  1) the application did not contain at least two 
                                                 
19 "Administrative decisions which adversely affect the 
substantial interests of any person, whether by action or 
inaction, whether affirmative or negative in form, are subject 
to 
review 
as 
provided 
in 
this 
chapter . . . ."  
Wis. Stat. § 227.52. 
20 We are cognizant that "the focus of our review is the 
PSC's 
Order . . . , 
not 
the 
circuit 
court's 
decision."  
Responsible Use of Rural and Agricultural Land (RURAL) v. PSC, 
2000 WI 129, ¶20, 239 Wis. 2d 660, 619 N.W.2d 888.  However, the 
circuit's court's order frames many of the parties' arguments in 
this court, and so we recite the court's conclusions. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
14 
 
proposed "sites," pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)3. and 
Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(e); 2) the application did not 
contain the regulatory approvals required by Wis. Admin. Code 
§ PSC 111.53(1)(f)1.; and 3) the application did not contain 
certain information about transmission line facilities required 
by Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(f)4.   
¶27 Second, although it approved parts of the PSC's order 
issuing the CPCN, the circuit court ultimately determined that 
the PSC erroneously approved WEC's CPCN application.  The court 
reached the following conclusions in this regard:  1) The PSC 
properly determined that there was a reasonable need for the 
power to be produced by the project; 2) the PSC's computer 
modeling system appropriately examined the effects of the 
project; 3) the PSC did not sufficiently consider the necessity 
for associated power transmission facilities "integral and 
necessary to the planned generation plant"; 4) the PSC did not 
adhere to Wisconsin's Energy Priority Law; 5) the PSC improperly 
authorized WEC to construct certain "common systems" that would 
be 
used 
both 
by 
the 
approved 
generation 
equipment 
and, 
potentially, by future generation equipment; and 6) the PSC 
approved the CPCN before the applicant had received all 
applicable 
DNR 
permits, 
in 
violation 
of 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(e).   
¶28 Third, the court held that the EIS, prepared by the 
combined efforts of the PSC and the DNR, satisfied the 
requirements in Wis. Stat. § 1.11(2)(c).   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
15 
 
¶29 Fourth, the court held that the PSC's finding that 
"the proposed facility will not have a material adverse impact 
on competition in the relevant wholesale electric service 
market," see Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)7., was not erroneous. 
¶30 Fifth, the court held that the PSC had no authority to 
modify the mitigation agreement between WEC and Oak Creek; the 
PSC's authority, the court stated, is limited to simply 
approving or rejecting such agreements.  
¶31 Various parties petitioned for review of the circuit 
court's decision, and we granted WEC and PSC's motion to bypass 
the court of appeals.  We summarize the parties' respective 
arguments on appeal as follows.  Clean Wisconsin challenges the 
PSC's initial determination that WEC's CPCN application was 
complete.  Clean Wisconsin and Calpine also raise various 
challenges to the PSC's issuance of the CPCN.  Finally, the City 
of Oak Creek challenges the PSC's decision to reduce mitigation 
payments that WEC agreed to pay in exchange for Oak Creek 
agreeing to host the proposed plants.   
¶32 After considering these arguments, we hold as follows.  
First, we uphold the PSC's determination that WEC's application 
was "complete."  In reaching this conclusion, we hold:  that the 
PSC's determination of completeness is judicially reviewable; 
that the PSC reasonably concluded that WEC's application 
contained two distinct site alternatives; that WEC's application 
contained all necessary information relating to DNR permits; and 
that WEC's application contained all necessary information 
relating to transmission line agreements. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
16 
 
¶33 Second, we conclude that the PSC's approval of WEC's 
CPCN application was not contrary to law or unreasonable.  When 
it approves an application for a power-generating facility like 
the one WEC proposed, the PSC must interpret, harmonize, and 
apply 
the 
provisions 
of 
Wisconsin's 
Energy 
Priority 
Law 
(Wis. Stat. § 1.12(4)),21 
the 
Plant 
Siting 
Law 
(Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)),22 and the Wisconsin Environmental 
Policy 
Act 
(Wis. Stat. § 1.11).23 
 
Applying 
a 
deferential 
standard of review, we find that the PSC reasonably performed 
all these tasks in issuing the CPCN.  We also conclude that the 
PSC did not exceed its authority in conditionally issuing the 
CPCN.   
¶34 Third, we conclude the PSC did not exceed its 
authority or act irrationally when it reduced the mitigation 
payments from WEC to the City of Oak Creek, as we conclude this 
                                                 
21 The Energy Priorities Law requires agencies to consider 
energy sources in a particular order, to the extent cost-
effective 
and 
technically 
feasible. 
 
Wis. Stat. § 1.12(4).  
Wisconsin Stat. § 196.025 provides that § 1.12(4) applies to the 
PSC.   
22 The Plant Siting Law requires the PSC to make a variety 
of findings concerning the impact of the proposed facility, 
including that the project satisfies the needs of the public for 
an "adequate supply of electric energy," that the project will 
have no undue adverse environmental impacts, and that the 
project 
will 
not 
have 
a 
negative 
effect 
on 
wholesale 
competition.   
23 The Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act requires the PSC 
to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to aid in 
evaluating the environmental impacts of the proposed facility. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
17 
 
decision 
was 
a 
proper 
exercise 
of 
the 
PSC's 
ratemaking 
authority.   
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
¶35 This 
is 
a 
review 
of 
an 
agency 
decision 
under 
Wis. Stat. § 227.52.  The issue this court must decide is 
whether the PSC erroneously approved WEC's application for a 
CPCN.  It is not the function of this court to determine this 
state's energy policy.  Nor is it this court's place to decide 
whether the construction of the power plants at issue in this 
case is in the public interest.  These are legislative 
determinations that the legislature has assigned to the PSC.  
See Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)3.  Whether a given decision is in 
the public interest "is a matter of public policy and statecraft 
and not in any sense a judicial question."  Westring v. James, 
71 Wis. 2d 462, 473, 238 N.W.2d 695 (1976).  This court "cannot 
substitute its judgment for that of an administrative agency 
determining a legislative matter within its province."  City of 
Beloit v. Town of Beloit, 37 Wis. 2d 637, 647, 155 N.W.2d 633 
(1968).   
¶36 This is the philosophy with which we approach our 
review of the PSC's decision under Wis. Stat. § 227.52.  The 
scope of our review is limited, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.57, 
to whether the PSC erroneously approved WEC's CPCN application.  
As such, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the 
PSC.  Although we must ultimately affirm or reverse the circuit 
court, when an agency's action is challenged on appeal, we 
review the decision of the agency and not that of the circuit 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
18 
 
court.  Responsible Use of Rural and Agricultural Land (RURAL) 
v. PSC, 2000 WI 129, ¶20, 239 Wis. 2d 660, 619 N.W.2d 888.   
¶37 The 
parties 
dispute 
whether 
the 
PSC 
properly 
interpreted and applied a number of statutes relating to the 
issuance of a CPCN.  This court has historically applied one of 
three levels of deference to an agency's interpretation and 
application of statutes:  great weight deference, due weight 
deference, or no deference (de novo review).  Hutson v. Wis. 
Pers. Comm'n, 2003 WI 97, ¶31, 263 Wis. 2d 612, 665 N.W.2d 212.   
¶38 The level of deference accorded to such decisions 
depends on a number of factors including "the extent to which 
the 'administrative agency's experience, technical competence, 
and specialized knowledge aid the agency in its interpretation 
and application of the statute[]'" and "'the comparative 
institutional capabilities and qualifications of the court and 
the administrative agency[.]'"  Id. (quoting Kelley Co. v. 
Marquardt, 172 Wis. 2d 234, 244, 493 N.W.2d 68 (1992) and State 
ex rel. Parker v. Sullivan, 184 Wis. 2d 668, 699, 517 N.W.2d 449 
(1994)).   
¶39 Great 
weight 
deference, 
the 
highest 
level 
of 
deference, is appropriate where: 
"'(1) the agency was charged by the legislature with 
the duty of administering the statute; (2)[] the 
interpretation of the statute is one of long-standing; 
(3)[] the agency employed its expertise or specialized 
knowledge in forming the interpretation; and (4)[] the 
agency's interpretation will provide uniformity and 
consistency in the application of the statute.'"   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
19 
 
Id., ¶32 (quoting UFE, Inc. v. LIRC, 201 Wis. 2d 274, 284, 548 
N.W.2d 57 (1996)(in turn quoting Harnischfeger Corp. v. LIRC, 
196 Wis. 2d 650, 660, 539 N.W.2d 98 (1995))).   
¶40 However, 
the 
appropriate 
test 
for 
great 
weight 
deference is not whether the agency has "decided a case 
presenting 
the 
precise 
facts 
raised 
by 
[the 
present] 
appeal . . . ."  Va. Sur. Co. v. LIRC, 2002 WI App 227, ¶13, 258 
Wis. 2d 665, 654 N.W.2d 306.  Rather, the correct test is 
whether the agency "'has experience in interpreting [the] 
particular statutory scheme'" at issue.  Honthaners Rests., Inc. 
v. LIRC, 2000 WI App 273, ¶12, 240 Wis. 2d 234, 621 N.W.2d 660 
(quoting Town of Russell Volunteer Fire Dep't. v. LIRC, 223 
Wis. 2d 723, 733-34, 589 N.W.2d 445 (Ct. App. 1998)).   
¶41 Additionally, 
we 
should 
defer 
to 
an 
agency 
interpretation when the "'legal question is intertwined with 
factual determinations or with value or policy determinations'" 
and the agency involved "'has primary responsibility for 
determination of fact and policy.'"  Hutson, 263 Wis. 2d 612, 
¶32 (quoting Sauk County v. WERC, 165 Wis. 2d 406, 413, 477 
N.W.2d 267 (1991)(in turn quoting West Bend Educ. Ass'n v. WERC, 
121 Wis. 2d 1, 12, 357 N.W.2d 534 (1984))).  Under the great 
weight standard, we will uphold an agency's interpretation of a 
statute so long as it is reasonable, even if a more reasonable 
interpretation exists.  Id.   
¶42 This court applies an intermediate level of deference, 
"known as 'due weight' or 'great bearing[,]'" id., ¶33 (quoting 
Kelley Co., 172 Wis. 2d at 244), where "'the agency has some 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
20 
 
experience in an area, but has not developed the expertise which 
necessarily places it in a better position to make judgments 
regarding the interpretation of the statute than a court.'"  Id. 
(quoting UFE, 201 Wis. 2d at 286).  This intermediate standard 
of review is based on recognition that the legislature entrusted 
application of the particular statute to the agency and not on 
the agency's expertise.  Id.  Under the due weight deference 
standard, we will uphold an agency's interpretation of a statute 
so long as it is reasonable and the court finds that no other 
more reasonable interpretation is available.  Id.   
¶43 Finally, de novo review, under which an agency's 
interpretation of a statute is "given no weight at all," id., 
¶34, is applied "when the issue is 'clearly one of first 
impression' for the agency or 'when an agency's position on an 
issue has been so inconsistent [such that it] provide[s] no real 
guidance.'"  Id. (quoting UFE, 201 Wis. 2d at 285).  However, 
regardless of the level of deference given, this court "will not 
uphold an agency's interpretation of a statute if it is contrary 
to the clear meaning of a statute."  Bosco v. LIRC, 2004 WI 77, 
¶19, 272 Wis. 2d 586, 681 N.W.2d 157.   
¶44 As this review implicates the PSC's interpretation and 
application of several statutes, we will discuss the appropriate 
standard of deference in our discussion of each respective 
statutory provision.   
¶45 This review also implicates the PSC's interpretation 
and application of its own administrative rules governing the 
issuance of CPCNs.  "This court has frequently held that great 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
21 
 
weight 
should 
be 
given 
to 
the 
administrative 
agency's 
interpretation and application of its own rules, unless plainly 
erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation so interpreted.  
This is especially so in an area calling for special expertise." 
Vonasek v. Hirsch & Stevens, Inc., 65 Wis. 2d 1, 7, 221 
N.W.2d 815 (1974)(citation omitted).  See also Trott v. DHFS, 
2001 WI App 68, ¶4, 242 Wis. 2d 397, 626 N.W.2d 48 (accord). 
¶46 Finally, 
this 
review 
implicates 
various 
factual 
findings made by the PSC.  Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.57(6), a 
court will not disturb an agency's factual findings unless they 
are not supported by "substantial evidence."  An agency's 
findings are supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable 
person could arrive at the same conclusion as the agency, taking 
into account all the evidence in the record.  RURAL, 239 
Wis. 2d 660, ¶20.   
IV. ANALYSIS 
¶47 As noted, the challenges to the PSC's order in this 
case fall into three general categories:  1) the PSC's 
determination that WEC's application was complete; 2) the PSC's 
decision to grant the CPCN; and 3) the PSC's decision to reduce 
the mitigation payments to the City of Oak Creek.   
A. 
Completeness of CPCN Application 
¶48 As discussed supra, the initial step in the CPCN 
process is filing an application with the PSC:  "An application 
in 
the 
form 
and 
containing 
the 
information 
required 
by 
commission rules for such certificate shall be filed with the 
commission not less than 6 months prior to the commencement of 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
22 
 
construction of a facility."  Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)1.  In 
turn, Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53 sets forth the required 
contents of CPCN applications for large electric generating 
facilities.  Of particular importance to the present case, the 
regulation requires, in part: 
(e) At least two proposed sites for the proposed 
facility, 
including a 
description 
of 
the 
siting 
process and a list of the factors considered in 
choosing the alternatives. 
(f) Site–related information for each proposed 
power plant site, including all of the following: 
1. 
The 
regulatory 
approvals 
required 
for 
construction and operation of the facility. 
2. 
The 
construction 
schedule 
and 
timeline, 
showing 
construction 
activities 
and 
permitting 
expectations from the beginning of construction to the 
in–service date. 
 . . . . 
4. 
Any required transmission line construction, 
agreements for use of the transmission system to 
deliver plant power, transmission losses, and effects 
on system reliability.  If a certificate of authority 
under s. 196.49, Stats., is required to construct the 
transmission line, the location of termini, length in 
miles, and voltage for each transmission line. 
5. 
Other auxiliary facilities, including fuel 
storage and water storage. 
 . . . . 
Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(e)-(f).  
¶49 After an application is filed, the PSC has 30 days to 
determine 
whether 
the 
application 
is 
"complete."  
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
23 
 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)2.24 
 
If 
the 
PSC 
determines 
an 
application is incomplete, it must notify an applicant and 
provide reasons for its determination.  Id.  However, an 
applicant may refile an application previously determined to be 
incomplete, and there is no limit as to how many times an 
application may be refiled.  Id.  If the PSC fails to make a 
completeness determination within 30 days after the application 
is filed, the application is rendered complete by operation of 
law.  Id.  Once an application is determined to be complete, the 
PSC 
must 
hold 
a 
public 
hearing 
on 
the 
application.  
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(b).  Following the public hearing, the 
PSC must determine whether the proposed facility meets the 
statutory 
requirements 
set 
forth 
in 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)2.-7. before the CPCN may be issued.  
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d).   
                                                 
24 Wisconsin Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)2. provides:  
The 
commission 
shall 
determine 
whether 
an 
application filed under subd. 1. is complete and, no 
later than 30 days after the application is filed, 
notify the applicant about the determination.  If the 
commission 
determines 
that 
the 
application 
is 
incomplete, the notice shall state the reason for the 
determination.  An applicant may supplement and refile 
an application that the commission has determined to 
be incomplete.  There is no limit on the number of 
times that an applicant may refile an application 
under this subdivision.  If the commission fails to 
determine whether an application is complete within 30 
days after the application is filed, the application 
shall be considered to be complete. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
24 
 
¶50 As 
noted 
supra, 
after 
determining 
that 
WEC's 
application was incomplete on a number of occasions, the PSC 
issued a letter on November 15, 2002, advising WEC that the PSC 
had determined its application to be complete in light of its 
latest supplement.  The letter stated:  
The Commission has reviewed [WEC's] supplement to the 
application to construct the facilities described 
above as required by Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)2 and 
Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53.  The DNR also reviewed 
appropriate application materials for completeness 
purposes.  Based on this review, the Commission 
determines that the application is complete . . . . 
However, the letter also indicated that the PSC expected WEC to 
provide further environmental information concerning items that 
were identified as being deficient in the PSC's previous review.   
¶51 Clean Wisconsin challenged the PSC's determination 
that WEC's application was complete by filing a petition to 
review the PSC's interim completeness determination on the 
ground that the WEC application did not meet the "alternative 
sites" requirement of Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(e).  
Specifically, Clean Wisconsin argued that WEC's application was 
not complete because WEC's alternative sites for the proposed 
plants were all located on the grounds of WEC's existing Oak 
Creek Generating Plant.  Clean Wisconsin argued that in order to 
comply with the regulation, WEC's application must contain at 
least one site that is at a location other than the existing Oak 
Creek facility.   
¶52 In an order dated April 18, 2003, the PSC declined to 
reopen its determination that WEC's CPCN application was 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
25 
 
complete.  Following the PSC's final decision and order issuing 
the CPCN to WEC, Clean Wisconsin renewed its argument concerning 
the PSC's completeness determination in the circuit court.  In 
addition to arguing that the application was incomplete because 
it failed to satisfy the "alternative site" requirement, Clean 
Wisconsin asserted that the application was incomplete because 
it did not contain required regulatory approvals under Wis. 
Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(f)1. and did not contain sufficient 
information concerning transmission line facilities as required 
by Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(f)4.   
¶53 The 
circuit court 
agreed, 
concluding 
that 
WEC's 
application did not meet the "alternative site" requirement in 
§ PSC 111.53(1)(e) because all of the listed alternatives were 
different configurations of the same plant located on the same 
1000 acre parcel of land.  The circuit court also ruled that it 
was error for the PSC to deem the application complete because 
§ PSC 111.53(1)(f)1. requires a CPCN application to contain all 
regulatory permits that are necessary before the facility can be 
built and WEC's application did not contain the required 
approvals from the DNR.  Finally, the circuit court ruled that 
the PSC erred in determining that the application was complete 
because § PSC 111.53(1)(f)4. requires a CPCN application to 
contain agreements for transmission lines that will be utilized, 
and WEC's application did not contain any such agreements.   
¶54 Clean Wisconsin again argues before this court that it 
was legal error for the PSC to determine that WEC's application 
was complete.  It again argues that WEC's application failed to 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
26 
 
satisfy the "alternative site" requirement and that it failed to 
contain the necessary transmission line agreements.  Further, it 
contends that the PSC erred in determining that the application 
was complete because its completeness letter indicated that the 
application was incomplete.  However, Clean Wisconsin does not 
argue before this court that WEC was required to include all 
necessary regulatory permits in its CPCN application.   
¶55 The PSC argues that it correctly determined that WEC's 
application met the "alternative site" requirement and that its 
conclusion that the requirement was satisfied is entitled to 
great weight deference.  The PSC further asserts that the 
application contained all the necessary information pertaining 
to regulatory permits and transmission line agreements and that 
requiring a CPCN application to contain the actual regulatory 
permits required for construction of the facility and the actual 
transmission line agreements would be inconsistent with its own 
rules and related statutes.  Additionally, the PSC argues that 
its request for additional information in its November 15, 2002, 
completeness letter did not undermine its ultimate conclusion 
that the application was complete.  WEC makes substantially the 
same arguments as the PSC.  Furthermore, Dairyland Power 
Cooperative (Dairyland),25 in addition to making the same 
arguments as the PSC and WEC, asserts that § 196.491 gives the 
PSC 
the 
power 
to 
conclusively 
determine 
whether 
a 
CPCN 
                                                 
25 Dairyland is a not-for-profit generation and transmission 
electric cooperative that is an interested party in this 
litigation.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
27 
 
application is complete and that the PSC's determination that 
the CPCN application was complete is not reviewable.   
¶56 We begin by addressing Dairyland's argument that the 
PSC's determination that a CPCN application is complete is not 
reviewable.  According to Dairyland, a determination by the PSC 
that a CPCN application is complete is unreviewable because 
§ 196.491 does not require the PSC to provide reasons for 
determining that an application is complete and deems an 
application complete as a matter of law if the PSC takes no 
action. 
 
Further, 
Dairyland 
argues 
that 
§ 196.491(3)(d), 
governing the final issuance of a CPCN, makes no reference to 
the completeness of a CPCN application as a prerequisite to the 
issuance 
of 
the 
CPCN. 
 
Finally, 
Dairyland 
argues 
that 
§ 196.491(3)(a)1. allows the PSC to determine what information 
is necessary for an application to be complete and provides no 
standards for reviewing the PSC's completeness determination. 
¶57 We reject Dairyland's argument for three reasons.  
First, as noted by Clean Wisconsin, Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(j) 
explicitly provides that "[a]ny person whose substantial rights 
may be adversely affected . . . by a certificate of public 
convenience and necessity may petition for judicial review, 
under ch. 227, of any decision of the commission regarding the 
certificate."  (Emphasis added.)  As discussed, the filing of 
the CPCN application and the PSC's determination that the 
application is complete are the first two steps in the process 
leading up to the ultimate issuance of the CPCN.  As the CPCN 
application cannot move forward to the public hearing stage 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
28 
 
without the PSC first determining that it is complete, the PSC's 
determination that an application is complete clearly qualifies 
as a "decision of the commission regarding the certificate."  
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(j). 
¶58 Second, although the PSC's decision that a CPCN 
application is complete is not itself a final decision, case law 
establishes that it is nonetheless subject to judicial review.  
In Friends of the Earth, 78 Wis. 2d at 410, this court held that 
a PSC interim order regarding ratemaking was reviewable in 
connection with the final order in the case, even though the 
interim order was not immediately subject to judicial review.  
See also Cities & Villages of Algoma v. PSC, 91 Wis. 2d 252, 
265, 283 N.W.2d 261 (Ct. App. 1978)("[J]udicial review of the 
PSC's action on the interim order may be had upon judicial 
review of the final order so as to protect the interests of the 
ratepayer.").  We see no reason why this reasoning is not 
applicable here, particularly in light of the aforementioned 
language in Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(j). 
¶59 Finally, we reject Dairyland's assertion that the 
relevant statutes provide no standards by which the PSC's 
completeness 
determination 
may 
be 
reviewed. 
 
Section 
196.491(3)(a)1. requires that every CPCN application be in the 
form required by the PSC and contain "the information required 
by commission rules for such certificate[.]"  In turn, Wis. 
Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1) sets forth the information that a 
CPCN application must contain before it is considered to be 
complete.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
29 
 
¶60 It is this rule that provides the standards by which a 
court reviews a PSC determination that a CPCN application is 
complete.  Thus, while § 196.491(3)(a)1. does not itself provide 
such standards, it specifically states that an application must 
contain the information required by PSC rules.  The PSC has 
promulgated a list of items in § PSC 111.53(1) that an 
application must contain before it is considered complete; 
therefore, the PSC is not free to ignore those requirements in 
making its completeness determination.   
¶61 Having determined that the PSC's decision regarding 
the completeness of a CPCN application is indeed subject to 
judicial review, we now address what level of deference is 
appropriate when reviewing a PSC determination that a CPCN 
application is complete.  As noted previously, "[t]his court has 
frequently held that great weight should be given to the 
administrative agency's interpretation and application of its 
own rules, unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the 
regulation so interpreted.  This is especially so in an area 
calling for special expertise."  Vonasek, 65 Wis. 2d at 7 
(citation omitted).  No one disputes that the PSC has special 
expertise in determining whether a CPCN application is complete.   
¶62 The PSC's determination that a CPCN application is 
complete "represents its conclusion that the requirements of 
[Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)] have been met on the facts 
before it with respect to the application under consideration.  
It 
is 
thus 
an 
application 
or 
interpretation 
of 
law . . . entitled to great weight deference from a reviewing 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
30 
 
court."  Citizens' Util. Bd. v. PSC, 211 Wis. 2d 537, 552, 565 
N.W.2d 554 (Ct. App. 1997).   
¶63 Clean Wisconsin challenges the PSC's completeness 
determination on the ground that the application failed to 
contain information required by various provisions of § PSC 
111.53(1) and that the PSC erroneously interpreted these 
requirements.  Whether the PSC's interpretations of the various 
provisions of § PSC 111.53(1) at issue are entitled to great 
weight deference will be discussed below.  As we conclude that 
the PSC's interpretation of each relevant provision is given 
great weight deference, its application of those provisions and 
ultimate conclusion that the application was complete will be 
upheld if it is reasonable.  Harnischfeger, 196 Wis. 2d at 661; 
Citizens' Util. Bd., 211 Wis. 2d at 552.  As we conclude that 
great weight deference is appropriate, it is Clean Wisconsin's 
burden to demonstrate that there is no rational basis for the 
PSC's completeness determination.  Id. at 553.    
1. 
Alternative Site Requirement 
¶64 Wisconsin Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(e) requires a 
CPCN application for a large electric generating facility to 
contain information concerning "[a]t least two proposed sites 
for the proposed facility, including a description of the siting 
process and a list of the factors considered in choosing the 
alternatives."  Clean Wisconsin argues that WEC's application 
failed to satisfy this requirement because it contained only 
alternative configurations of the proposed plants on the same 
site rather than two distinct alternate proposed sites.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
31 
 
¶65 Clean Wisconsin argues that alternative configurations 
at the same site are allowed only under the circumstances 
described in Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(2)(b).  Clean 
Wisconsin also argues that the PSC's test for determining 
whether 
an 
application 
proposes 
sufficiently 
different 
alternatives is contrary to the plain meaning of Wis. Admin. 
Code § PSC 111.53(1)(e) and that even if the PSC's test is 
appropriate, WEC's application clearly failed to meet that test.   
¶66 No one disputes that § PSC 111.53(1)(e) requires an 
applicant to submit information concerning proposed alternative 
sites.  The threshold question is really how different or 
distinct must two proposals be to qualify as "alternative 
sites."  The text of the regulation does not answer this 
question.  In rejecting Clean Wisconsin's initial challenge to 
the 
PSC's 
determination 
that 
WEC's 
CPCN 
application 
was 
complete, 
the 
PSC 
explained 
how 
it 
evaluates 
site 
"alternatives": 
The Commission's standard for reviewing site 
alternatives in a CPCN application is based upon both 
the rule of reason and the principle that alternatives 
must serve the public purpose underlying the issuance 
of a CPCN.  The Commission first reviews a CPCN 
application to determine that each proposed site is 
"reasonable," i.e. is a feasible location for the 
project that would not directly conflict with any of 
the 
criteria 
for 
granting 
a 
CPCN 
expressed 
in 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3). 
 
In 
addition, 
the 
Commission's practice is to require that the sites are 
sufficiently distinct to offer different packages of 
costs and benefits, and thus present the Commission 
with a choice.  
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
32 
 
The 
fact 
that 
alternative 
sites 
may 
be 
geographically close to each other does not render 
them unreasonable.  The Commission has accepted CPCN 
applications 
for 
several 
projects 
where 
the 
alternative sites were close together or even adjacent 
to each other.   
¶67 We cannot conclude that the PSC's interpretation of 
its own rule in this instance is inconsistent with the text of 
the rule.  As noted, the rule itself provides no indication as 
to when different proposals are sufficiently distinct so as to 
constitute 
"alternative sites."  
The 
pertinent 
dictionary 
definition of "alternative" is "[a]llowing or necessitating a 
choice between two or more things."  The American Heritage 
Dictionary 
of 
the 
English 
Language 
55 
(3d 
ed. 
1992).  
Additionally, "site" is defined as "[t]he place where a 
structure or group of structures was, is, or is to be located."  
Id. at 1688.  Thus, the "alternative site" provision requires a 
CPCN applicant to provide information regarding locations where 
the proposed power plants are to be located sufficient to 
present the PSC with a choice.   
¶68 The 
PSC's 
interpretation 
of 
its 
rule 
is 
not 
inconsistent with these definitions, as it requires "that the 
sites are sufficiently distinct to offer different packages of 
costs and benefits, and thus present the Commission with a 
choice."  While Clean Wisconsin argues that WEC's proposal 
contained only different configurations on the same site, this 
argument is merely a matter of semantics and begs the ultimate 
question of how distinct the locations of the proposed plants 
must be to qualify as "alternative sites."   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
33 
 
¶69 The PSC's interpretation differentiates "sites" on the 
basis of whether they offer sufficiently distinct costs and 
benefits so as to allow the PSC to make an actual choice between 
the two.  This interpretation comports with the overall 
statutory scheme governing the issuance of CPCNs.  One of the 
criteria for granting a CPCN is that the proposed facility "is 
in 
the 
public 
interest 
considering . . . alternative 
locations . . . ."  Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)3.  By requiring 
that an applicant present information concerning "sites [that] 
are sufficiently distinct to offer different packages of cost 
and benefits, and thus present the commission with a choice[,]" 
the PSC ensures that it is able to evaluate whether the proposed 
facility 
"is 
in 
the 
public 
interest 
considering . . . alternative 
locations . . . ."  
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)3.     
¶70 As the PSC's interpretation of its own rule is not 
contrary to the text of the rule, we accord it great weight 
deference. 
 
Thus, 
the 
PSC's 
determination 
that 
a 
CPCN 
application has met the "alternative sites" requirement will not 
be disturbed unless it is without a rational basis.   
¶71 WEC's CPCN application originally contained three 
proposed sites that were described in the PSC's final order 
approving the CPCN:   
The North Site is in the City of Oak Creek in 
Milwaukee County at the east end of Elm Road, north of 
the existing OCPP [Oak Creek Power Plant] units.  The 
South Site would place the generating units on a 
portion of the OCPP property south of existing Units 
5-8, in the town of Caledonia in Racine County.  The 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
34 
 
South Site——Exp is a variation on the South Site, 
placing the SCPC units in the same location but with 
the IGCC facility on a federal/state-owned shooting 
range (land that WEC would need to purchase).   
¶72 In its decision rejecting Clean Wisconsin's original 
challenge to its completeness determination, the PSC applied its 
interpretation of § PSC 111.53(1)(e) to WEC's application and 
reasoned:   
At least two of the three sites WEC has included 
in 
its 
CPCN 
application 
meet 
the 
Commission's 
standards.  The petitioners allege that 11 or more 
different 
characteristics 
of 
these 
sites 
are 
functionally 
identical, 
but 
this 
situation 
is 
difficult to avoid when searching for locations to 
install a 
new coal-fired 
plant 
where 
generation 
already exists.  The similarities highlight the fact 
that each site alternative is relying on existing 
infrastructure at a brownfield generating site, and 
the 
Commission 
has 
encouraged 
the 
use 
of 
such 
locations 
because 
they 
tend 
to 
make 
electric 
generation 
projects 
less 
expensive 
and 
less 
environmentally damaging.  The Commission also noted 
two significant distinctions among the sites WEC is 
proposing.  The primary site is located in the city of 
Oak Creek, Milwaukee County, while the alternative 
sites are found in the town of Caledonia, Racine 
County.  In addition, construction at the primary site 
would require WEC to cut and fill 10 million cubic 
yards of earth, while at Alternative Site A it would 
only need to move 7.3 million cubic yards.   
The 
site 
alternatives WEC 
is proposing are 
"different 
enough" 
to 
meet 
the 
Commission's 
requirements in Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(e). 
¶73 Clean Wisconsin asserts that there is no difference 
between the "alternatives" WEC proposed because their cost is 
the same and there are no distinct benefits that distinguish the 
alternatives from one another.  Clean Wisconsin also notes that 
the information WEC provided as to its proposed alternatives was 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
35 
 
sparse in comparison to the information provided for the 
primary, preferred location.   
¶74 The PSC noted that while there were many similarities 
between the proposed sites, this was unavoidable because of the 
type of facility that was being proposed and because the PSC 
prefers 
applicants 
to 
choose 
sites 
that 
are 
located 
on 
brownfields, so as to minimize any adverse environmental impacts 
of the proposed facility.26  The PSC also stated that the 
proposed sites were located in different cities and counties.  
While Clean Wisconsin argues these facts have no relevance, the 
record indicates that the alternate proposed locations had 
different 
physical 
attributes 
from 
which 
the 
PSC 
could 
reasonably 
determine that 
the proposals offered 
competing 
packages of benefits and costs.   
¶75 For instance, the proposed South Site would require a 
different coal conveyor system and possible adaptation of on-
site haul roads.  In addition, the South Site and South Site-Exp 
would require the relocation of a planned commercially-owned 
wallboard plant.  The South Site-Exp would require WEC to 
purchase 70 acres of land from the federal government that is 
currently used as a shooting range.  The South Site-Exp is 
located closer to Lake Michigan than the other proposed sites, 
and it would therefore allow equipment requiring cooling to be 
                                                 
26 Brownfields are abandoned industrial sites, some of which 
have actual or perceived environmental contamination.  Their use 
is encouraged so as to reduce building on greenfields (pristine, 
undisturbed land).  See U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Brownfields 
Fact Sheet, EPA Publication No. 500-F-00-241 (Oct. 2000). 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
36 
 
located closer to the lake.  Additionally, the South Side-Exp 
would require less bluff removal than the other two sites and 
would allow certain facilities to be more accessible.  Although 
all three sites would require a significant amount of earth 
removal, there is a difference of 2.7 million cubic yards of 
earth that would need to be removed among some of the alternate 
sites.  
¶76 Furthermore, the fact that the proposed alternatives 
were located in different communities is not inconsequential.  
It is reasonable to assume that a project the size of the one 
being proposed may garner different levels of public support 
depending upon the community in which it is located.  It is 
reasonable to assume that an entity proposing to build a project 
the size of the one at issue here might have varying degrees of 
difficulty obtaining necessary permits depending upon in which 
community the project is located and that different communities 
may desire different levels of mitigation payments.27   
¶77 In sum, we cannot say that the PSC's ultimate 
conclusion that WEC's CPCN application satisfied the "alternate 
site" requirement was without a rational basis, particularly in 
light of the PSC's stated goal of reducing the adverse 
environmental impacts of the proposed project.  While an 
                                                 
27 The parties argue about whether the environmental impacts 
of the various proposals, as stated in the EIS, sufficiently 
distinguish 
the 
sites 
proposed 
by 
WEC. 
 
Because 
this 
environmental impact information was not before the PSC when it 
made its completeness determination, we do not consider it in 
our analysis.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
37 
 
opposite conclusion on the facts before us might be equally 
reasonable or even more reasonable, the PSC's determination must 
stand under our deferential standard of review.28    
2. 
Regulatory Permits  
¶78 In addition to requiring information about alternative 
sites for the proposed facility, § PSC 111.53(1)(f) requires an 
applicant to submit "[s]ite related information for each 
proposed power plant site, including . . . 1.  The regulatory 
approvals required for construction and operation of the 
facility."  WEC attached to its CPCN application a table listing 
various 
potential 
permits 
and 
approvals 
required 
for 
construction of ERGS.  The table included 17 different permits 
from ten different agencies, described the permits required, and 
set forth the applicable governing statutes.   
¶79 The circuit court ruled that WEC's application was 
incomplete 
because 
it 
concluded that 
§ PSC 
111.53(1)(f)1. 
requires an applicant to file the regulatory permits and 
approvals themselves, not merely list and describe the permits 
needed before construction begins.  Specifically, the circuit 
court concluded that WEC's application was incomplete because it 
failed to include necessary DNR permits.  This issue was not 
raised before the PSC, and none of the parties supporting the 
                                                 
28 While Clean Wisconsin takes issue with the amount of 
information WEC provided relative to each proposed site, it is 
not the function of this court to dictate the quantity of 
information that must be filed with the PSC.  All that is 
required is for the applicant to file sufficient material so as 
to allow the PSC to make a rational completeness determination.  
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
38 
 
circuit court's decision defend its ruling on this issue before 
this court.  Although we review the PSC's decision and not that 
of the circuit court and no party adverse to the PSC's decision 
has pursued this issue on appeal, we nonetheless address this 
issue because WEC, the PSC, and Dairyland devoted significant 
portions of their briefs to this issue, the issue is one of 
great public importance, and an analysis of this issue will 
affect our discussion of whether WEC was required to file 
transmission line agreements with its CPCN application.   
¶80 The 
PSC 
has interpreted 
§ PSC 111.53(1)(f)1. as 
requiring a CPCN applicant to submit only information concerning 
the required permits and not the actual permits.  Wisconsin 
Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(f) requires an applicant to submit 
"[s]ite-related information for each proposed power plant site, 
including . . . . 
[t]he 
regulatory 
approvals 
required 
for 
construction and operation of the facility."  (Emphasis added.)  
We conclude that the PSC's interpretation of this regulation is 
not inconsistent with the text of the regulation or plainly 
erroneous for several reasons.   
¶81 First, 
if 
one 
considers 
the 
regulatory 
permits 
themselves to be "information," and that the regulation requires 
the actual permits to be filed, other portions of the regulation 
will be rendered absurd.  Among the other "information" an 
applicant must supply under § PSC 111.53(1)(f) is "[o]ther 
auxiliary facilities," Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(f)5., 
"natural resources at each site," Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 
111.53(1)(f)6., and "[a]esthetics[,]" Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
39 
 
111.53(1)(f)8.  Wis. Citizens Concerned for Cranes and Doves v. 
DNR, 2004 WI 40, ¶6, 270 Wis. 2d 318, 677 N.W.2d 612 (statutes 
and regulations must be read in the context in which they 
appear).  If all the items listed in § PSC 111.53(1)(f) were 
themselves required to be submitted as "information," an 
applicant would be required to file "natural resources," 
"auxiliary facilities," and "aesthetics" themselves with the 
application.  Such a reading of the regulation is absurd.  
Trott, 242 Wis. 2d 397, ¶14 (regulations should be interpreted 
to avoid unreasonable or absurd results). 
¶82 Second, 
the 
PSC's 
interpretation 
of 
§ PSC 
111.53(1)(f)1. is consistent with Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 
111.53(1)(f)2., which requires the applicant to file "[t]he 
construction 
schedule 
and 
timeline, 
showing 
construction 
activities and permitting expectations from the beginning of 
construction to the in-service date."  (Emphasis added.)  If the 
permits themselves need to be filed under § PSC 111.53(1)(f)1., 
then the language concerning the "permitting expectations" of 
the applicant in § PSC 111.53(1)(f)2. is rendered superfluous or 
is in conflict with § PSC 111.53(1)(f)1.  Basinas v. State, 104 
Wis. 2d 539, 546, 312 N.W.2d 483 (1981)(regulations should be 
interpreted to avoid conflict among different provisions and so 
as to avoid rendering provisions superfluous).   
¶83 Additionally, 
the 
PSC's 
interpretation 
of 
§ PSC 
111.53(1)(f)1. is consistent with the statutes governing the 
issuance of a CPCN.  Bosco, 272 Wis. 2d 586, ¶19 (valid agency 
interpretation of its regulations cannot be contrary to statute 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
40 
 
governing agency).  Specifically, the PSC's interpretation of 
§ PSC 
111.53(1)(f)1.——requiring 
only 
information 
about 
regulatory permits to be filed——comports with the statute 
setting forth the process and timeline for obtaining regulatory 
permits from the DNR, whereas an interpretation of § PSC 
111.53(1)(f)1. that requires the actual permits to be filed 
before a CPCN application is complete would conflict with the 
statute.29 
                                                 
29 Wisconsin Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3. provides: 
a. At least 60 days before a person files an 
application under subd. 1., the person shall provide 
the department with an engineering plan showing the 
location of the facility, a description of the 
facility, 
including the 
major components 
of the 
facility that have a significant air, water or solid 
waste pollution potential, and a description of the 
anticipated effects of the facility on air and water 
quality.  Within 30 days after a person provides an 
engineering plan, the department shall provide the 
person with a listing of each department permit or 
approval which, on the basis of the information 
contained in the engineering plan, appears to be 
required for the construction or operation of the 
facility. 
b. Within 20 days after the department provides a 
listing specified in subd. 3.a. to a person, the 
person shall apply for the permits and approvals 
identified in the listing.  The department shall 
determine whether an application under this subd. 3.b. 
is complete and, no later than 30 days after the 
application is filed, notify the applicant about the 
determination.  If the department determines that the 
application is incomplete, the notice shall state the 
reason for the determination.  An applicant may 
supplement 
and 
refile 
an 
application 
that 
the 
department has determined to be incomplete.  There is 
no limit on the number of times that an applicant may 
refile an application under this subd. 3.b.  If the 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
41 
 
¶84 Wisconsin Stat. § 196.491(3), governing the procedure 
for issuing a CPCN, also describes the process and timeline for 
obtaining necessary regulatory permits from the DNR.  Sixty days 
before a person files a CPCN application, he must file an 
engineering plan with the DNR describing the proposed facility.  
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.a. 
 
Thirty 
days 
after 
the 
engineering plan is filed (30 days prior to the filing of the 
CPCN application), the DNR must provide the applicant with a 
list of the necessary permits.  Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.a.  
The applicant then has 20 days from the time the DNR provides a 
list of the necessary permits (up until 10 days prior to filing 
the 
CPCN 
application) 
to 
apply 
for 
the 
permits.  
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.b.   
¶85 The DNR must determine whether the permit application 
is complete within 30 days after the person applies for the 
permits (20 days after the CPCN application is filed and 10 days 
before the PSC must determine if the CPCN is complete) 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.b.  If the permit application is 
incomplete, the applicant may supplement the application, again 
triggering 
the 
30-day 
time 
period.  
                                                                                                                                                             
department fails to determine whether an application 
is complete within 30 days after the application is 
filed, the application shall be considered to be 
complete.  The department shall complete action on an 
application under this subd. 3.b. for any permit or 
approval that is required prior to construction of a 
facility within 120 days after the date on which the 
application 
is 
determined 
or 
considered 
to 
be 
complete. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
42 
 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.b.  After the DNR permit application 
is determined to be complete, the DNR then has another 120 days 
(140 days after the CPCN application is filed and 110 days after 
the PSC must determine whether the CPCN application is complete) 
to 
determine 
whether 
to 
issue 
the 
permits.  
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.b.    
¶86 Therefore, 
interpreting 
§ PSC 
111.53(1)(f)1. 
to 
require a CPCN applicant to file the actual regulatory approvals 
before the CPCN application can be deemed to be complete would 
clearly conflict with Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.a.-b.  Under 
the statute, the earliest the DNR can issue the required 
regulatory permits is 140 days after the CPCN application is 
filed and 110 days after the PSC is required to make its 
completeness 
determination. 
 
Thus, 
the 
statute 
expressly 
contemplates that a CPCN applicant will not have the required 
DNR permits in hand at the time the PSC must render its 
completeness determination.   
¶87 Furthermore, § PSC 111.53(1)(f) requires site-related 
information for "each proposed power plant site."  If it is not 
sufficient for a CPCN applicant to merely file information 
concerning the required permits, then the applicant would need 
to obtain a set of permits for each "proposed power plant site."  
This, in turn, would require, at a minimum, two sets of permit 
applications to be filed with the DNR.  In addition, the DNR 
would be required to issue permits for at least one site that 
will not ultimately be the site at which the power plant is 
built.  Such a result would be absurd and in conflict with the 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
43 
 
purpose of § 196.491, which is to provide a streamlined 
certificate application process.  RURAL, 239 Wis. 2d 660, ¶31.   
¶88 As the PSC's interpretation of § PSC 111.53(1)(f)1. is 
not inconsistent with the text of the regulation and is 
consistent with the statutes governing the issuance of the CPCN 
and regulatory approvals, we accord it great weight deference.  
WEC filed a detailed table listing:  1) the permits that would 
be required for ERGS; 2) the activity for which each permit was 
needed; 3) the agency responsible for issuing each permit; and 
4) the statute or code provision pursuant to which each permit 
would 
be 
issued. 
 
We 
cannot 
conclude 
that 
the 
PSC's 
determination that the application contained the information 
required under § PSC 111.53(1)(f)1. was without a rational 
basis.   
3. 
Transmission Line Agreements 
¶89 Wisconsin Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(f) requires a 
person filing a CPCN application to provide "[s]ite-related 
information 
for 
each 
proposed 
power 
plant 
site, 
including . . . . 
4. 
 
Any 
required 
transmission 
line 
construction, agreements for use of the transmission system to 
deliver plant power, transmission losses, and effects on system 
reliability."  Although this issue was not raised before the 
PSC, it was raised in the circuit court, and the circuit court 
determined that WEC's CPCN application was incomplete because it 
failed to include the actual transmission line agreements.  
Clean Wisconsin renews its argument concerning the transmission 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
44 
 
line agreements before this court.  There is no dispute that 
WEC's application did not contain such agreements.  
¶90 For the reasons discussed supra, in regard to the need 
to obtain regulatory permits, the PSC's interpretation of § PSC 
111.53(1)(f), as requiring only information concerning the 
listed items is entitled to great weight deference.  As 
previously discussed, actually requiring an applicant to file 
the items listed in § PSC 111.53(1)(f) would be absurd.   
¶91 This is particularly true with regard to § PSC 
111.53(1)(f)4.  If, as Clean Wisconsin contends, a CPCN 
applicant is required to obtain and file the actual "agreements 
for use of the transmission system to deliver plant power," then 
the applicant must also necessarily file "[a]ny required 
transmission line construction[.]"  Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 
111.53(1)(f)4.  This interpretation simply makes no sense.  
Under 
the 
PSC's 
interpretation, 
an 
applicant 
must 
file 
information about or concerning "[a]ny required transmission 
line 
construction[]" 
and 
information 
about 
or 
concerning 
"agreements for use of the transmission system to deliver plant 
power[.]"  Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(f)4.   
¶92 Furthermore, as previously noted, § PSC 111.53(1)(f) 
requires an applicant to file information regarding the listed 
items "for each proposed 
power plant 
site." 
 
If 
Clean 
Wisconsin's interpretation of § PSC 111.53(1)(f)4. were correct, 
then an applicant would be required to obtain transmission line 
agreements for (at a minimum) two separate proposed sites, one 
of which will not be built upon.  Clean Wisconsin fails to 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
45 
 
explain how a utility 
is 
to obtain 
agreements for the 
construction of transmission lines for a power plant whose CPCN 
application has yet to be approved or a plant whose site is 
uncertain.   
¶93 Therefore, we accord the PSC's interpretation of § PSC 
111.53(1)(f)4. great weight deference.  WEC filed over 100 pages 
of information relating to transmission lines, including a 
document entitled "Generation Interconnection Study Report"—— 
prepared by the American Transmission Company (ATC)30——and a 
document entitled "Power of the Future (PTF) Facilities Study:  
Transmission Assessment of Proposed Generator Additions."  These 
documents contain very detailed assessments of the effects of 
ERGS 
on 
existing 
transmission, 
required 
transmission 
improvements, upgrades, and modifications; detailed breakdowns 
of the estimated costs for the improvements; and detailed 
technical schematics for the transmission upgrades.  The PSC 
determined that these filings were sufficient to satisfy § PSC 
111.53(1)(f)4.  We cannot conclude that this determination was 
without a rational basis.31   
 
 
                                                 
30 According to the parties' submissions, ATC owns all 
transmission assets in eastern Wisconsin.   
31 Although Clean Wisconsin also makes passing reference to 
Wis. Admin. Code § 111.53(1)(f)9. in its brief, a reviewing 
court need not address arguments insufficiently developed.  
Barakat v. DHSS, 191 Wis. 2d 769, 786, 530 N.W.2d 392 (Ct. App. 
1995).   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
46 
 
4. 
Other required information  
¶94 Clean Wisconsin's final argument with regard to the 
PSC's completeness determination is that the PSC erred in 
determining that WEC's CPCN application was complete because it 
specifically acknowledged that it was not complete in regard to 
certain wetland information.  The language in the PSC's November 
15, 2002, letter to which Clean Wisconsin refers, states:   
While 
the 
application 
is 
determined 
to 
be 
complete at this time, our determination is, in part, 
based on [WEC's] commitment to supply additional 
information related to items 6, 7, and 18 of the 
Commission's October 7, 2002, incompleteness letter.  
Substantial amounts of information relative to items 6 
and 7 have been provided and will allow our review of 
the wetland delineations to begin.  Based on the 
information 
contained 
in 
Supplement 
4 
and 
conversations 
with 
[WEC's] 
staff, 
it 
is 
my 
understanding that the remaining information relative 
to items 6 and 7, consisting of final wetland reports 
from the Southeast Regional Planning Commission, will 
be available approximately in two weeks.  In addition, 
the 
information 
relative 
to 
subsurface 
drilling, 
sampling and testing survey, the wave/environmental 
climate 
state 
survey 
and 
the 
aquatic/benthic 
environmental lake bottom characterization survey in 
item 18 will be available on the time line set out as 
answer 5-SUP-021 of Supplement 4.  
While I fully expect to receive the remaining 
information on the established time frames, failure by 
[WEC] to submit the information in a timely manner 
will likely delay the CPCN process as this information 
is necessary in order to complete our review of the 
proposed 
project 
and 
issue 
a 
joint 
PSCW/DNR 
Environmental Impact Statement.  Prior to receipt and 
review of the necessary information, it would be 
extremely difficult to schedule hearings. . . .  
Please be aware that application information that 
is 
considered 
adequate 
now 
may 
require 
further 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
47 
 
development 
later 
in 
the 
Commission's 
review 
process. . . .  
¶95 Contrary to Clean Wisconsin's suggestion, this letter 
does not state that WEC's application is being determined to be 
complete even though the wetland information is incomplete.  The 
letter clearly states that WEC filed information sufficient to 
"allow [the PSC's] review of the wetland delineations to begin."  
The letter also discusses the timeline for when additional 
information is to be received.  Further, it specifically states 
"application information that is considered adequate now may 
require further development later in the Commission's review 
process."   
¶96 In 
other 
words, 
the 
PSC's 
completeness 
letter 
acknowledged 
that 
WEC's 
application 
contained 
sufficient 
information for the PSC to begin its review.  The PSC stated 
that WEC may be required to file additional information in the 
future.  Nothing in the letter suggests that WEC's application 
was lacking information necessary for the PSC to determine that 
the application was complete.  We see nothing unreasonable in 
the PSC determining an application to be complete yet requesting 
further information to assist in its review of the CPCN 
application. 
 
Given 
that 
the 
PSC's 
completeness 
letter 
acknowledges that WEC had filed sufficient information for it to 
begin its review of the CPCN application, Clean Wisconsin has 
failed 
to 
persuade 
us 
that 
the 
PSC's 
determination 
of 
completeness is unreasonable.  Id.  
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
48 
 
¶97 We next examine the parties' arguments concerning 
whether the PSC erroneously issued the CPCN for the two ERGS.   
B. 
Issuance of the CPCN 
1. 
Wisconsin's Energy Priorities Law 
¶98 The PSC is required to comply with the Energy 
Priorities Law (EPL), Wis. Stat. § 1.12, when approving CPCNs 
for 
large 
electric 
generating 
facilities. 
 
See 
Wis. Stat. § 196.025(1).  The EPL states Wisconsin's energy 
policy and gives agencies and governmental units a list of 
energy source options and the priority in which they should be 
considered when making decisions.  Clean Wisconsin and Calpine 
raise numerous arguments that the PSC violated the EPL by 
approving the CPCN for ERGS.   
¶99 The relevant part of the EPL states: 
(4) Priorities.  In meeting energy demands, the 
policy of the state is that, to the extent cost-
effective 
and 
technically 
feasible, 
options 
be 
considered based on the following priorities, in the 
order listed: 
(a) Energy conservation and efficiency.   
(b) Noncombustible renewable energy resources.   
(c) Combustible renewable energy resources.   
(d) Nonrenewable combustible energy resources, 
in the order listed:   
1. 
Natural gas.   
2. 
Oil or coal with a sulphur content of less 
than 1%.   
3. 
All other carbon-based fuels.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
49 
 
(5) Meeting Energy Demands.  (a) In designing 
all new and replacement energy projects, a state 
agency or local governmental unit shall rely to the 
greatest 
extent 
feasible 
on 
energy 
efficiency 
improvements and renewable energy resources, if the 
energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy 
resources are cost-effective and technically feasible 
and do not have unacceptable environmental impacts.   
(b) To the greatest extent cost-effective and 
technically 
feasible, 
a 
state 
agency 
or 
local 
governmental unit shall design all new and replacement 
energy projects following the priorities listed in 
sub. (4). 
¶100 Wisconsin Stat. § 196.025(1) specifically charges the 
PSC with the duty to implement these priorities:  "To the extent 
cost-effective, technically feasible and environmentally sound, 
the [PSC] shall implement the priorities under s. 1.12 (4) in 
making all energy-related 
decisions 
and orders, 
including 
advance plan, rate setting and rule-making orders." 
¶101 ERGS would use high-sulfur coal as its fuel, which is 
the lowest-priority fuel under the EPL.  Calpine has proposed an 
alternative facility to be fueled by natural gas, which is the 
highest priority nonrenewable combustible energy option. 
¶102 Before discussing the parties' arguments concerning 
the PSC's interpretation and application of the EPL, we set 
forth the relevant portions of the PSC's Final Decision and 
summarize 
the 
reasoning 
given 
for 
the 
PSC's 
conclusions 
regarding the EPL, as it is the reasoning in the PSC's decision 
that frames the parties' arguments on appeal.   
¶103 We begin by noting that the PSC clearly recognized 
that the EPL was applicable to its decision:   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
50 
 
Another important legal and policy issue this 
Commission must decide is whether or not there is 
enough energy conservation, renewable resources, or a 
cleaner 
burning 
fuel 
to 
cancel 
or 
delay 
the 
construction approvals sought for the SCPC units in 
this proceeding.  State law provides guidance to the 
Commission in carrying out the state's energy policy. 
Our obligations are set forth in Wis. Stat. § 1.12. 
¶104 The PSC then discussed the opposition to ERGS and the 
argument that the EPL mandates selection of the natural-gas 
alternative presented by Calpine.  The PSC stated it had 
discretion in applying the EPL and that it was required to 
consider its obligations under the Plant Siting Law when 
applying the EPL: 
This [EPL], however, is not a mandate to state 
agencies that must be mechanically applied to achieve 
a specific outcome.  In the Prefatory Note to 1993 
Wis. Act 414, which enacted this law, the Legislature 
declares that it "does not want to create inflexible 
mandates or deprive decision makers of the discretion 
needed to respond appropriately to the circumstances 
surrounding 
energy-related 
decisions." 
 
The 
Legislature explains that this law uses "a combination 
of 
directives 
and 
encouragement, 
while 
reserving 
substantial discretionary authority to the decision 
maker." Such discretion must be applied in this case, 
to harmonize the directives of the [EPL] with those of 
the Power Plant Siting Law.  The statutory framework 
for analyzing whether approving a CPCN project would 
be in the public interest involves a number of 
factors, beyond those specified in the [EPL].  The 
Commission must consider the extent to which a 
proposal may cause individual hardships, as well as 
concerns about its engineering, economics, safety, 
reliability, environmental impacts, interference with 
local land use plans, and impact upon wholesale 
competition.  The Commission is required to balance 
all of these competing elements, which frequently lead 
in different directions; no single primary factor is 
the measure of a CPCN project.  Thus, the Commission 
is responsible for harmonizing the [EPL] and the Power 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
51 
 
Plant Siting Law, in order to determine what is in the 
public interest. 
¶105 The PSC then began its analysis under the EPL by 
addressing the first listed priority, energy conservation and 
efficiency:   "The applicants' and Commission staff's estimates 
of achievable energy efficiency do not demonstrate that energy 
efficiency 
could 
reliably 
or 
cost-effectively 
serve 
to 
substitute, or postpone, the SCPC units." However, the PSC 
concluded that "a moderate level of intervention in the energy 
efficiency market would produce at least 55 MW of cost-effective 
and technically feasible energy efficiency in WEPCO's service 
territory by 2008."  Therefore, the PSC ordered WEPCO to submit 
a plan to the PSC for capturing at least 55 MW through energy 
efficiency programs.   
¶106 The 
PSC 
next 
discussed 
renewable 
resources 
and 
identified wind power and biomass energy as the resources most 
likely to be cost-effective.  It noted that WEPCO had issued two 
requests for proposals considering 200 MW of wind power and 25 
MW of biomass power, but concluded that these "renewable 
resources 
are 
not 
cost-effective, 
technically 
feasible 
alternatives." 
¶107 The PSC then considered natural-gas power, stating:  
"No gas-fired, baseload facilities were presented as either a 
cost-effective or technically feasible alternative in this 
record."32  The PSC explained that it was critical that WEPCO 
address the need for new baseload facilities immediately:   
                                                 
32 A baseload facility provides power "effectively on a 
constant basis, not less than 70% of the time, day in day out."   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
52 
 
A critical part of the Commission’s ultimate 
preference for coal-fired generation over gas-fired 
generation rests heavily on the discretion accorded to 
the Commission under the [EPL] and the Power Plant 
Siting Law.  More significantly, the crux of this case 
is really about the appropriate timing to construct 
new baseload generation.  A fundamental policy choice 
presented in this case is whether the Commission 
believes that WEPCO needs to take steps now to address 
needs for new baseload facilities over the next 
decade.  The Commission believes that the applicants 
should take those steps now to ensure these facilities 
are in service in 2009 and 2010. 
¶108 The PSC's decision that coal-fired baseload generation 
was appropriate was, in part, based on Electric Generation 
Expansion Analysis System (EGEAS) computer modeling projections33 
that demonstrated energy priority alternatives "[could not] 
replace the need for new baseload, coal-fired units to serve 
WEPCO."  The PSC further stated that the factors in the Plant 
Siting Law supported its conclusion: 
There are qualitative factors set forth in Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 
196.491(3)(d) 
that 
also 
support 
the 
Commission’s conclusion that new coal-fired generation 
is in the public interest and that ERGS is the most 
cost-effective and technically feasible way to address 
WEPCO's baseload needs.  The Commission's decision to 
approve SCPC 1 and 2 balances its obligations under 
the [EPL] and the Power Plant Siting Law.  It also 
reflects the Commission's policy judgment that while 
                                                 
33 EGEAS is "a modular 
production-costing, 
generation-
expansion software tool that is used to find least-cost 
generation system expansion plans by comparing all combinations 
of multiple generation options to meet forecasted system load."  
The inputs used included "forecasted energy and demand, the 
economic 
and 
engineering 
characteristics 
of 
existing 
and 
possible new generation units, fuel price forecasts, known or 
expected energy purchases or sales, desired reserve margin, and 
the forecasted cost of emission allowances."  The complexity of 
this tool is readily apparent. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
53 
 
natural gas-fired generating facilities may be better 
suited for peak and intermediate load generation, 
coal-fired generation provides the most practical 
means to serve WEPCO's needs for baseload capacity.  
The evidence in this proceeding demonstrates the 
advantages of using cleaner burning coal technologies 
like SCPC as a baseload resource over gas-fired 
generation.  
The need for new baseload generation is the 
critical factor that distinguishes this decision from 
the Port Washington order. The Port Washington order 
addressed WEPCO’s need for new intermediate capacity. 
The Commission has not approved construction of any 
new baseload, coal-fired generation in Wisconsin since 
1980.  The evidence presented reflects the fact that 
WEPCO’s existing fleet of baseload plants is aging. 
WEPCO’s aging baseload resources may be asked to 
maintain or even increase their historical production 
as older facilities are retired over the next decade 
and transmission constraints within WUMS continue to 
limit the ability of Wisconsin load-serving entities 
to import electricity.  In fact, in Phase I of PTF the 
Commission approved the retirement of 320 MW of 
existing 
baseload, 
coal-fired 
generation 
at 
Port 
Washington.  The record in this docket demonstrates 
that WEPCO needs more baseload capacity. 
¶109 The PSC then examined environmental factors and stated 
that as part of the proposed plan, WEPCO would install 
technology to reduce emissions on the existing plants at the 
site.  Finally, it noted that the policy preferences set forth 
in the EPL are actualized in "the overall pattern of decisions 
made by each agency," and that since its enactment, the PSC had 
authorized more than 6,900 MW of natural-gas fueled plants.  The 
PSC emphasized that "[t]he total mix of energy sources that the 
Commission has approved over this time period shows a pattern of 
decisions for baseload, intermediate and peaking generating 
facilities that complies with the state’s energy policy."   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
54 
 
¶110 The dispute regarding the EPL centers on the PSC's 
focus on the need for "baseload" capacity and its conclusion 
that 
the 
natural 
gas 
option 
was 
not 
cost-effective 
and 
technically feasible for this project.  The PSC concluded that 
in interpreting and applying the EPL, it was required to 
consider its obligations under the Plant Siting Law and type of 
project being proposed.  Clean Wisconsin and Calpine argue that 
the PSC's interpretation of the EPL was erroneous because the 
concept of "baseload" capacity is not part of the EPL and 
because the factors in the Plant Siting Law have no bearing on 
the requirements of the EPL.   
¶111 As discussed supra, this court applies varying degrees 
of deference to an agency's interpretation of statutes.  Calpine 
and Clean Wisconsin argue that this court should give no 
deference to the PSC's interpretation of the EPL, asserting that 
it satisfies none of the four requirements for granting great 
weight deference discussed supra.  They assert that the PSC's 
application of the statute has never been used in a CPCN 
determination concerning a high sulfur, coal-fueled facility and 
that the baseload concept is contrary to the plain language of 
the EPL.  In contrast, the PSC contends that great weight 
deference is appropriate, citing its "substantial experience in 
processing certificate applications."  
¶112 We agree with the PSC and conclude that great weight 
deference 
is 
appropriate. 
 
The 
PSC 
satisfies 
the 
first 
requirement for great weight deference because it is clearly 
charged by the legislature with applying the EPL in its CPCN 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
55 
 
determinations.  Second, the PSC has frequently and consistently 
interpreted the EPL in light of its obligations under the Plant 
Siting Law and the particular requirements of the project being 
proposed.   
¶113 For example, in Application of Madison Gas & Elec. 
Co., No. 05-CE-121 (Wis. PSC Oct. 9, 2003), the PSC examined a 
proposal to build a natural-gas-powered facility on the campus 
of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  The purpose of the 
project was to provide electric power for Madison Gas and 
Electric Company and to provide steam and chilled water to the 
university.  In its application of the EPL, the PSC discussed 
wind power, a higher priority energy than natural gas.  The 
Final Decision stated:  "Although there are additional wind 
resources available, the Commission finds that wind resources 
are neither technically feasible nor cost-effective options to 
displace the need for a project the size and scope presented in 
this application."  Id. at 13 (emphasis added).   
¶114 Likewise, in Application of Wis. Elec. Power Co., No. 
05-CE-117 (Wis. PSC Dec. 20, 2002) [hereinafter Port Washington 
Order], where the PSC made its determination regarding Part I of 
the proposal that is the subject of this litigation, the PSC 
applied the cost effective and technically feasible standards in 
the context of the Plant Siting Law requirements concerning the 
proposed natural-gas-fired plants.  In its application of the 
EPL, the PSC discussed energy efficiency and renewable resources 
but concluded that both were "neither technically feasible nor 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
56 
 
cost effective options to displace the need for a project the 
size and scope presented in these applications."  Id. at 16. 
¶115 In Application of Wis. Pub. Serv. Corp., No. 6690-CE-
187 (Wis. PSC Oct. 7, 2004) [hereinafter Weston Order], a 
decision following this case, the PSC applied the EPL to a 
situation very similar to the present case.  That decision 
concerned a 515 MW coal baseload unit proposed by the Wisconsin 
Public Service Corporation.  There, the PSC ordered the 
corporation to submit a plan to capture 32 MW of energy 
efficiency, but came to the same conclusion as the Final 
Decision in the present case that natural gas was not a cost-
effective or technically feasible alternative to coal for a 
baseload plant.  Id. at 16-17. 
¶116 Contrary to the assertion of Calpine and Clean 
Wisconsin, it is irrelevant that the present case is the first 
time the PSC has applied its interpretation of the EPL to a 
high-sulfur coal facility.  The correct test for great weight 
deference is whether the agency has prior experience in 
interpreting the statutory section at issue, not whether it has 
previously applied that interpretation to the precise facts 
presented on appeal.  Honthaners Rests., 240 Wis. 2d 234, ¶12.  
Therefore, we conclude that the PSC's interpretation of the EPL 
meets the second requirement for great weight deference.   
¶117 Next, we conclude that the third requirement for great 
weight deference is met because the PSC's interpretation of the 
EPL requires it to interpret the phrases "cost effective" and 
"technically feasible," which in turn calls for the PSC to rely 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
57 
 
on its expertise of highly technical subjects such as economic 
forecasting and industrial technology.  The PSC must use its 
expertise to determine what is "cost effective" in any given 
situation or what is "technically feasible."   
¶118 Finally, by interpreting the provisions of the EPL in 
light of the requirements under the Plant Siting Law, the PSC 
has provided an interpretation of the EPL that will promote 
uniformity in the application of the EPL as it relates to CPCN 
determinations. 
 
As 
such, 
we 
conclude 
that 
the 
fourth 
requirement for great weight deference is satisfied.   
¶119 Clean Wisconsin and Calpine also argue that we cannot 
give great weight deference to the PSC's interpretation of 
Wis. Stat. § 1.12(4) 
because 
the PSC 
cannot 
interpret the 
statute for all the other agencies that must also apply this 
provision. 
 
We 
reject 
this 
argument 
because 
the 
PSC's 
interpretation of the EPL pertains only to CPCN determinations 
under the Plant Siting Law.  Other agencies are free to apply 
the EPL in the contexts of other determinations that they are 
authorized to make.  Accordingly, we give great weight deference 
to the PSC's interpretation of the EPL and will not substitute 
our 
interpretation 
of 
the 
statute 
unless 
the 
PSC's 
interpretation is irrational.  
¶120 Clean Wisconsin and Calpine argue that the PSC's 
interpretation of the EPL cannot be upheld because it is 
contrary to the plain text of the EPL.  Additionally, Calpine 
asserts that the determination that gas-powered plants could not 
support baseload needs is an invalid, unpromulgated "rule" that 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
58 
 
the PSC adopted in this case, bypassing the proper procedures 
for creating rules set out in Wis. Stat. § 227.10(1).   
¶121 We conclude that the PSC's interpretation of "cost 
effective and technically feasible" must be harmonized with the 
Plant Siting Law because the EPL is to be applied as the PSC 
makes energy-related decisions under both statutes.  Without 
consideration of the various statutes an agency is charged with 
administering, there is no context in which to gauge whether an 
option is cost effective or technically feasible.   
¶122 The EPL itself states that the priorities are to be 
applied "[i]n meeting energy demands."  Wis. Stat. § 1.12.  
Wisconsin Stat. § 196.025(1) states the priorities of § 1.12(4) 
are to be applied "in making all energy-related decisions and 
orders."  When the PSC makes a determination on a CPCN under the 
Plant Siting Law, it applies the EPL in the context of 
determining whether to approve the requested plant siting.  The 
question the PSC should ask is thus:  Given the requirements of 
the Plant Siting Law, what is the highest priority energy option 
that 
is 
also 
cost 
effective 
and 
technically 
feasible?34  
Therefore, the PSC's interpretation of the EPL is not contrary 
to the text of the statute.   
¶123 We also reject Calpine's argument that the use of 
"baseload" terminology and the determination that natural gas 
was not cost effective and technically feasible amounted to an 
                                                 
34 If an agency makes an energy determination under a different 
statute, it would interpret "cost effective and technically 
feasible" in concert with the provisions of that statute.  
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
59 
 
invalid, unpromulgated "rule."  The term "baseload" is a way of 
defining the type of project at issue.  The determination that 
natural gas was not an appropriate alternative was the PSC's 
conclusion after it analyzed the various alternatives through 
EGEAS computer modeling and other techniques.  The term 
"baseload" is not a "regulation, standard, statement of policy, 
or 
general 
order," 
as 
"rule" 
is 
defined 
under 
Wis. Stat. § 227.01.   
¶124 The discussion of the need for "baseload" facilities 
in the present case is part of the PSC's explanation of the size 
and scope of the project it has before it.  If the PSC 
determines under the Plant Siting Law that a project of this 
size and scope (i.e. a baseload plant) is "in the public 
interest" and is necessary to "satisf[y] the reasonable needs of 
the public for an adequate supply of electric energy," then it 
must apply the EPL and choose the highest priority energy option 
that is both cost effective and technically feasible in the 
context of that need.   
¶125 In 
sum, 
we 
cannot 
conclude 
that 
the 
PSC's 
interpretation of the EPL is contrary to the text or the statute 
or is in any way irrational.  As such, we turn now and discuss 
the challenges Clean Wisconsin and Calpine raise to the PSC's 
general application of the EPL in this case.   
¶126 Clean Wisconsin and Calpine raise numerous intertwined 
claims regarding the PSC's general application of the EPL.  
Clean Wisconsin first argues that the PSC erroneously determined 
that the EPL did not bind the agency to accept higher priority 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
60 
 
alternatives that are cost effective and technically feasible.  
It relies on language in the Final Decision that it argues 
demonstrates the PSC believes it could approve ERGS even if 
higher priority alternatives are at the same cost or lower than 
high-sulfur coal:  
S.C. Johnson asserts that it is not enough that ERGS 
be close in price to other higher priority options and 
that the applicants in the present proceeding must 
prove a "compelling reason" not to abide by the energy 
priorities described in [EPL].  Under this reasoning, 
the Commission would be obligated to select a higher 
priority 
fuel 
option 
unless 
the 
applicants 
have 
demonstrated that the proposed units at ERGS will be 
provided at a substantially lower cost than available 
higher energy priorities. 
This [EPL], however, is not a mandate to state 
agencies that must be mechanically applied to achieve 
a specific outcome. 
¶127 Clean Wisconsin also relies on comments from the 
commissioners at their October 29, 2003, meeting to demonstrate 
that the commissioners did not feel bound by the EPL.  It cites 
comments by Chairperson Burneatta Bridge that she did not "feel 
constrained to choose gas in any scenario in which it is the 
least expensive," by Commissioner Ave Bie that the legislature 
did not mean for these priorities to be "literal" and by 
Commissioner Bert Garvin that "the energy priorities themselves 
are directory and not mandatory as a matter of law."   
¶128 Clean Wisconsin also argues that the Final Decision 
incorrectly relies on language in the prefatory note of the Act 
that created the EPL to defeat the plain meaning of the statute.  
It argues that there are no ambiguities in the EPL allowing the 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
61 
 
PSC to consider legislative history such as the prefatory 
comment, and that even if one does look at the comment, it gives 
the PSC discretion to determine only whether energy options are 
cost effective and technically feasible.  It also contends there 
are no conflicts between the EPL and the Plant Siting Law.   
¶129 Calpine also argues the EPL does not require that 
alternate proposals completely displace the need for projects 
like ERGS.  Calpine concludes that proper application of the EPL 
mandates selection of their natural-gas powered alternative. 
¶130 The bulk of the parties' disagreements on the PSC's 
application of the EPL relates to the language "to the extent 
cost-effective and technically feasible."  The PSC based its 
determination that natural gas is not cost effective and 
technically feasible on its coordinate determination that in 
this instance, the baseload power needs of the public could not 
be met by any option other than high-sulfur coal.  As the Final 
Decision stated, "the key question in this docket is not whether 
additional coal-fired baseload generation should be approved, 
but when it should be installed."   
¶131 To the extent the respondents cite to language in the 
Final Decision and comments by the commissioners that suggest 
the PSC did not consider the EPL to be binding, we disagree.  
The PSC did apply the EPL as we described above and simply came 
to a conclusion favoring coal over natural gas.  We also note 
that the commissioners clearly explained their decision-making 
process under the EPL and Plant Siting Law as we described 
above.  Commissioner Garvin stated, "The best cost effective and 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
62 
 
technically feasible solution will depend  . . . on what type of 
need must be met."  Chairperson Bridge stated:  
In addition to the energy priority law, the PSC 
has responsibilities under the CPCN law.  And as I 
mentioned, these include assuring reliability and 
assuring an adequate supply of energy.  And my 
approach to the energy priority law is to rank the 
options that also meet the criteria of the CPCN law. 
The 
Final 
Decision 
and 
the 
entire 
transcript 
of 
the 
commissioners' discussion of the EPL demonstrate that the PSC 
did not disregard the priorities listed in Wis. Stat. § 1.12(4), 
but rather applied the priorities within the context of the 
requirements of the Plant Siting Law.   
¶132 To respond to other arguments by the respondents 
concerning the interplay between the EPL and the Plant Siting 
Law, we agree that there is no "conflict" between the two laws.  
The two statutes work together to provide a framework in which 
the PSC is to make energy decisions.  The respondents assert 
that the PSC used the discretion discussed in the Prefatory Note 
of the EPL to bypass the unambiguous statutory priorities.  
However, we conclude any discretion employed by the PSC in 
making its determination was necessary to determining whether 
alternatives were cost effective and technically feasible, a 
clear requirement of Wis. Stat. § 1.12(4).  The PSC did not 
bypass the priorities of the EPL. 
¶133 Relying on the PSC's decision in the Weston Order, 
Calpine also argues that the PSC has interpreted the EPL as not 
requiring that higher priority alternatives must completely 
displace the need for a lower priority source project in order 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
63 
 
to be approved.35  This argument is misleading, however, because 
the higher priority alternative added to the plan in that case, 
as was the case here, was "energy efficiency," which is not a 
tangible source to provide energy, but rather, a program 
designed to save energy.  As we discussed above, the Weston 
Order actually applied identical reasoning to that employed in 
the PSC's Final Decision in the present case.   
¶134 After considering the parties' arguments concerning 
the PSC's general application of the EPL in this case, we 
conclude that the PSC's determination that coal was the only 
                                                 
35 Calpine relies on the following language from the PSC's 
decision in the Weston Order: 
Wis. Stat. § 1.12(4) does not expressly provide that 
conservation or renewable resources must displace or 
delay a proposed project; the statute requires that 
such alternatives be considered if shown to be cost-
effective 
and 
technically 
feasible. 
 
The 
plain 
language of the Energy Priorities Law together with 
the directive in Wis. Stat. § 196.025, require the 
Commission 
to 
maximize 
the 
overall 
use 
of 
the 
preferred options to the extent possible, even in 
incremental amounts.  This is consistent with the 
obvious objective of the law, which is to deploy the 
more environmentally preferable options first when 
meeting Wisconsin's need for energy. 
The record in this proceeding demonstrates that other 
options such as conservation and renewable resources 
do not displace the need for Weston 4.  However, as 
discussed below, this record also establishes a basis 
to require implementation of additional options that 
are 
"cost 
effective, 
technically 
feasible, 
and 
environmentally sound" consistent with the Energy 
Priorities Law. 
Weston Order, at 11-12. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
64 
 
available cost-effective, technically feasible energy option for 
the baseload needs of the public in this instance was a rational 
one, and we therefore decline to substitute our own judgment for 
that of the PSC.   
2. 
The Plant Siting Law 
 
¶135 In 
addition 
to 
challenging 
the 
PSC's 
general 
application of the EPL, Clean Wisconsin and Calpine argue that 
the PSC improperly applied the Plant Siting Law to the CPCN 
application in this case, raising issues concerning various 
segments of that statute.  We discuss each issue raised in turn.  
However, before addressing each issue concerning the Plant 
Siting Law, we must determine what level of deference is 
appropriate.  As this court has previously recognized, "[t]he 
'great weight' standard has been called the general rule in 
Wisconsin."  Hutson, 263 Wis. 2d 612, ¶32.  Our case law has 
established that we should accord an agency's interpretation of 
the law great weight deference when the "'legal question is 
intertwined with factual determinations or with value or policy 
determinations'" 
and 
the 
agency 
involved 
"'has 
primary 
responsibility for determination of fact and policy.'"  Id. 
(quoting Sauk County, 165 Wis. 2d at 413 (in turn quoting West 
Bend Educ. Ass'n, 121 Wis. 2d at 12)).   
 
¶136 We conclude that great weight deference is appropriate 
here.  First, there is no dispute that the legislature has 
specifically charged the PSC with the interpretation of chapter 
196.  The legislature has given the PSC jurisdiction to 
"supervise and regulate every public utility in this state and 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
65 
 
to do all things necessary and convenient to its jurisdiction."  
Wis. Stat. § 196.02(1).   
¶137 Next, the PSC is the only agency charged with 
administering § 196.491(3)(d), which has been in existence for 
30 years.  Further, there can be no doubt the decision to issue 
a CPCN for a specific plant at a specific location calls for the 
PSC to utilize its expertise and make a variety of factual 
findings.   
¶138 Finally, 
and 
most 
importantly, 
the 
PSC's 
interpretation and application of § 196.491(3)(d) inherently 
calls for a variety of policy determinations.  Even a cursory 
review of the Plant Siting Law reveals that the PSC is charged 
with making a number of legislative-type policy determinations 
when determining if a CPCN should be issued.  For instance, the 
PSC must determine whether:  "[t]he proposed facility satisfies 
the reasonable needs of the public for an adequate supply of 
electric energy"; "[t]he design and location or route is in the 
public interest considering alternative sources of supply, 
alternative 
locations 
or 
routes, 
individual 
hardships, 
engineering, economic, safety, reliability and environmental 
factors"; "[t]he proposed facility will not have undue adverse 
impact on other environmental values"; "[t]he proposed facility 
will not unreasonably interfere with the orderly land use and 
development plans for the area involved"; and "[t]he proposed 
facility will not have a material adverse impact in competition 
in 
the 
relevant 
wholesale 
electric 
service 
market."  
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)2.-4., 6.-7. (emphasis added).  
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
66 
 
¶139 All 
of 
these 
determinations 
are 
legislative-type 
determinations that require the PSC to make factual findings and 
apply its technical knowledge and expertise.  The final 
decisions as to where and when a proposed power plant should be 
constructed, how large the plant should be, how it should be 
constructed, and what fuel it should use are quintessentially 
legislative policy choices that have been delegated to the PSC.   
¶140 Because 
we 
conclude 
great 
weight 
deference 
is 
appropriate, our analysis of the parties' claims regarding the 
Plant Siting Law will focus on whether the PSC's determination 
had a rational basis, Hutson, 263 Wis. 2d 612, ¶32, and was 
consistent with the statutory language, Bosco, 273 Wis. 2d 586, 
¶19.   
a. 
Reasonable Needs/Public Interest 
¶141 Under Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)2.-3., the PSC can 
approve an application for a CPCN filed by a public utility only 
if "the proposed facility satisfies the reasonable needs of the 
public for an adequate supply of electric energy" and "the 
design and location or route is in the public interest 
considering alternative sources of supply, alternative locations 
or routes, individual hardships, engineering, economic, safety, 
reliability and environmental factors."36  Part of the calculus 
                                                 
36 
Wisconsin Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)2.-8. 
sets 
out 
the 
requirements for granting a CPCN for a proposed power facility: 
(d) Except as provided under par. (e) and s. 196.493, 
the commission shall approve an application filed 
under par. (a) 1. for a certificate of public 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
67 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
convenience and necessity only if the commission 
determines all of the following: 
2. The proposed facility satisfies the reasonable 
needs of the public for an adequate supply of electric 
energy. This subdivision does not apply to a wholesale 
merchant plant. 
3. The design and location or route is in the public 
interest considering alternative sources of supply, 
alternative locations or routes, individual hardships, 
engineering, 
economic, 
safety, 
reliability 
and 
environmental factors, except that the commission may 
not 
consider 
alternative 
sources 
of 
supply 
or 
engineering or economic factors if the application is 
for a wholesale merchant plant. In its consideration 
of environmental factors, the commission may not 
determine that the design and location or route is not 
in the public interest because of the impact of air 
pollution if the proposed facility will meet the 
requirements of ch. 285. 
4. The proposed facility will not have undue adverse 
impact on other environmental values such as, but not 
limited to, ecological balance, public health and 
welfare, historic sites, geological formations, the 
aesthetics of land and water and recreational use. In 
its consideration of the impact on other environmental 
values, the commission may not determine that the 
proposed facility will have an undue adverse impact on 
these values because of the impact of air pollution if 
the proposed facility will meet the requirements of 
ch. 285. 
5. The proposed facility complies with the criteria 
under s. 196.49(3)(b) [requires certification that 
public convenience and necessity require the project] 
if the application is by a public utility as defined 
in s. 196.01. 
6. 
The 
proposed 
facility 
will 
not 
unreasonably 
interfere with the orderly land use and development 
plans for the area involved. 
7. The proposed facility will not have a material 
adverse 
impact 
on 
competition 
in 
the 
relevant 
wholesale electric service market. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
68 
 
that goes into making these determinations is estimating the 
future energy needs of the state and forecasting the economic 
impact of proposed plans. 
¶142 Accounting for the myriad of economic factors that 
affect demand and energy prices is an incredibly complex task.  
All parties rely on the EGEAS computer-modeling program to 
provide estimates of what the optimal construction plans would 
be, given changes in the many variables affecting the state's 
future energy situation.  WEPCO ran models on EGEAS and 
presented those findings in its application for the CPCN.   
¶143 The PSC also used EGEAS modeling to choose the best 
energy option under the requirements of the EPL and the Plant 
Siting Law.  In the Final Decision, the PSC stated:  "Almost 
every EGEAS run shows the need for new baseload generation over 
the next decade," and "[t]hese EGEAS runs demonstrate that the 
energy priority resources, alone or in combination, cannot 
replace the need for new baseload, coal-fired units to serve 
WEPCO."  The PSC used this modeling as well as other factors to 
conclude 
that 
natural-gas-fired 
units 
would 
not 
be 
cost 
effective and technically feasible for baseload capacity in this 
case.  Given the need for more baseload plants and the lack of 
higher 
priority 
alternatives, 
the 
PSC 
approved 
the 
CPCN 
application for the coal-fired units. 
                                                                                                                                                             
8. 
For 
a 
large 
electric 
generating 
facility, 
brownfields, as defined in s. 560.13(1)(a), are used 
to the extent practicable. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
69 
 
¶144 Clean Wisconsin and Calpine argue that the PSC 
improperly applied § 196.491(3)(d)2.-3. to the present case.  
Clean Wisconsin argues that the PSC failed to make required 
findings of fact and the EGEAS modeling failed to consider 
pertinent variables.  Calpine joins in arguing that even with 
the various problems in EGEAS, Calpine's natural-gas-fired plant 
was the lowest cost option, and therefore was required to be 
selected.  Calpine also argues that its natural-gas alternative 
could be operated as a baseload facility and that there was no 
basis for the PSC's determination that "no gas-fired, baseload 
facilities 
were 
presented 
as 
either 
a 
cost-effective 
or 
technically feasible alternative in this record." 
i. 
Required Findings of Fact 
¶145 Clean Wisconsin argues that the Final Decision did not 
contain findings of fact and that the findings section "merely 
recited the statutory criteria and labeled them 'Findings,' such 
that it is impossible to review the PSC's decision.  See Stas v. 
Milwaukee County Civil Serv. Comm'n, 75 Wis. 2d 465, 475, 249 
N.W.2d 764 (1977).  This argument is not persuasive.  There is 
no requirement that the agency provide an elaborate opinion.  
Wis. Envtl. Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 98 Wis. 2d 682, 701, 298 
N.W.2d 205 (Ct. App. 1990) (WED IV).  All that is required is 
that the findings of fact and conclusions of law are specific 
enough to inform the parties and the courts on appeal of the 
basis of the decision.  Id.  Here the findings of fact and 
conclusions of law explain the basis of the decision, and the 
Final Decision includes a 50-page analysis of the issues in the 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
70 
 
case.  Therefore, we are easily able to determine whether the 
PSC acted appropriately. 
ii. Alleged Deficiencies in EGEAS Modeling  
¶146 Clean Wisconsin argues that the EGEAS modeling was 
defective because:  1) it failed to include known costs related 
to the ERGS project; 2) it was not utilized to evaluate higher 
priority fuel sources; and 3) its modeling utilized biased 
modeling variables.  The thrust of its argument is that the 
EGEAS modeling system is only as good as the data input for its 
projection, such that flawed inputs would necessarily result in 
flawed results.  We now discuss these three issues. 
a) 
Failure to Include Known Costs 
¶147 Clean 
Wisconsin 
argues 
that 
health-related 
costs 
regarding ERGS's planned air emissions were introduced into the 
record but not included in the EGEAS runs.  Other allegedly 
ignored items include mitigation payments to Oak Creek and other 
local community impacts such as property value impact.  The PSC, 
on the other hand, argues that it did not rely solely on EGEAS 
modeling and considered all relevant factors.   
¶148 We reject Clean Wisconsin's challenge because it 
mischaracterizes 
the 
role 
of 
EGEAS 
in 
the 
PSC's 
CPCN 
determinations.  The PSC describes EGEAS as its "primary tool to 
consider optimal resource options on a quantitative basis," but 
"it is by no means the only tool."  As the Final Decision 
stated:  "Power supply planning is not a science.  Determining 
what resource options will ensure low cost, reliability and 
environmental sensitivity for the consuming public requires the 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
71 
 
exercise of judgment and consideration of a wide variety of 
qualitative factors."   
¶149 In addition, the PSC notes that the CPCN statute does 
not require computer modeling and that it did not rely solely on 
the results output by EGEAS, but rather integrated those results 
into its analysis of all the requirements of the Plant Siting 
Law.  The PSC relied on significant evidence in the record 
devoted to mitigation payments.  In addition, the PSC's Final 
Decision specifically stated:  "The applicants shall work with 
neighboring communities to mitigate valid concerns and impacts."   
¶150 Finally, the PSC asserts that the health-related costs 
associated with air emissions were outside the scope of the 
PSC's authority.  Wisconsin. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)3. states:   
In its consideration of environmental factors, the 
commission may not determine that the design and 
location or route is not in the public interest 
because of the impact of air pollution if the proposed 
facility will meet the requirements of ch. 285 [a 
chapter charging the DNR with promulgating rules 
regarding air pollution control].   
The statute prohibits the PSC from determining that a project is 
not in the public interest based on air emissions so long as ch. 
285 standards are met.  While cost is a factor under the 
analysis of the public interest requirement, to include the 
health-related costs of air emissions could result in a project 
being rejected for the very reason the statue disallows.  
Therefore, this interpretation of the PSC's duties is not a 
rational one.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
72 
 
¶151 Examining 
the 
numerous 
requirements 
listed 
in 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)2.-8. and forecasting future energy 
needs and prices is a highly technical exercise that the PSC is 
charged with performing.  Deciding what economic factors are, or 
are not, to be included in the computer model is precisely the 
type of determination that the PSC should be given great 
deference to carry out, because it is operating well within its 
area of expertise and it is much better suited to make those 
decisions than is the judiciary.  "It is not the function of a 
reviewing court to dictate the economic analysis to be employed 
in a decision [that] is based upon the expertise and lies within 
the discretion of the PSC."  Seebach v. PSC, 97 Wis. 2d 712, 
728, 295 N.W.2d 753 (Ct. App. 1980).  We conclude that the PSC's 
choice of cost variables for the EGEAS modeling was rational. 
b) 
Failure to Evaluate Higher Priority Fuel Sources  
¶152 Clean Wisconsin next argues that the PSC failed to run 
a modeling analysis of natural gas power "comparable" to the 
EGEAS runs of coal power it performed.  It states that it is 
"critical 
to 
the 
public 
interest 
test, 
which 
requires 
consideration of 'alternative sources of supply,' as well as 
economic, safety, and environmental factors."  The PSC argues 
that it indeed ran models assuming wind power, natural gas, 
biomass, and conservation alternatives, and also conducted an 
"integrated 
alternative" 
combining 
various 
higher 
priority 
sources.  Clean Wisconsin argues that the models are not fully 
"comparable" unless they are premised on the same mega wattage 
for each source.  However, it provides no basis for this 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
73 
 
requirement.  In fact, it provides no basis for the foundation 
of this argument:  that computer modeling is required.   
¶153 Our great weight deference review of the alternate 
source comparison is not concerned with the actual procedures 
utilized by the PSC, but rather we examine whether there is a 
rational basis for the determination of the PSC.  The record 
contains significant evidence supporting the PSC's selection of 
coal over gas for baseload capacity in this case, including:  1) 
a need for significantly expanded baseload facilities; 2) the 
cost and volatility of natural gas prices; 3) the possible 
difficulty of supplying baseload natural gas plants; 4) the lack 
of coal-powered plants built in the last twenty-five years, 
coupled with the aging and retirement of existing coal plants; 
5) the desire for diversifying the utilities' fuel mix; and 6) 
multiple EGEAS runs selecting a coal plant, even after the PSC 
specifically altered inputs in response to such criticisms. 
c) 
Biases in EGEAS Variables 
¶154 Clean Wisconsin next argues that the PSC ignored flaws 
in the EGEAS inputs, including artificially low reliability for 
existing facilities, artificially high availability for ERGS and 
inconsistent allocation of costs, which were all biased in favor 
of making ERGS look more attractive from a cost standpoint.  It 
argues that these biases undermine the reliability of the EGEAS 
forecasts.   
¶155 This issue was specifically addressed in the PSC's 
Final Decision: 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
74 
 
S.C. Johnson criticizes a number of modeling 
inputs, 
alleging 
that 
WEC 
is 
using 
improper 
engineering and fuel data for existing WEPCO units, an 
improper common systems cost allocation to the OCPP 
units, a demand and energy forecast that is too high, 
an improper addition of 200 MW of demand obligations 
for 
WPPI 
and 
MEUW, 
overly favorable 
engineering 
assumptions for the proposed SCPC units, and an 
improper early retirement of certain OCPP and Presque 
Isle units, while it is also ignoring the likely 
availability of additional energy efficiency efforts 
that would reduce the growth in electric demand. 
Commission staff evaluated these concerns, revised 
some of its assumptions, and prepared an EGEAS run to 
demonstrate how these changes would affect the optimal 
expansion plan.  Because it includes additional energy 
efficiency to control electric demand, in addition to 
generation options, Commission staff described this 
run as an "integrated alternative" that integrates the 
energy priorities described in Wis. Stat. §§ 1.12(4) 
and 196.025.  For example, this EGEAS run includes 
lower forecast demand and energy growth rates of 1.8 
to 2.1 percent per year, instead of the 2.5 to 2.9 
percent per year growth rates in the base forecast.  
In addition, a total of 600 MW of demand is stripped 
away from the WEPCO base electric demand forecast, in 
200 MW increments every two years through 2011, to 
reflect 
a 
more 
aggressive 
approach 
to 
energy 
conservation. 
 
This 
integrated 
alternative 
also 
includes a less favorable 4 percent forced outage rate 
for the SCPC units.  
Even with the revised input assumptions of this 
integrated alternative, the EGEAS model results are 
not significantly different.  EGEAS still selects an 
SCPC unit, by the year 2012. 
¶156 While there is also evidence in the record rebutting 
the charge that various inputs were biased, the above discussion 
demonstrates that the PSC was aware of the alleged biases in 
input variables and that even after adjustments were made to 
account for alleged biases, EGEAS selected a coal-fired baseload 
plant.  As the record is clear that the PSC was aware of these 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
75 
 
alleged biases and made substantial efforts to adjust its 
modeling to correct for any defects, we can find no error in the 
PSC's use of EGEAS modeling to assess the statutory requirements 
in § 196.491(3)(d)2.-3.  The PSC clearly has discretion over 
what inputs are utilized for EGEAS modeling.  Simply put, this 
court lacks the technical knowledge and expertise to dictate to 
the PSC what inputs it must utilize in its EGEAS modeling and 
the values for those inputs. 
iii. Least Cost Alternative 
¶157 Calpine argues that it is PSC policy to award CPCNs to 
the least cost alternative, and that in this case, Calpine's 
natural gas proposal for part of the project was the least cost 
alternative.  Calpine cites to previous PSC decisions to support 
its argument that the least cost alternative is routinely 
approved. 
¶158 This argument ignores the text of the Plant Siting Law 
and misconstrues the previous decisions of the PSC upon which 
Calpine relies.  An examination of Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)2.-
8. 
reveals 
that 
"economics" 
is 
but 
one 
factor 
in 
the 
multifaceted decision-making process the PSC utilizes.  As we 
indicated in our discussion of the EPL supra, there is 
significant evidence in the record supporting the decision to 
use coal power for baseload capacity.   
¶159 Contrary to Calpine's argument, prior decisions of the 
PSC 
demonstrate 
that 
cost 
is 
but 
one 
factor 
in 
the 
determination.  For instance, Calpine relies on the following 
language from Investigation on the Comm'n's Own Motion, No. 05-
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
76 
 
EI-112 (Wis. PSC Dec. 28, 1993):  "Under the Commission's 
integrated planning and CPCN principles, the least cost overall 
choice is the option the utility will be authorized to pursue."  
Id. at 19.  However, Calpine takes this statement out of 
context, as immediately preceding that statement, the PSC 
stated:  "The winner . . . at Stage One, is, by definition, the 
lowest overall cost alternative the utility has available, 
considering engineering, economic, health, safety, reliability, 
efficiency and environmental factors."  Id.  (emphasis added).  
Furthermore, the PSC indicated in the same Final Decision that 
"[t]he bidding process selected by the Commission requires 
consideration of a wide range of factors in selecting the 
winning bid(s)."  Id. at 23.   
¶160 In the present case, the PSC clearly followed its past 
precedent of considering all of the statutorily mandated 
factors.  We conclude there was no "practice" of selecting the 
least cost alternative while ignoring the other statutory 
factors. 
iv. Natural Gas Baseload 
¶161 Calpine also argues that their natural-gas alternative 
could be operated as a baseload facility and that there was no 
basis for the PSC's determination that "no gas-fired, baseload 
facilities were presented."  Again, as indicated in our 
discussion of the evaluation of the EPL, there is significant 
evidence in the record supporting the decision to use coal power 
for baseload capacity in this case.  Given the abundant evidence 
supporting the determination that coal power was the only cost-
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
77 
 
effective, technically feasible option for baseload capacity in 
this instance, we conclude that it was reasonable for the PSC to 
rule out natural gas as a baseload fuel. 
¶162 In sum, we conclude that the PSC's interpretation of 
the Energies Priority Law and the Plant Siting Law are entitled 
to 
great 
weight 
deference. 
 
Further, 
we 
conclude 
that 
substantial evidence exists to support the various factual 
findings made by the PSC in applying the provisions of the EPL 
and Plant Siting Law in relation to the selection of type of 
fuel to be used in this project.  Finally, we conclude that a 
rational basis exists to support the PSC's application of these 
provisions to the facts of this case to select ERGS as a site 
for new power generation and coal as a baseload fuel source.    
b. 
Adverse Impact on Environmental Values 
¶163 Calpine also argues that the PSC erroneously failed to 
apply the 
portion 
of 
the 
Plant 
Siting Law 
relating to 
consideration of adverse impacts of the proposed project on the 
environment.  Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)4., the PSC 
must determine that "[t]he proposed facility will not have undue 
adverse impact on . . . environmental values . . . ."  Although 
Calpine recognizes that the PSC made this finding, it advances 
two arguments as to why the PSC could not have made this 
determination.  We reject both of them.   
¶164 Calpine first contends that the PSC cannot lawfully 
make this finding because it has inconsistently applied the 
environmental requirements of Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)4.  For 
support, Calpine marshals a total of two prior CPCN proceedings 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
78 
 
involving two of Calpine's facilities, the Fond du Lac Energy 
Center and a proposed "Sherry plant."  Regarding the Fond du Lac 
Center, Calpine claims that the PSC required Calpine to submit a 
full characterization of the effluent stream from the facility——
including composition, flow rates, temperature, and proposed 
water treatment chemicals——and also required Calpine to confirm 
that all such characteristics were in compliance with applicable 
federal and state requirements. 
¶165 Regarding the Sherry plant, Calpine argues that the 
DNR required Calpine to examine the use of certain off-site 
nonproject alternatives (such as the practicality of using 
another site already approved by the PSC) and alternative power 
sources at the Sherry site.  To be consistent, Calpine claims 
that the PSC should have required a commensurate level of 
analysis 
for 
ERGS 
so 
that 
the 
PSC 
could 
have 
clearly 
demonstrated that ERGS would meet the requisite environmental 
standards. 
¶166 We agree with the PSC that nothing in these two prior 
proceedings mandates how a Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)4. analysis 
is to occur in all cases.  Requiring additional information in 
one project does not necessarily mean it is required in all.  
Given the particulars of these massive projects, and given the 
PSC's expertise in handling what specifics ought to be examined 
in a CPCN proceeding, we must defer to the PSC's determination 
of what information is required for it to make the required 
findings under § 196.491(3)(d)4.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
79 
 
¶167 Calpine's second argument is that the PSC improperly 
delegated its ultimate determination of "no undue adverse 
impacts" under Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)4. to the DNR.37  The 
PSC's 
final 
decision 
recognizes 
that 
ERGS 
remains 
under 
continuing regulatory review by the DNR.  The PSC noted that 
certain aspects of ERGS still required regulatory approvals from 
the DNR, and therefore, the PSC only conditionally issued the 
CPCN.  This court has previously concluded that "an agency may 
assume that any environmental consequences will be controlled 
through compliance with the applicable administrative code 
provisions."  State ex rel. Boehm v. DNR, 174 Wis. 2d 657, 676, 
497 N.W.2d 445 (1993).38   
¶168 Additionally, this court has already recognized the 
DNR's special expertise on environmental matters.  Wis. Envtl. 
Decade, Inc. v. DNR, 115 Wis. 2d 381, 398, 340 N.W.2d 722 
                                                 
37 Even under DNR consideration, Calpine claims that aspects 
of ERGS's once-through cooling system cannot comply with legally 
recognized 
environmental 
standards 
(including 
water 
intake 
standards and thermal plume requirements) and that ERGS had yet 
to be shown to comply with wetland regulations.  However, the 
PSC notes that on January 12, 2005, the DNR published notice of 
its 
intent 
to 
issue 
the 
Wisconsin 
Pollutant 
Discharge 
Elimination System (WPDES) permit for the ERGS facility.  See 
DNR Public Notice of Intent to Reissue a WPDES Permit, No. WI-
0000914-07-0.  The PSC also notes that the DNR has found that 
ERGS complies with wetland requirements.  In the Matter of 
Waterway and Wetland Alterations Relating to the Wisconsin 
Electric Power Co. Oak Creek Power Plant Expansion, Called the 
Elm Road Generating Station, Nos. 3-SE-01-41-0005-0019 & 1456MW 
(Nov. 22, 2004).   
38 We note that State ex rel. Boehm v. DNR, 174 Wis. 2d 657, 
497 N.W.2d 445 (1993), concerned whether to compile an EIS in 
the first instance. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
80 
 
(1983).  Thus, it is not error for the PSC to rely on the DNR's 
expertise and regulatory approval process when making its 
finding 
under 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)4., 
even 
if 
those 
determinations are forthcoming.39  Therefore, we reject Calpine's 
contention that the PSC erred by issuing the CPCN by failing to 
make the required findings under § 196.491(3)(d)4. 
c. 
Effect on Wholesale Competition  
¶169 Calpine argues 
that 
the 
PSC incorrectly applied 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)7., 
which 
requires 
the 
agency 
to 
conclude that "[t]he proposed facility will not have a material 
adverse impact on competition in the relevant wholesale electric 
service market" in order to grant a CPCN.  After reviewing the 
PSC's discussion of the wholesale competition provision in the 
Final Decision, we reject these arguments and conclude Calpine 
fails 
to 
show 
the 
PSC's 
application 
of 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)7. was unreasonable. 
¶170 In 
its 
Final 
Decision, 
the 
PSC 
stated 
that 
a 
determination under Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)7. requires an 
analysis of "market power," which it defined as "the ability of 
a firm to charge prices for its product above what a competitive 
market would allow."  The PSC first noted that its analysis 
needed to focus only on horizontal market power issues because 
vertical market power issues were mitigated by the Midwest 
                                                 
39 At least with respect to ERGS's once-through cooling, the 
PSC's order stated that should the DNR determine that ERGS is 
unpermittable, WEC would then be required to submit a revised 
project application for approval that redesigns or relocates 
ERGS as needed. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
81 
 
Independent System Operator's control over the ATC transmission 
system.  The PSC then cited a 2000 "market power study" for the 
conclusion that the agency's rate reviewing power mitigated 
against market power.  The PSC also noted that the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Agency allows WEPCO to sell in the Wisconsin 
Upper Michigan (WUMS) wholesale electric service market only at 
cost-based rates.   
¶171 In response to concerns that "approval of ERGS would 
have a material adverse impact on competition by preventing the 
development of a competitive wholesale generation sector and 
hindering further electric industry restructuring in Wisconsin," 
the PSC noted that WEPCO planned to continue contracting for 
power with independent power producers, and that W.E. Power LLC, 
the non-utility affiliate that would have majority ownership of 
the corporations that would construct and own ERGS, "could more 
easily be divested by WEC than generating assets that are held 
within WEPCO, should a future legislature split generating plant 
assets away from utilities."   
¶172 Calpine argues that the PSC incorrectly applied the 
wholesale competition provision because the PSC abandoned its 
focus on entry of competitors as the "primary factor" in 
applying the provision, and that the PSC relied only on its rate 
review authority, which does not prevent a material adverse 
impact on competition.   
i. 
Entry of competitors as primary factor 
¶173 Calpine argues that previous PSC Final Decisions have 
emphasized the need for competitors in the wholesale electric 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
82 
 
service market.  For instance, Calpine cites Joint Application 
of Mirant Portage County LLC and Am. Trans. Co. LLC, No. 05-CE-
116 (Wis. PSC Mar. 22, 2002) where the PSC stated:  "The record 
shows that an adverse effect on competition is unlikely because 
the Mirant Portage County power plant project would essentially 
act as a new entrant. . . .  Consequently, the Portage County 
project would be adding a new competitor to WUMS, and thereby 
likely improving the competitive market."  Id. at 10.  Calpine 
also relies on Application of Fond du Lac Energy Center, LLC, 
No. 9343-CE-100 (Wis. PSC May 5, 2003), where the PSC stated: 
The record shows that an adverse effect on competition 
is unlikely because, even with the addition of the 
Fond du Lac Energy Center, Calpine will remain a 
relatively 
small 
operator 
of 
power 
plants 
in 
Wisconsin. . . . In summary, even though WUMS is a 
highly concentrated wholesale electric service market, 
the fact that Calpine's Fond du Lac Energy Center will 
act as a new entrant means that the facility is 
unlikely 
to 
have 
a 
material 
adverse 
impact 
on 
competition in WUMS. 
Id. at 13-14. 
¶174 Calpine 
asserts 
that 
the 
PSC's 
analysis 
of 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)7. is flawed because ERGS does not 
introduce new competitors, while Calpine's proposal would have 
increased competition in the state.  It argues that the focus on 
entry of competitors is supported by the state's policy of 
fostering 
competitive 
marketplaces 
as 
stated 
in 
Wis. Stat. § 133.01: 
133.01. Legislative intent. . . .  It is the intent of 
the legislature to make competition the fundamental 
economic policy of this state and, to that end, state 
regulatory agencies shall regard the public interest 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
83 
 
as requiring the preservation and promotion of the 
maximum level of competition in any regulated industry 
consistent 
with the 
other public 
interest 
goals 
established by the legislature. 
¶175 We find Calpine's arguments unpersuasive.  The plain 
language of the provision rebuts the assertion that "introducing 
competition" is the standard under Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)7., 
as the provision states only that a facility cannot have "a 
material 
adverse 
impact 
on 
competition." 
 
While 
Wis. Stat. § 133.01 states the general policy of the state, 
§ 196.491(3)(d)7. specifically addresses competition in the 
context of CPCN determinations.  Where two statutes apply to the 
same subject, the more specific controls, and this is especially 
true where the specific statute is enacted after the general 
statute. 
 
Martineau 
v. 
State 
Conservation 
Comm'n, 
46 
Wis. 2d 443, 449, 175 N.W.2d 206 (1970).  While introducing 
competitors can be one way in which the requirement of "no 
material adverse impact" can be met, it is not the only way to 
meet the requirement, as other PSC decisions demonstrate.   
¶176 For example, in the Port Washington Order, the PSC 
stated: 
Capacity and energy from the PWGS facility will 
be provided to WEPCO via the Facility Lease, at rates 
this Commission regulates through its review of the 
lease’s 
economic 
terms 
and 
conditions. 
 
This 
regulation prevents any material adverse impact on 
competition in WUMS.  As the market power study 
conducted for the Commission in 2000 by Tabors, 
Caramanis and Associates found, fixed price contracts 
such as the proposed Facility Lease, mitigate market 
power. In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission only allows WEPCO to sell in WUMS at cost-
based rates. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
84 
 
 . . . WEPCO plans to continue contracting for power 
with IPPs, obtaining up to 1,000 MW of capacity from 
these 
providers. 
 
Furthermore, 
a 
stand-alone 
generation company such as W.E. Power LLC could more 
easily be divested by WEC than generating assets that 
are held within WEPCO, should a future legislature 
split the generating plant assets away from utilities.  
For these reasons, the Commission finds that approval 
of the PWGS project will not create material adverse 
impacts on competition. 
Port Washington Order, at 24. 
¶177 Likewise, in its Weston Order, the PSC stated: 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 
196.491(3)(d)7. 
requires 
the 
Commission to discern whether the addition of Weston 4 
to WPSC's electric supply portfolio would have a 
material adverse impact on competition in the relevant 
wholesale electric service market.  The Commission 
finds it would not.  Prices, terms, and conditions of 
the capacity and energy being sold to native load 
customers will be regulated by the Commission. 
Weston Order, at 19-20.  These examples indicate that the PSC 
previously 
has 
concluded 
that 
the 
wholesale 
competition 
requirement was met based on factors other than the "introducing 
competitors" rationale.    
ii. Reliance on rate review authority 
 
¶178 Calpine argues that the PSC erred by reasoning that 
its rate reviewing power mitigated against market power.  It 
contends the rate reviewing authority does not encourage the 
entrance of competitors.  We reject Calpine's argument because 
as we concluded above, an application for a CPCN need not prove 
that the plan will introduce competitors into the wholesale 
electric service marketplace in order to meet the requirement in 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)7. that the "proposed facility will 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
85 
 
not have a material adverse impact on competition" in that 
market.   
¶179 Calpine next argues that using the agency's rate 
reviewing power as a basis for meeting the wholesale competition 
requirement in Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)7. is in error because 
it renders § 196.491(3)(d)7. superfluous.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Trewin, 2004 WI 116, ¶38, 275 Wis. 2d 116, 
684 N.W.2d 121 (2004) ("'It is a cardinal rule that when 
interpreting a statute a court must attempt to give effect to 
every word, so as not to render any portion of the statute 
superfluous.'")(citation omitted).  Calpine argues that if the 
wholesale competition requirement in § 196.491(3)(d)7. can be 
met by the PSC's duty to regulate rates, then § 196.491(3)(d)7. 
is "mere surplussage."   
¶180 We reject this argument because we conclude that the 
PSC did not rely solely on its rate reviewing authority for its 
conclusion that the wholesale competition requirement was met.  
The PSC's rate reviewing power was one basis noted in the Final 
Decision that mitigated against market power.  The PSC also 
noted that the Federal Energy Regulatory Agency allows WEPCO to 
sell in WUMS only at cost-based rates and that WEPCO planned to 
continue contracting for power with independent power producers. 
Further, the PSC noted that W.E. Power LLC, the non-utility 
affiliate that would have majority ownership of the corporations 
that would construct and own ERGS, "could more easily be 
divested by WEC than generating assets that are held within 
WEPCO, should a future legislature split generating plant assets 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
86 
 
away from utilities."  The PSC cited all of these factors as 
reasons it concluded ERGS would not materially harm competition, 
so the argument that PSC's rate review alone satisfies the 
wholesale competition requirement is not supported by the 
record.40 
¶181 In sum, we reject Calpine's arguments that the PSC 
incorrectly applied Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)7. to its CPCN 
determination here.  We conclude Calpine fails to show the PSC's 
application of Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)7. was unreasonable. 
d. 
Common Systems Approval  
¶182 As previously noted, WEC's CPCN application originally 
proposed two SCPC units and a single IGCC unit.  Construction of 
these units would involve building certain "common systems" 
designed to service all three proposed units.  The PSC 
ultimately approved the construction of only the two SCPC units.  
However, in its final decision and order, the PSC approved the 
construction of "common systems" capable of supporting a system 
output greater than that of the two SCPC units.  The PSC 
reasoned:   
In approving construction of the SCPC units for 
2009 and 2010, the Commission must ascertain the 
                                                 
40 Calpine indicates that in at least one previous CPCN 
proceeding the PSC required an affiliate of a utility to submit 
to a market power screen analysis because of concerns about 
market power.  See Application of Alliant Energy Resources, 
Inc., No. 9349-EB-100 (Wis. PSC Dec. 20, 2002).  Calpine does 
not develop an argument explaining why the market power analysis 
is necessary or even contend that the PSC was required to order 
the analysis here.  We will not address undeveloped arguments.  
See Barakat, 191 Wis. 2d at 786.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
87 
 
appropriate costs to be placed into each Facility 
Lease as the "Approved Amount."  ERGS includes common 
facilities that would serve 1,800 MW of new coal-fired 
capacity as well as 1,200 MW of existing coal-fired 
capacity from OCPP, i.e., a 3,000 MW "campus" at this 
site.  Although the Commission has rejected the IGCC 
unit, it finds that a 3,000 MW coal campus remains an 
appropriate size, because it affords future planning 
flexibility to WEC.  The additional cost of sizing 
common systems at 3,000 MW, instead of 2,400 MW, is 
approximately $20 million, which is a modest amount to 
pay 
in 
order 
to 
provide 
additional 
planning 
flexibility.   
Thus, the PSC's final order provided that "[a]lthough the 
application to construct an IGCC unit is denied, [WEC] may 
construct common facilities with the SCPC units to accommodate 
up to 3,000 MW of generation at this site." 
¶183 The circuit court vacated the PSC's order to the 
extent that it approved construction of "common systems" not 
necessary to operate a 2,400 MW facility.  The circuit court 
noted 
that 
while 
the 
PSC's 
order 
demonstrated 
"prudent 
foresight," authorization of the construction of these common 
facilities was error because "there is to be no construction of 
any generating facility until there has been the issuance of a 
CPCN" pursuant to § 196.491(3).  The circuit court stated that 
by approving the common facilities, the PSC was forcing 
ratepayers to bear the cost of a facility for which a CPCN had 
not been issued.  Additionally, the circuit court stated that 
allowing construction of these facilities would unduly influence 
the site selection for any future proposed utility construction.   
¶184 Clean Wisconsin urges this court to affirm the circuit 
court's 
order, 
arguing 
that 
the 
PSC's 
order 
violated 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
88 
 
§ 196.491(3)(d)2.-3. 
and 
that 
the 
"PSC 
has 
effectively 
predetermined that additional coal units at this location are in 
the public interest, without considering alternative sites, at 
the same time that it explicitly determined that another coal 
unit is not in the public interest."  Clean Wisconsin's Resp. 
Br. at 49.  In contrast, the PSC and WEC argue that the PSC did 
not approve a new facility without a CPCN; rather, it merely 
authorized the construction of systems to service the two plants 
for which it did issue a CPCN and allowed those systems to 
accommodate future expansion.  The PSC and WEC argue there is 
nothing in § 196.491 that prohibits the PSC's action in this 
regard.  We conclude that the PSC's approval of the common 
systems was not contrary to law and had a rational basis.    
¶185 First, we reject the suggestion of Clean Wisconsin and 
the circuit court that by authorizing the construction of common 
systems with excess capacity the PSC approved an additional 
facility without issuing a CPCN in violation of the Plant Siting 
Law.  There is no dispute that the PSC would be required to 
issue a CPCN for the construction of a third "facility."  
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)1. 
 
However, 
the 
common 
systems 
approved by the PSC are not a "facility," which is defined as "a 
large 
electric 
generating 
facility 
or 
a 
high-voltage 
transmission line."  Wis. Stat. § 196.491(1)(e).41  The "common 
                                                 
41 In contrast, WEC's third proposed plant, the IGCC, which 
was not approved by the PSC, would have required a CPCN in order 
to be approved.  Likewise, the PSC would be required to comply 
with all applicable laws and issue a CPCN for any proposed 
future facility at the Oak Creek Site.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
89 
 
systems" to which Clean Wisconsin objects include "a cooling 
water structure which will extend from the site onto Lake 
Michigan and also coal handling facilities."  There is no 
dispute that this equipment is required to operate the two SCPC 
power plants the PSC approved.  The PSC simply authorized WEC to 
size this equipment to support capacity in excess of the output 
of the two SCPCs.  Simply put, nothing in the text of 
§ 196.491(3) 
prohibits 
the 
PSC 
from 
authorizing 
integral 
components of a "facility" for which it issues a CPCN to be 
sized so as to support added capacity.    
¶186 As the PSC's order does not contravene the express 
language of § 196.491(3), we must assess whether the PSC had a 
rational basis for authorizing some of the components of the 
SCPCs to be sized so as to support added capacity.  The PSC's 
order stated:  "The additional cost of sizing common systems at 
3,000 MW, instead of 2,400 MW, is approximately $20 million, 
which is a modest amount to pay in order to provide additional 
planning flexibility."  In essence, the PSC concluded that it 
would be more cost effective to allow WEC to build needed 
systems larger than are necessary at the present time rather 
than requiring the construction of duplicate systems at a higher 
cost should there be a future expansion at the Oak Creek site.  
This clearly constitutes a rational basis for the PSC's order.   
 
 
 
 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
90 
 
3. 
Environmental Impact Statement 
¶187 Clean Wisconsin argues the PSC and DNR's EIS42 did not 
adequately consider the environmental impacts of ERGS, as 
required by the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA), 
Wis. Stat. § 1.11.  We disagree. 
¶188 "The purpose of WEPA is to insure that agencies 
consider environmental impacts during decision making."  Boehm, 
174 Wis. 2d at 665.  That purpose includes effecting an across-
the-board 
adjustment of 
priorities in 
the 
decision-making 
processes of state agencies.  Wis. Envtl. Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 
79 Wis. 2d 409, 416, 256 N.W.2d 149 (1977) (WED III).  WEPA 
"requires that agencies consider and evaluate the environmental 
consequences of alternatives available to them and undertake 
that consideration in the framework provided by [§ 1.11]."  
Boehm, 174 Wis. 2d at 665.  WEPA constitutes a clear legislative 
declaration that protection of the environment is an essential 
mandate of every state agency and an essential component of 
state policy.  WED III, 79 Wis. 2d at 416.  WEPA does not 
directly control agency discretion; rather, it represents an 
                                                 
42 The PSC and DNR jointly prepared the EIS, with the PSC 
functioning as the lead agency.  See Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 
4.60(3).   
An EIS is "an environmental analysis which is prepared to 
inform decision-makers and the public of a proposed action's 
effect on the environment, and develops, describes and evaluates 
alternatives in the detailed statement required by s. 1.11 
Stats."  Wis. Admin. Code § NR 150.02(11) (Jan., 2003).  All 
subsequent references to Wis. Admin. Code § NR 150 are to the 
January 2003 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
91 
 
important procedural step agencies must take during their 
decision-making process.  Id.  If the adverse environmental 
consequences of the proposed action are adequately evaluated, 
WEPA does not prevent an agency from determining that other 
values outweigh the environmental costs.  See Robertson v. 
Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 351 (1989) 
("[National 
Environmental 
Policy 
Act] 
merely 
prohibits 
uninformed——rather than unwise——agency action.").43 
¶189 The purpose of the EIS is to enable agencies to take a 
"hard look" at the environmental consequences of a proposed 
action. 
 
Milwaukee 
Brewers 
Baseball 
Club 
v. 
DHSS, 
130 
Wis. 2d 56, 72, 387 N.W.2d 245 (1986); WED IV, 98 Wis. 2d at 
690.  To the extent that relevant information is complete and 
available,44 the EIS "shall evaluate reasonably foreseeable, 
                                                 
43 Because WEPA was patterned on the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (1970), federal law 
construing NEPA is persuasive authority.  See Wis. Envtl. 
Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 79 Wis. 2d 161, 174, 255 N.W.2d 917 (1977) 
(WED II). 
44 If information is incomplete or unavailable, the EIS 
shall: 
1. Indicate the availability of the information. 
2. Describe the information's relevance. 
3. Summarize available, credible scientific evidence 
that is relevant to the evaluation. 
4. Evaluate effects based upon theoretical approaches 
or 
research 
methods 
generally 
accepted 
in 
the 
scientific community. 
Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.30(b)1.-4. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
92 
 
significant 
effects 
to 
the 
human 
environment . . . ."  
Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.30(1)(b).  The required content of an 
EIS is set forth in the administrative regulations.  See 
Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.30(3); Wis. Admin. Code § NR 150.22(2). 
¶190 This court's review of an EIS is narrow.  The PSC's 
determination that an EIS is adequate is a conclusion of law to 
which this court accords great weight deference.  Citizens' 
Util. Bd., 211 Wis. 2d at 550.  As such, it is not our role to 
evaluate the adequacy of the EIS; we instead evaluate whether 
the 
PSC's 
determination 
that 
the 
EIS 
was 
adequate 
was 
reasonable.  Id. at 553-54.  Clean Wisconsin bears the burden of 
demonstrating that the PSC's determination that the EIS was 
adequate was without a rational basis.   
¶191 Aside from these principles, we are also mindful that 
"[n]o matter how exhaustive the discussion of environmental 
impacts in a particular EIS might be, a challenger can always 
point to a potentiality that was not addressed."  Id. at 554.  
While reasonable alternatives are to be considered, every 
potentiality need not be evaluated, as "[t]he duty of an agency 
to prepare an EIS does not require it to engage in remote and 
speculative analysis."  Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, 130 
Wis. 2d at 72 (citing Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. 
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (1978)).  
We must assess an EIS in light of the "rule of reason," which 
requires an EIS "to furnish only such information as appears to 
be reasonably necessary under the circumstances for evaluation 
of the project rather than to be so all-encompassing in scope 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
93 
 
that the task of preparing it would become either fruitless or 
well nigh impossible."  New York v. Kleppe, 429 U.S. 1307, 1311 
(1976); See also Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, 130 Wis. 2d at 
72.  With these principles in hand, we now turn to Clean 
Wisconsin's arguments. 
a. 
Cost Effectiveness of Lower Emitting Alternatives 
 
¶192 Clean Wisconsin argues that the EIS did not analyze 
the availability and cost effectiveness of lower emitting 
alternatives to ERGS's SCPC units.  Clean Wisconsin claims that 
ERGS will emit approximately two billion pounds of pollutants 
into the air over a projected 50 years of operation.  As a 
consequence, Clean Wisconsin contends that the EIS was required 
to take a hard look at SCPC technology and consider whether 
alternative, cleaner technologies——such as wind, natural gas, or 
IGCC——could be used at a reasonable cost instead of coal-fired 
technology utilized in ERGS.  We conclude that there was a 
rational basis for the PSC to conclude that the EIS adequately 
addressed these concerns.   
¶193 Chapter 4 
of the 
EIS is 
devoted 
to 
the 
cost 
effectiveness of lower-emitting alternatives.45  Our review of 
that section reveals that the PSC considered the environmental 
effects of taking no action, increasing energy efficiency 
(through conservation, load management, and fuel switching), the 
                                                 
45 Although Clean Wisconsin criticizes the PSC's EGEAS 
modeling, we have already concluded that the choice of variables 
utilized in EGEAS is a matter left to the sound discretion and 
expertise of the PSC.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
94 
 
environmental costs of renewable fuel sources (wind, solar, 
hydro electric, biomass, and biogas sources), as well as natural 
gas as alternatives to ERGS.  Most of the data concerning these 
alternatives is extremely technical.  With regard to Clean 
Wisconsin's 
particular 
complaint, 
and 
as 
a 
distilled 
illustration, we note the EIS evaluated wind generation, both 
from on and offshore locations.  The EIS explained that after 
considering the overall costs of wind generation (the credit to 
reserve margin, capital, and operating and maintenance costs, a 
capacity of 35 percent assuming a 16 mph wind at 100 meters two 
miles offshore, and the speculative continuing viability of the 
federal product tax credit for wind generation of $18 per MWh, 
adjusted for inflation), it is not likely capable of replacing 
ERGS as a stand-alone alternative.  Applying great weight 
deference, we conclude that the PSC's determination that this 
evaluation was adequate is reasonable. 
¶194 Regarding the consideration of natural gas, we note 
that the EIS evaluated Calpine's 523 MW natural gas plant 
proposal, as well as the consequences of a 30-year expansion 
that relied exclusively on natural gas.46  Also, the EIS included 
an appendix incorporating another EIS completed for Calpine's 
                                                 
46 We understand Clean Wisconsin's argument to require that 
natural gas always be selected over lower priority alternatives, 
notwithstanding 
the 
need 
for 
adequate 
supply 
or 
other 
countervailing considerations.  We have already concluded that 
the PSC may take into account the reasonable needs of the public 
for an adequate supply of electric energy and that the PSC's 
choice of variables for EGEAS forecasting was reasonable.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
95 
 
Fox Energy Center, a 530 MW natural gas power plant.  See also 
Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.60; WED III, 79 Wis. 2d at 424 n.14 
(agency should not ignore previous investigations).  The Fox 
Energy Center EIS noted that "project emissions from a natural 
gas-fired plant operating 100 percent of the time are much lower 
for most criteria pollutants than a similarly sized coal-fired 
power plant using the SCPC technology."  Comparing the coal-
fired ERGS with the 1050 MW natural gas-fired Badger Generating 
Plant, the Fox Energy Center EIS noted that emissions of NOx, CO, 
PM10, SO2, ammonia, and VOC (volatile organic compounds) are all 
significantly lower in the similarly sized natural gas plant. 
The Fox Energy Center EIS also noted that CO2 emissions from a 
500 MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle plant would be about 
450,000 tons per year compared to about 3.5 million or more tons 
per year for a 600 MW coal plant.   
¶195 However, the EIS nevertheless concluded that because 
of the "extreme volatility" of natural gas prices, and the need 
for predictable planning, a natural gas alternative to ERGS was 
not cost effective.  Thus, there is a rational basis to conclude 
that the EIS adequately addressed reasonable natural gas 
alternatives to ERGS.   
¶196 Finally, Clean Wisconsin argues that the EIS was 
deficient 
because 
it 
failed 
to 
evaluate 
the 
effects 
of 
constructing enough IGCC units to equal ERGS's capacity.  The 
EIS did note that EGEAS modeling demonstrated that the single 
600 MW IGCC unit that was initially proposed as part of ERGS was 
not cost-effective.  Given that the PSC determined that one IGCC 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
96 
 
unit was not cost effective, the PSC's decision not to evaluate 
a number of IGCC units in the EIS was not unreasonable.  In 
addition, we note that there was no IGCC proposal submitted that 
would rival ERGS, and an EIS does not have to engage in remote 
or speculative analysis.  Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, 130 
Wis. 2d at 
72. 
 
We 
therefore 
conclude 
that 
the 
PSC's 
determination that the EIS adequately discussed natural gas 
alternatives was reasonable. 
b. 
Once-Through Cooling 
¶197 Next, Clean Wisconsin contends that the EIS failed to 
analyze alternatives to ERGS's once-through cooling——a process 
that would aspirate cold water from Lake Michigan, cycle it 
through the plant for cooling purposes, and then dispel it back 
into Lake Michigan——and failed to analyze the impacts this would 
have on Lake Michigan.  The once-through cooling process would 
draw 
an 
enormous 
amount 
of 
water 
from 
Lake 
Michigan 
(approximately 740,000 gallons per minute), which would possibly 
kill millions of aquatic organisms every year.  Clean Wisconsin 
notes that there are alternatives to this cooling process, 
including cooling towers (that withdraw less water and also 
reuse the water) and dry cooling (that uses very little water 
and would have virtually no adverse aquatic impacts).  Clean 
Wisconsin also notes that the last coal-fired power plant that 
was built (in Pleasant Prairie) uses cooling towers.  According 
to 
Clean 
Wisconsin, 
the 
EIS's 
failure 
to 
discuss 
these 
alternatives constitutes 
a 
fundamental 
violation 
of 
WEPA.  
Calpine also adds that the EIS failed to discuss the cumulative 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
97 
 
impacts of ERGS's once-through cooling.  We disagree with both 
arguments.  
¶198 At the outset, we note that the EIS thoroughly 
analyzed the consequences of once-through cooling.  The EIS 
examined a monitoring study completed in the mid-1970s of the 
effects of OCPP's once-through cooling system on Lake Michigan.  
After noting the large number of aquatic organisms that were 
impinged and entrained due to this technology,47 the EIS observed 
that the study ultimately concluded that once-through cooling 
has "inconsequential" effects on overall affected populations' 
ecosystems.48  The EIS commented that the monitoring report 
determined: 
The absolute magnitude of the number of fish, larvae, 
or eggs impinged or entrained is not a measure of the 
significance of the impact.  Rather, the losses must 
be evaluated relative to the sizes and productivity of 
the affected populations.  The report concluded that, 
relative to the Lake Michigan fishery, the impacts of 
entrainment and impingement were inconsequential to 
aquatic life in Lake Michigan.  The DNR concurred with 
that conclusion. 
                                                 
47 Impingement occurs when fish and other aquatic life are 
trapped against cooling water intake screens that remove debris 
from the cooling water as it enters the intake system.  In 
contrast, entrainment occurs when aquatic organisms, eggs, and 
larvae are drawn into a cooling system, through the heat 
exchanger, and then pumped back out to the water.   
48 According to the one-year monitoring study conducted from 
March 1, 1975, through February 29, 1976, of the old OCPP 
plants, 6,202,407 fish larvae, 9,281,370 eggs, and 15.6 million 
invertebrates 
were 
entrained, 
and 
2,754,118 
fish weighing 
109,414 pounds were impinged at the plant during the sampling 
period.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
98 
 
¶199 Regarding the discharged water, the EIS also indicated 
that a study of once-through cooling at the OCPP site along with 
several other studies for large power plants on Lake Michigan 
conducted in the 1970's "concluded that operation of the power 
plants did not significantly affect fish populations in the 
general vicinity surrounding each facility, or in the far-field 
areas that were studied beyond thermal plume limits."  Further, 
the EIS stated that "[t]hese studies indicated that both the 
individual and the aggregate impacts of power plant cooling 
water 
discharges 
on 
the 
Lake 
Michigan 
ecosystem 
were 
insignificant, and were limited to localized shifts in fish 
distribution 
and 
periphyton 
growth 
in 
areas 
immediately 
associated with the thermal plumes."  
¶200 Different minds can disagree on what constitutes 
"inconsequential" effects, but we are not making a qualitative 
assessment of our own, nor are we independently reviewing the 
PSC and DNR's conclusion.  Instead, we are merely looking for 
whether there is a rational basis for the PSC to conclude that 
the EIS took a "hard look" at the environmental effects of the 
once-through cooling system.  We conclude that there is.  If the 
adverse environmental consequences of once-through cooling are 
adequately evaluated, WEPA does not prevent an agency from 
determining that other values outweigh the environmental costs.  
See Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350.  Because the adequacy of the EIS 
is 
intertwined 
with 
factual, 
value, 
and 
public 
policy 
considerations, 
we 
will 
defer 
to 
those 
agencies 
whose 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
99 
 
responsibility it is to make those determinations.  See 
Citizens' Util. Bd., 211 Wis. 2d at 552. 
¶201 In addition to the studies from the 1970s, the EIS 
considered and discussed current data concerning the effects of 
the proposed once-through cooling structure.  The EIS stated: 
In February 2003, the applicants submitted a report, 
titled "Oak Creek Power Plant and Proposed Elm Road 
Station Cooling Water Intake and Lake Monitoring 
Study, February 2003."  The report described the 
results from the first year of a two-year program, 
which will be used to determine the abundance of fish 
eggs and larvae in the vicinity of the existing on-
shore intake structure and the site of the proposed 
new off-shore intake structure.  The data presented in 
this and the final report will be used to help 
establish location, design, and operational parameters 
for achieving compliance with the impingement and 
entrainment reduction criteria in the proposed EPA 
regulations 
for 
intake 
structures 
at 
existing 
facilities. 
This 
report 
summarized 
data 
from 
icthyoplankton 
collections collected from June through September 
2002, at transects near the present intake . . . and 
the site of the new intake . . . .  This data clearly 
shows a marked reduction in total icthyoplankton 
densities at the 40 ft contour (the depth of the 
probable new intake structure site) in comparison to 
near-shore contours.  Offsetting the benefit of the 
reduced icthyoplankton density at the far-shore intake 
site is the fact that the cooling water demand would 
increase incrementally as new units are added to the 
intake.   
The second phase of the study will involve near-shore 
and far-shore icthyoplankton collections from early 
May through September, 2003.  Off-shore icthyoplankton 
sampling will be focused more precisely at the 
proposed intake location.  
This February report gave calculated intake velocities 
at the present nearshore structure ranging from 0.5 to 
1.8 ft/second (one to four pumps, respectively).  The 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
100 
 
proposed design velocity at the entrance to the 
proposed offshore structure (whether consisting of 
intake cribs or velocity caps) is 1.0 ft/second; 
however, a velocity range of 0.5 ft/second to 1.0 
ft/second is under consideration as detailed design 
for the caps or cribs is finalized.  It should be 
noted that limiting intake velocity is not the sole 
factor in determining how best to design an intake 
structure to minimize adverse environmental impacts to 
fish and other aquatic life.  If the velocity is 
reduced, there is a proportional increase in the 
intake area needed.  This would require additional 
cribs or caps.  Since the location selected is a sandy 
featureless area of the lake bottom, the potential 
impacts of adding more structure to the lake bottom 
must be weighed against the potential benefits of 
reducing the approach velocity.   
Based on Electric Power Research Institute report [a 
report drafted in December of 2000], a velocity of 1 
ft/second has the potential to pull in salmon that are 
less than 10 cm in total length.  This is based on 
EPRI's review of all published or otherwise available 
fish swim speed data.  These data generally show that 
small (under 10 cm in length) salmon have sustainable 
swimming speeds that are less than 1 ft/second.   
Small salmon greater than 10 cm in length size have 
swimming speeds that are typically greater than one 
ft/second.  Thus, these larger fish should be able to 
avoid the currents surrounding the intake structure 
caps/cribs.  Data are not available for trout, but the 
swimming speeds are expected to be similar to salmon.  
If fish enter the tunnel and reach the pumphouse, fish 
removal will occur at the traveling water screens.  
The traveling water screens for this project have not 
yet 
been 
selected, 
but 
there 
are 
designs 
and 
operations (low pressure and/or continuous screen 
wash) that can increase fish survival if impingement 
occurs.   
(Footnote omitted.)   
¶202 In 
addition 
to 
the 
above 
in-depth 
discussion 
concerning the effects of the intake component of the proposed 
once-through cooling system, the EIS similarly discussed the 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
101 
 
effects of the water discharge component of the proposed once-
through cooling system.  For example, the EIS provided: 
Potential 
impacts 
of 
construction 
of 
the 
water 
discharge structure 
The impacts to Lake Michigan from the construction of 
the discharge structure include temporary impacts such 
as local increases in turbidity within the water 
column, reductions in local dissolved oxygen levels, 
and the reductions in local light penetration.  The 
construction of the discharge structure would also 
temporarily disrupt and possibly destroy the local 
flora, fauna and aquatic habitat, including fish.  
Measures such as silt curtains or turbidity barriers 
would be required to reduce the extent of these 
temporary impacts.  The long-term effects of the 
placement and operation of the discharge structure 
include a loss or modification to the existing aquatic 
and nearshore habitat area, and changes to local water 
quality.  If the discharge structure is placed north 
of the existing coal dock the presence of the 
discharge structure may disrupt local wildlife species 
which utilize the sand beach in this area and would 
likely require more frequent maintenance dredging of 
the discharge channel due to littoral drift in this 
area.   
Potential impacts of operation of the water discharge 
structure 
The anticipated maximum flow through rate for each 
SCPC unit and the IGCC is 485,000 gpm with a 
temperature rise of 12 [degrees] F.  The maximum heat 
rejection rate for the three units combined would be 
8,740 million BTU/h. 
The primary effluent from the OCPP is once-through 
cooling water from the steam condensers.  No chemicals 
are added to the water; therefore, temperature is the 
only water quality parameter significantly affected by 
the discharge of cooling water.  Heated effluent from 
the two proposed SCPC units would be discharged north 
of the coal dock through either a single or combined 
outfall structure or combined with the SCPC outfall.  
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
102 
 
 . . . . 
Zebra mussel control 
At the lake bottom intake structure, the only option 
for zebra mussel control would be manual cleaning by 
divers.  The intake drop shafts and tunnels should not 
have significant zebra mussel accumulations because 
velocities would be too high (over six feet per 
second) for mussel settlement to occur.   
Pump house wet wells, frames for the traveling water 
screens, 
pump 
bell 
housings 
and 
other 
on-shore 
equipment would also need to be periodically cleaned.  
Plant service water would be treated using the copper 
ion generator that has been successfully used at the 
existing OCPP units 5-8.  This device involves the 
electrolytic dissolution of a low level of copper ions 
and also releases an aluminum floc. Parts-per-billion 
levels of copper cause the mussels to be agitated and 
the inside of the plant water system becomes less 
habitable.  Mussels likely would continue to free 
float through the system and ultimately be returned 
back to the lake.  Furthermore, the aluminum floc 
forms a coating inside of piping, heating exchangers 
and other equipment using service water which helps 
inhibit zebra mussel settlement.   
The copper ion generator is located downstream of the 
traveling water screens.  Condenser cooling water 
zebra mussel treatment is not anticipated based on 
operational experience at other WEPCO facilities on 
Lake Michigan.  This could differ at the ERGS units 
depending on the water quality from the off-shore 
intake location and 
metallurgy of 
the 
condenser 
tubing.  At this time, there is not a specific plan 
for controlling zebra mussels in the condenser cooling 
water.   
¶203 In 
sum, 
the 
EIS 
contained 
a 
plethora 
of 
data 
concerning the environmental impacts of the proposed once-
through cooling system, including both older and newer studies 
of the likely effects of the system on the local aquatic 
environment.  In addition to noting a variety of likely adverse 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
103 
 
environmental impacts of the proposed once-through cooling 
system, the EIS also discussed proposed remedial action and 
strategies to lessen the projected effects.49  We conclude that 
the data and factual findings contained in the EIS concerning 
the projected adverse environmental consequences of the once-
through cooling system allowed the PSC to take a "hard look" at 
the 
environmental 
consequences 
of 
this 
proposed 
action, 
Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, 130 Wis. 2d at 72, and provided 
it with a rational basis to conclude that the EIS adequately 
described the effects of once-through cooling.  We again 
emphasize that the EIS is an informational tool that does not 
compel a particular decision by the agency or prevent the agency 
from concluding that other values outweigh the environmental 
consequences of a proposed action.   
¶204 The EIS also acknowledged that coal-fired plants could 
be constructed using cooling towers, although the efficiency of 
such plants would likely be reduced.  Commenting on the draft 
                                                 
49 The final EIS also provided: 
Currently, US EPA and the DNR disagree on which 
regulation, "new facility" or "existing facility" is 
applicable to the ERGS.  It has been the DNR's 
position 
that 
the 
proposed 
"existing 
facility" 
regulation 
is 
applicable 
to 
the 
ERGS 
project. . . . The EIS states that, regardless of the 
characterization of the proposed units as new or 
existing under the 316(b) requirements, the WPDES 
permit will require Best Technology Available (BTA).  
BTA 
requirements 
should 
minimize 
impingement 
and 
entrainment.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
104 
 
EIS, several entities50 requested that the EIS discuss other 
possibilities 
to 
once-through 
cooling. 
 
The 
EIS 
writers 
responded: 
Once through cooling water and closed-cycle cooling 
are commonly used cooling alternatives.  WEPCO has 
proposed to use once-through cooling water for the 
ERGS.  The Clean Water Act does not prohibit the use 
of once-through cooling water, nor does it compel 
anyone to use closed-cycle cooling.  DNR does not have 
the authority to require closed-cycle cooling for this 
project. 
In addition, the EIS explained that it would be premature to 
discuss the comparative effects of once-through cooling versus 
closed-cycle cooling or cooling towers until the DNR and EPA 
agree on the BTA to which the ERGS facility would be held.51 
                                                 
50 The entities include:  The Lake Michigan Federation, 
Citizens' Utility Board, and S.C. Johnson.   
51 Pursuant 
to 
the 
"new" 
requirements 
for 
existing 
generation facilities, BTA is determined by the EPA on a case-
by-case basis, considering a variety of site-specific factors: 
 
The 
phrases 
"best 
available 
demonstrated 
technology"; and "best available technology"——like 
"best technology available" in CWA section 316(b)——are 
not defined in the statute.  However, section 304 of 
the 
CWA 
specifies 
factors 
to 
be 
considered 
in 
establishing the best practicable control technology 
currently available, and best available technology. 
 . . . . 
 
For "best available technology," the CWA directs 
EPA to consider: 
The 
age 
of 
equipment 
and 
facilities 
involved, 
the 
process 
employed, 
the 
engineering aspects . . . of various types 
of control techniques, process changes, the 
cost of achieving such effluent reduction, 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
105 
 
¶205 While an EIS should analyze reasonable alternatives to 
the proposed action and discuss measures that can mitigate 
environmental harm, it is not required to discuss unreasonable 
alternatives.  Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, 130 Wis. 2d at 
72.  We construe the EIS's writers' response as concluding that 
cooling towers are not a reasonable alternative due to the DNR's 
inability to require them.  The EIS writers essentially 
concluded that until the EPA and DNR determined the BTA 
applicable to the ERGS facilities, it would not be reasonable to 
discuss some alternatives the DNR would not be empowered to 
require through its permit process.  See Citizens' Util. Bd., 
211 Wis. 2d at 556 ("Section 1.11, Stats., does not require an 
agency to 'engage in remote and speculative analysis[.]'").  
                                                                                                                                                             
non-water 
quality 
environmental 
impacts 
(including energy requirements), and such 
other factors as [EPA] deems appropriate.   
33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(2)(B). 
Section 316(b) expressly refers to section 301, and 
the phrase "best technology available" is very similar 
to "best technology available" in that section.  These 
facts, coupled with the brevity of section 316(b) 
itself, prompted EPA to look to section 301 and, 
ultimately, section 304 for guidance in determining 
the "best technology available to minimize adverse 
environmental 
impact" 
of 
cooling 
water 
intake 
structures for existing Phase II facilities.  
National 
Pollutant 
Discharge 
Elimination 
System——Final 
Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake 
Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; Final Rule, 69 Fed. 
Reg. 41,576, 41,583 (July 9, 2004)(to be codified at 40 CFR pts. 
9, 122-125).   
 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
106 
 
Given that the PSC is 
best situated 
to 
determine 
what 
constitutes a reasonable alternative, we cannot conclude that 
the PSC's determination that this analysis is reasonable lacks a 
rational basis.  See id. at 553, 560 (PSC may rationally limit 
its EIS discussion to what it found was reasonably necessary to 
meet present needs). 
¶206 Regarding the EIS's discussion of mitigating the harm 
from the once-through cooling process, the EIS responded to 
another criticism that the draft EIS did not sufficiently 
discuss once-through cooling or how it can be deemed to be "best 
technology available."  The EIS stated: 
EPA has promulgated regulations for cooling water 
intake structures for new facilities, and has proposed 
regulations for cooling water intake structures for 
existing facilities.  Both the promulgated 316(b) 
regulations for new facilities and the proposed 316(b) 
regulations for existing facilities provide for site-
specific alternatives to the use of a cooling tower.  
Currently, US EPA and the DNR disagree on which 
regulation is applicable to the ERGS facilities.  It 
has 
been 
the 
DNR's 
position 
that 
the 
proposed 
"existing facility" regulation is applicable to the 
ERGS project.  The EIS states that, regardless of the 
characterization of the proposed units as new or 
existing under the 316(b) requirements, the WPDES 
permit will require Best Technology Available (BTA). 
If ultimately the DNR and EPA agree that the 
intake should be regulated under the promulgated "new 
facility" regulation, then WEPCO would request a site-
specific determination of the BTA.  At that juncture, 
the DNR would require the comparative impact analysis 
of closed versus open cycle cooling.   
If ultimately the DNR and EPA agree that the 
intake 
should 
be 
regulated 
under 
the 
proposed 
"existing facility" regulation, then the DNR will 
require WEPCO 
to 
demonstrate that 
the 
location, 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
107 
 
design, and operation of the intake will reduce fish 
and shellfish impingement mortality by 80 to 95 
percent and entrainment by 60 to 90 percent.  Fish 
deterrent systems, barrier nets, modified Ristroph 
screens with fish return systems, aquatic filter 
barriers, variable speed pumps, fine mesh traveling 
screens, angled and modular inclined screens, and low 
pressure spray washes may be used. 
Siting of the intake is also critical for 
minimizing impingement and entrainment.  In general, 
the littoral zone of large lakes, such as Lake 
Michigan, serve as the principal spawning and nursery 
area for most species of freshwater fish, and is 
considered one of the most productive areas of the 
waterbody.  The placement of the intake structure 
beyond the littoral zone should reduce impingement and 
entrainment.  The 2002/2003 study that WEPCO is 
currently conducting is intended to be part of that 
demonstration. 
If WEPCO is unsuccessful in demonstrating the 
percent reductions, it would seek a site-specific 
determination of BTA.  At that juncture, the DNR would 
require the comparative impact analysis of closed- 
versus open-cycle cooling. 
(Final two emphases added.) 
 
¶207 The EIS's recognition that the applicants will have to 
work with the EPA and DNR to achieve BTA regardless of whether 
the facility is considered "new" or "existing" demonstrates how 
the intake structure will have to mitigate harm.  An EIS "may be 
validly approved by the agency even though conditioned on 
further development of mitigation measures."  County of Bergen 
v. Dole, 620 F. Supp. 1009, 1061 (D.N.J. 1985).  Because the 
environmental evaluation process is a continuing one, "it is not 
necessary, nor is it possible, that every detail be contained in 
the [EIS].  General commitments to future action suffice to meet 
mitigation requirements."  Id.  Therefore, it is reasonable to 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
108 
 
conclude 
that 
this 
particular 
commitment 
to 
interagency 
cooperation with the DNR and EPA satisfies the EIS's mitigation 
assessment obligation. 
c. 
Alternatives to OCPP Site 
¶208 Clean Wisconsin also contends that the EIS failed to 
analyze alternatives to the OCPP site.  We do not agree. 
¶209 As the EIS noted, the site selection process started 
with over 140 potentials.  Due to 55 screening criteria of 
various 
social, 
environmental, 
technical, 
and 
economic 
considerations, that number was narrowed down to five:  Pleasant 
Prairie (in Kenosha County); Haven (in Sheboygan County); 
Ozaukee (in Ozaukee County); Little Suamico (in Oconto County); 
and North Oak Creek (in Milwaukee County), also known as the 
OCPP.   
¶210 The 
sites 
in 
Ozaukee 
and 
Little 
Suamico 
were 
eliminated due to the increased cost of acquiring substantial 
amounts of land and the environmental impact of developing 
greenfield sites.  The Haven site was rejected because of its 
irregular shape and because once-through cooling was not 
available.  Similarly, the Pleasant Prairie site was eliminated 
because it could not accommodate all of ERGS's facilities and 
because cooling towers would have to be constructed given the 
significant distance from Lake Michigan.  See Custer County 
Action Ass'n v. Garvey, 256 F.3d 1024, 1041 (10th Cir. 2001) 
("Alternatives that do not accomplish the purpose of an action 
are not reasonable."). 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
109 
 
¶211 Upon evaluating the North Oak Creek site, other 
possible sites near the southern end of WEPCO-owned OCPP 
property in Racine County were identified.  All of these sites, 
which shared the advantages of once-through cooling and use of 
existing transmission and rail line infrastructure, were the 
sites that were eventually identified in the CPCN application:  
One of the proposed sites is in the city of Oak Creek 
in Milwaukee County at the east end of Elm Road, north 
of the existing OCPP.  This site is referred to as the 
North Site throughout this EIS.  A second site, the 
South Site, is located south of the existing OCPP 
along the lakeshore.  A variation of the South Site 
was 
proposed 
as 
the 
applicants' 
third 
site 
alternative.  For purposes of description and analysis 
in this document, this alternative will be referred to 
as South-Exp Option. 
¶212 Clean Wisconsin renews its argument that these OCPP 
sites are not alternatives.  We have previously determined that 
it was reasonable for the PSC to consider the OCPP alternatives 
as "alternative sites."  The EIS noted some of the distinctions 
between the sites that we discussed supra:  "1) having building 
footprints in different municipalities and counties resulting in 
different entities receiving shared-revenue payments if the ERGS 
proposal is approved, 2) separate service water discharge 
locations, and 3) significant differences in the amount of 
excavation required to build and safely operate the facilities."   
The EIS proceeded to analyze the sites' existing structures and 
general topography, as well as how the terrain will have to be 
redesigned and augmented to accommodate ERGS.  In addition, the 
EIS noted significant differences in wetland impacts among the 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
110 
 
OCPP 
alternatives 
and 
differences 
in 
other 
environmental 
impacts, such as air quality.  Thus, we are satisfied that there 
is a rational basis to conclude that the EIS adequately 
considered alternate sites. 
d. 
Air Pollution 
 
¶213 Clean Wisconsin's next argument is that the EIS fails 
to present sufficient information regarding ERGS's adverse 
impacts with regard to health consequences from air pollution.  
WEPA requires an EIS to disclose any significant health 
consequences of a proposed action's environmental impacts.  See 
Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 106-07 (1983) 
(concluding 
that 
"NEPA 
requires 
an 
EIS 
to 
disclose 
the 
significant health, socioeconomic, and cumulative consequences 
of the environmental impact of a proposed action").  We are 
satisfied that the PSC had a rational basis for concluding that 
the EIS adequately discussed ERGS's health impacts. 
 
¶214 Chapter 7 of the EIS discussed the air emissions from 
ERGS and the general health and environmental concerns related 
to these pollutants.  For example, the EIS noted that not only 
has 
particulate 
matter 
been 
correlated 
with 
increased 
hospitalizations for asthma attacks, worsening of lung disease, 
and heart disease, it has also been estimated to cause over 
15,000 premature deaths in the United States per year.   
¶215 Regarding the effects of NOx, the EIS stated: 
High levels of NO2 may be fatal to humans, while lower 
levels affect the delicate structure of lung tissue.  
Humans exposed to high concentrations suffer lung 
irritation and potential lung damage.  Long-term lower 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
111 
 
levels of exposures can destroy lung tissue, leading 
to emphysema.  Concentrations of NOx as low as 0.1 ppm, 
can cause lung irritation and measurable decreases in 
lung function in asthmatics.  Children, the elderly 
and people with lung diseases, such as asthma, 
emphysema or bronchitis are sensitive to NOx. 
¶216 Similarly, regarding SO2, the EIS stated: 
Sulfur dioxide causes a wide variety of health and 
environmental impacts because of the way it reacts 
with other substances in the air. SO2 irritates the 
respiratory system and can cause pronounced health 
problems.  Sulfate particulates are a primary factor 
in the production of hazy atmospheric conditions. Acid 
rain is caused by SO2 and NOx reacting with other 
substances in the air (see Acid Rain section). 
Corrosion and damage to metals and masonry may also 
result from increased sulfur dioxide emissions. 
Severe 
health 
effects 
are 
associated 
with 
increased sulfur dioxide emissions.  Peak levels of SO2 
in the air can cause breathing difficulty for people 
with asthma.  Long-term exposure to high levels of SO2 
gas and particles may cause respiratory illness and 
aggravate existing heart disease.  Sulfate particles 
are associated with increased respiratory symptoms, 
respiratory disease, and premature death.  Exposure to 
high 
concentrations of 
sulfur dioxide 
for 
short 
periods of time can constrict the bronchi and increase 
mucous flow, making breathing difficult.  Children, 
the elderly, those with chronic lung disease, and 
asthmatics 
are 
especially 
susceptible 
to 
these 
effects. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
112 
 
In comparable fashions, where possible, the EIS also discussed 
acid rain, greenhouse gases (as they relate to global warming), 
VOCs, HAPs (hazardous air pollutants), and mercury.52   
 
¶217 Moreover, in response to a specific request that the 
EIS 
"[p]rovide 
information 
on 
the 
human 
health 
effects, 
morbidity, and mortality related to the emission of the proposed 
ERGS facilities," the EIS added: 
The chemicals found in emissions from coal-fired power 
plants are known to adversely affect the respiratory 
system (as well as have other effects), depending on 
the concentrations and the duration of exposure. 
Several scientific studies in recent years have 
found a relationship between increased levels of air 
emissions from these types of sources and increased 
respiratory symptoms.  This means that people with 
existing lung diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, 
emphysema, and other diseases could experience an 
increase in the severity and frequency of symptoms as 
a result of increased emissions.  There is evidence in 
the 
scientific 
literature 
that 
increases 
in 
particulate matter levels can also cause morbidity and 
mortality as well.  Infants and children breathe in 
more air per pound of body weight and are perhaps more 
susceptible due to developing immune and nervous 
systems and other factors related to growth.  Children 
can also be more active and spend more time outdoors 
and experience increased exposure to outdoor air 
                                                 
52 Mercury 
has 
received 
considerable attention lately.  
Indeed, one commentator critiqued the draft EIS for failing to 
more carefully evaluate the effects of mercury on marine life 
and fish consumption advisories.  The EIS candidly observes that 
the "scientific understanding of the impact of mercury emissions 
on the environment is still developing, [therefore] a specific 
answer to these questions is not possible."  See Izaak Walton 
League of America v. Marsh, 655 F.2d 346, 377 (D.C. Cir. 1981) 
("So long as the environmental impact statement identifies areas 
of uncertainty, the agency has fulfilled its mission under 
NEPA.").  
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
113 
 
pollution as a result.  In addition, mercury is 
emitted from coal-fired combustion.  Mercury has been 
associated with neurological and other effects (here 
the main exposure route is through ingestion of fish). 
In summary, there are numerous hazardous air 
pollutants released into the air from coal combustion. 
Past DNR analyses have evaluated the virgin fossil 
fuel exemption and found that, from the inhalation 
perspective, the risks resulting from well controlled 
facilities with tall stacks are low.  Thus, a facility 
that meets applicable Wisconsin DNR requirements would 
not be likely to cause a significant inhalation risk. 
It is also true however, that as concentrations of air 
pollutants increase, even if they are below a federal 
or state standard, that there is a likelihood of 
increased 
respiratory 
symptoms 
and 
other 
adverse 
health effects occurring.  For example, in the case of 
fine particulate matter (PM2.5), when US EPA evaluated 
the available data on health effects vs. exposure, 
there was no clear threshold that defined a safe vs. 
unsafe level of exposure. 
¶218 We agree with the PSC that the EIS's evaluation 
constituted a hard look at the environmental health consequences 
from ERGS's air pollution emissions.  Although Clean Wisconsin 
may take issue with the PSC's failure to somehow quantify the 
precise health impacts of ERGS, we find that the PSC's 
determination that the EIS adequately evaluated the health 
impacts of ERGS was reasonable. 
e. 
Effects of Transmission System 
 
¶219 Given the significant concentration of baseload power 
generation at the OCPP site, Clean Wisconsin asserts that there 
will be considerable strain on the high voltage transmission 
system, which would inevitably require upgrades that would not 
be required if the generation was located elsewhere.  Because of 
the massive construction that will be required to complete these 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
114 
 
improvements, Clean Wisconsin contends that the EIS was required 
to consider the accompanying environmental consequences.  To the 
extent that it could, the EIS does do this.    
¶220 Insofar as Clean Wisconsin’s arguments relate to 
problems that will arise with ERGS construction, chapter 6 of 
the EIS discussed issues pertaining to transmission lines.  In 
that chapter, the EIS described the necessary interconnections, 
the substation changes that will have to occur on the OCPP site, 
possible 
system-wide 
transmission 
projects, 
and 
stability 
issues, including associated solutions and ongoing studies.  
Recognizing that certain transmission improvements could change 
after further study, the EIS assumed that ERGS will need a major 
new transmission line to connect to the electric system.  The 
EIS noted that rebuilding existing transmission line rights-of-
way minimizes environmental effects, "because land uses have 
adjusted to the barrier of the right-of-way and because the 
right-of-way is already disturbed to some extent."  In contrast, 
should new lines need to be constructed, the EIS explained that 
the level of environmental effects will vary, depending on the 
location of the new right-of-way and the design of the 
structures.   
¶221 Insofar as Clean Wisconsin’s argument relates to 
future 
problems 
that 
may 
arise 
and 
the 
environmental 
consequences that the answers to those problems could pose, 
those are merely potentialities that may come to fruition; 
possibilities that an EIS is not legally required to consider.  
See Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, 130 Wis. 2d at 72.  Given 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
115 
 
the 
little 
available 
information 
regarding 
the 
required 
transmission lines at the time the EIS was drafted, we conclude 
that the PSC's determination that the discussion is adequate is 
reasonable.   
f. 
Assessment of Wetland Impacts 
 
¶222 Clean Wisconsin also argues the EIS is deficient in 
its assessment of wetland impacts.  We again disagree. 
 
¶223 Chapter 8 of the EIS discussed a variety of wetland 
issues, including the potential impact of ERGS.  Depending on 
the eventual site chosen, the EIS quantified the estimated 
wetland acres that would be filled (to create berms and for 
grading) and the corresponding wetland reduction percentage.  
Chapter 8 and chapter 10 (entitled "Land Resources") also 
discussed the secondary impacts on surrounding wetlands.  The 
EIS recognized that at the time of its drafting, no mitigation 
plans or strategies had been proposed that would minimize the 
consequences of placing fill in wetlands.   
¶224 Even absent mitigation plans, and regardless of the 
site chosen at OCPP, the EIS considered that four of the eight 
wetlands would remain unaffected, while the remaining four would 
be reduced anywhere from 12-20 percent.  Therefore, we conclude 
that the PSC had a rational basis to conclude the EIS was 
adequate with regard to wetland impacts.  
g. 
Responsiveness Summary  
¶225 Lastly, Clean Wisconsin maintains that the EIS's 
responsiveness summary is inadequate.  However, this argument is 
little more than an adornment of its previous arguments, 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
116 
 
particularly its contentions that the EIS did not adequately 
discuss cooling towers, mitigation measures, and health-related 
impacts from air pollution.  We have already rejected these 
arguments above, and therefore, we do not address them further 
here. 
¶226 We once again emphasize that our review of the EIS 
adequacy determination is not a review of the PSC's factual 
findings.  Citizens' Util. Bd., 211 Wis. 2d at 550.  Because the 
PSC's determination of the adequacy of the EIS represents its 
conclusion that the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 1.11 have been 
met on the facts before it, we defer to the PSC as the agency 
whose responsibility it is to make that determination.  Id. at 
552.  In sum, we conclude that the PSC's determination that the 
EIS was adequate is reasonable. 
4. 
Conditional Issuance of CPCN  
¶227 Clean Wisconsin argued to the circuit court that the 
PSC improperly "issued" the CPCN before WEC obtained all 
necessary 
permits 
from 
the 
DNR 
as 
required 
by 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(e).53  The circuit court agreed and 
vacated the PSC's order on that ground.  Before this court, the 
PSC argues that the circuit court's holding was erroneous.  We 
agree, and therefore reverse the circuit court's holding as to 
the legitimacy of the PSC's issuance of the CPCN conditioned on 
the future action of the DNR. 
                                                 
53 We note since this court heard oral argument, all 
necessary permits for the construction of the proposed plant 
have been issued, although legal challenges to some permits are 
still pending.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
117 
 
¶228 In order to obtain a CPCN, a utility must navigate the 
stringent procedural requirements of Wis. Stat. § 196.491.  This 
statute requires the PSC and DNR to operate in tandem to 
accomplish the legislative goal of approving a utility’s plan to 
construct a new facility capable of generating over 100 MW of 
electric power.  Given the mammoth scope of that regulatory 
task, the timeline is tight.  The following time requirements 
apply to the interplay between the DNR permitting process and 
the PSC's CPCN decision. 
¶229 First, 
at 
least 
60 
days 
before 
filing 
a 
CPCN 
application, the utility "shall provide the [DNR] with an 
engineering plan."  Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.a.  Within 30 
days of receiving the engineering plan, the DNR must respond 
with a list of permits required to construct the proposed 
facility.  Id.  Twenty days after the DNR provides the list of 
required permits, the utility must apply for the identified 
permits.  Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.b.  Thirty days after 
receiving 
the 
permit 
applications, 
the 
DNR 
must 
make 
a 
"completeness" determination, and 120 days after a favorable 
completeness determination, the DNR must take final action on 
the applications.  Id.  Thus, theoretically the DNR permit 
approval process should take, at most, 200 days from the filing 
of the engineering plan to the DNR's final action.   
¶230 The 
soonest 
the 
applicant 
may 
submit 
the 
CPCN 
application to the PSC is 60 days after the initial submission 
of 
the 
engineering 
plan 
to 
the 
DNR.  
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.a.  Thirty days after the applicant 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
118 
 
submits 
the 
CPCN 
application, 
the 
PSC's 
completeness 
determination is due.  Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)2.   
¶231 Upon pronouncing the application "complete," the PSC 
has 
180 
days 
to 
approve 
the 
completed 
application.  
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(g).  This period may be extended, by 
court order, for an additional 180 days.  Id.  Thus, the PSC 
approval process theoretically takes, at most, 210 days, or 390 
days if the PSC receives a court-ordered extension.   
¶232 The PSC must remain cognizant that it "may not issue a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity under this 
subsection until the [DNR] has issued all permits and approvals 
identified in the listing specified in par. (a)3.a. that are 
required prior to construction."  Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(e).   
¶233 Theoretically, this should not be an obstacle, because 
the DNR must act within 200 days after the utility files the 
engineering plan, or 140 days after the utility files the CPCN 
application with the PSC.  Therefore, at the time of DNR final 
action, the PSC should still have at least 40 days (and 
potentially as many as 220 days) to finish its evaluation of the 
application.   
¶234 However, 
the closely 
interrelated 
nature of the 
legislative timelines means that the PSC's timeline is at the 
mercy of any difficulties that arise in obtaining the DNR 
permits.  In reality, these two separate timelines do not always 
march in lockstep.  For example, the utility often must submit 
several different permit applications to the DNR.  In this case, 
the DNR required separate permits for air pollution impacts, a 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
119 
 
site grading permit, a stormwater permit, and other water-
related permits and approvals.  If even one of these permit 
approvals falls behind schedule, it is possible, as happened 
here, that the DNR will not have fully acted at the time when 
the PSC must make a final decision on the CPCN application.  
This lag in the timeline can occur for many reasons.  For 
example, the DNR may determine that one particular permit 
application is not "complete," thus setting back the timeline 
applicable to that particular permit. 
¶235 If, for whatever reason, the DNR permits are not 
timely issued, the PSC is placed in a precarious position.54  If 
the PSC's time limit elapses before final DNR action, the PSC 
effectively has four options:  1) deny the application; 2) take 
no action, and thus passively allow the CPCN to become effective 
by operation of law;55 3) unconditionally approve the application 
in violation of its statutory duties; or 4) conditionally 
approve the application. 
¶236 In this case, it is undisputed that the applicant had 
not obtained all the required DNR permits at the time the PSC 
issued its "final decision."56  The PSC chose the fourth option 
                                                 
54 Unlike the CPCN, the DNR permits do not automatically 
issue if the DNR does not act within the statutory time limit.  
Compare 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(g) 
with 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.b. 
55 Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(g), if the PSC fails 
to take final action, it "is considered to have issued a [CPCN] 
with respect to the application." 
56 Application of Wis. Elec. Power Co., No. 05-CE-130 at 1, 
53-54 (Wis. PSC Nov. 10, 2003).   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
120 
 
listed above; it conditionally approved the CPCN.  In its final 
decision, under the heading "Certificate of Public Convenience 
and Necessity," the PSC stated:  "W.E. Power LLC . . . may 
commence construction of two 615 MW . . . electric generating 
units, as described in WEC's project application and modified by 
this Final Decision . . . ."  Application of Wis. Elec. Power 
Co., No. 05-CE-130 at 56 (Wis. PSC Nov. 10, 2003).  The PSC 
conditioned its approval of the CPCN as follows:  "This Final 
Decision takes effect on the day after it is mailed.  The CPCN 
for the ERGS facility takes effect only when the DNR issues all 
permits 
and 
approvals 
that 
it 
identified, 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.a., 
as 
being 
required 
prior 
to 
construction of the facility."  Id. at 62. 
¶237 Upon reviewing the order, the circuit court determined 
that the PSC acted improperly: 
[Wisconsin Stat. § 196.491(3)(e)] plainly states 
that the Commission shall not do what is being done 
here, issue the CPCN before the regulatory permits 
have been obtained . . . .  Potentially, this is a 
matter of substantial consequence.  The Commission in 
its Order notes the possibility that [if] the planned 
draw of 1.4 billion gallons of Lake Michigan water 
daily is not approved, cost of the proposal will 
escalate by some $200 million and may even preclude 
project viability.  The approval stated in the Order 
was issued in clear violation of sec. 196.491(3)(e), 
Wis. Stats.  It is the Order of this court that the 
PSC Order is hereby vacated and the matter remanded to 
the Commission to permit the applicant to demonstrate 
that 
the 
required 
regulatory 
permits 
have 
been 
obtained. 
¶238 On appeal, the PSC raises two theories to justify its 
action and explain why it believes the circuit court is 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
121 
 
mistaken.  First, the PSC argues that its final decision did not 
actually "issue" the CPCN; rather, it simply approved the 
utility's CPCN application.57  Second, and alternatively, the PSC 
argues that it gave "full effect to the statute" by issuing the 
CPCN but staying its effectiveness until the DNR issued the 
necessary permits.  
¶239 We implicitly rejected the PSC's first argument in 
RURAL, 239 Wis. 2d 660.  In RURAL, the PSC approved a CPCN with 
the condition that "RockGen Energy shall obtain from [the] DNR 
all permits and approvals that are required before beginning any 
construction."  Id., ¶58.  The court determined that this 
approach, "a conditional order," effectively "issued" the CPCN.  
See id., ¶¶16, 58, 61. 
¶240 Our RURAL opinion did not fully explain the reason for 
its use of that terminology, so that we here proceed to make 
explicit what is implicit in RURAL.  If we agreed with the PSC 
that the CPCN did not "issue" until the DNR permits became 
effective, we would effectively be amending the statute to allow 
the PSC to extend the time limit within which it must finally 
                                                 
57 Clean Wisconsin notes that the PSC did not raise this 
argument before the circuit court, and so we could consider it 
waived.  We decline to do so, as the issue has been fully 
briefed and argued, and there are no factual disputes.  See 
Wirth v. Ehly, 93 Wis. 2d 433, 443, 287 N.W.2d 140 (1980). 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
122 
 
act to approve or deny a utility's application.  We decline to 
do so.58 
¶241 We agree with Clean Wisconsin that the statute 
contemplates only one decision by the PSC.  If the PSC's 
decision did not take effect until after the DNR's final action, 
the PSC's "final decision" would not be final.  Rather, it would 
be an interim endorsement anticipating the final action: 
issuance of the CPCN.  The statute is clear:  the PSC must take 
final action within the statutory time period.  Accordingly, we 
hold that the PSC's final decision conditionally issued the 
CPCN. 
¶242 Alternatively, the PSC argues that if the court finds, 
as we do, that its decision "issued" the CPCN, such conditional 
issuance was the only way for the PSC to reasonably harmonize 
and give full effect to the language in § 196.491(3)(e), the 
impending statutory timelines, and the need to maintain an 
adequate energy supply.  In arguing this point, both parties 
rely on the RURAL decision. 
¶243 In RURAL, the court evaluated the PSC's action on a 
CPCN application submitted under the nonstatutory provisions of 
1997 Wis. Act 204, § 96.  Those provisions decreased the time 
                                                 
58 It has long been the position of this court that in a 
general sense, statutes creating time limits, such as statutes 
of 
limitation, 
"should 
not 
be 
extended 
by 
judicial 
construction."  Gutter v. Seamandel, 103 Wis. 2d 1, 24, 308 
N.W.2d 403 (1981) (quoting Pugnier v. Ramharter, 275 Wis. 70, 
77, 81 N.W.2d 38 (1957)).  Although the instant case does not 
involve a statute of limitation, we find that the underlying 
principle is the same. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
123 
 
limit within which the PSC had to make a final determination on 
a CPCN application from 180 days to 90 days; however, the 
provisions applied for only a limited time and with respect to 
only certain eastern Wisconsin utilities.  See 1997 Wis. Act 
204, § 96.  At the end of the 90-day period, the DNR had not 
acted with respect to one permit.  RURAL, 239 Wis. 2d 660, ¶60.  
As it did in the instant case, the PSC conditionally issued the 
CPCN.  Id., ¶58.   
¶244 On review, the appellant environmental group argued 
that by so doing, the PSC violated § 196.491(3)(e).  This court 
disagreed, "given the particulars of this case. . . .  [H]ad the 
PSC 
strictly 
complied 
with 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(e), 
the 
result would have defeated, rather than fulfilled, the purpose 
of § 96 and Act 204."  Id., ¶59.  Instead, the court approved 
the PSC's method:  "We believe that the PSC took an approach 
that not only harmonized the conflicting mandates of § 96 and 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(e), but also fulfilled the purpose to 
expedite the construction of much-needed electric generation 
capacity."  Id., ¶61.   
¶245 The PSC cites this language as evidence of the court's 
recognition of the PSC's power to condition a CPCN upon the 
DNR's issuance of the required permits.  However, the court in 
RURAL appeared to limit its holding:  "Where the PSC has before 
it an application to process according to the longer timeline in 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3), the PSC should, and could, comply with 
subdivision (e)."  Id., ¶59.  That is exactly the situation 
presented here.  The PSC basically argues that this single 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
124 
 
sentence from RURAL is inconsistent with the rest of the 
opinion, and asks us to withdraw it as dicta because the RURAL 
court's concern about harmonizing the statute and the need for 
reliable energy generation applies similarly to applications 
made under § 196.491.   
¶246 We conclude that great weight deference is appropriate 
as to this issue.  First, the legislature has specifically 
charged the PSC with the interpretation of chapter 196.  Under 
Wis. Stat. § 196.02(1), the PSC "has jurisdiction to supervise 
and regulate every public utility in this state and to do all 
things necessary and convenient to its jurisdiction."   
¶247 Second, unlike the situation in RURAL, the PSC is not 
interpreting nonstatutory provisions of a recently passed act.  
Instead, 
it 
is 
applying 
§ 196.491(3)(e), 
which 
it 
has 
exclusively administered since that statute's enactment in 1975.  
Before 
the 
circuit 
court, 
the 
PSC 
reiterated: 
 
"[T]he 
commission's interpretation of the law that describes when DNR 
permits should be issued has been its standard practice for many 
years and remains its standard practice today. . . . [W]e always 
stay the execution of our CPCN orders until after the necessary 
DNR permits have been received."  
¶248 Third, there is no dispute that the agency employed 
its 
expertise 
and 
specialized 
knowledge 
in 
forming 
this 
interpretation.  Fourth, while we may not necessarily agree that 
the PSC's interpretation of the statute is the best available, 
we conclude that it will provide "uniformity and consistency" in 
the application of the statute in that the PSC, the DNR, 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
125 
 
utilities, and the public have a standard rule under which to 
operate.  Once we have determined that the PSC's interpretation 
of this issue is subject to great weight deference, we need 
merely decide whether that interpretation is "reasonable."  
Harnsichfeger, 196 Wis. 2d at 661 (collecting cases).   
¶249 Therefore, 
we 
proceed 
to 
evaluate 
the 
PSC's 
interpretation of the statutory language to determine whether it 
is reasonable.  Statutory interpretation begins with the plain 
language of the statute.  State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court 
for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 
N.W.2d 110.  However, the statute is not interpreted in a 
vacuum; it is considered in the context of the surrounding 
provisions.  Id., ¶46.   
¶250 It is certainly true, as Clean Wisconsin points out, 
that the statute says the PSC may not issue the CPCN before the 
DNR has issued the necessary permits.  However, it also is true 
that the PSC has the power to issue conditional orders.  
Wis. Stat. § 196.395;59 see also RURAL, 239 Wis. 2d 660, ¶59.  
This power, though, is not unlimited.  Rather, "the power 
contained in sec. 196.395 to issue conditional . . . orders is 
subject . . . to the procedural requirements of other provisions 
of ch. 196, Stats., because they are in pari materia."  RURAL, 
239 Wis. 2d 660, ¶59 (quoting Mid-Plains Tel. v. PSC, 56 
                                                 
59 Wisconsin Stat. § 196.395 reads in part:  "The commission 
may issue conditional, temporary, emergency and supplemental 
orders." 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
126 
 
Wis. 2d 780, 787, 202 N.W.2d 907 (1973) (quoting Wisconsin Tel. 
Co. v. PSC, 232 Wis. 274, 287 N.W. 122 (1939))).  
¶251 Clean Wisconsin argues that the PSC's power to issue 
conditional orders does not extend to waiving the directives of 
§ 196.491(3)(e), because that would violate the "in pari 
materia" rule expressed in RURAL and our earlier cases.  
Nevertheless, the RURAL court allowed the PSC to condition CPCN 
issuance 
on 
DNR 
permit 
issuance, 
plainly 
a 
"procedural 
requirement[] of other provisions of ch. 196."  Id. 
¶252 These competing interpretations do not conclusively 
settle the question of whether the PSC's interpretation is 
"reasonable."  Accordingly, we proceed to review the legislative 
history of the statute and the administrative history of the 
PSC's interpretation in order to determine whether the PSC's 
present interpretation is reasonable.  
¶253 The 
PSC's 
interpretation 
is 
longstanding 
and 
consistent, and in fact predates the passage of the CPCN law.  
Before 1975 utilities had to obtain a "certificate" from the PSC 
authorizing them to "commence the construction of any public 
utility 
plant, 
extension 
or 
facility . . . ."  
Wis. Stat. § 196.49(1) (1975).  The PSC thus certified that 
"public convenience and necessity require such work . . . ."  
Wis. Stat. § 196.49(4) (1975). 
¶254 In 
1977, 
considering 
WEC's 
1975 
application 
to 
construct a coal-fired power plant in Kenosha County, the PSC 
conditioned its certificate on three prerequisites, including:  
"That applicant obtain any needed authorization from the 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
127 
 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in the areas in which 
that department has jurisdiction."60  
¶255 The duties of the PSC sharply increased in 1975.  In 
that year, the legislature passed Assembly Bill 463, which 
became chapter 68, Laws of 1975.  The essential language in 
current § 196.491(3)(e), like most of § 196.491, dates back to 
that act.  It has changed little since.  In 1975, the provision 
read:  "The [PSC] may not issue a certificate of public 
convenience and necessity until the [DNR] has issued all permits 
and approvals designated under sub. (2m) as necessary prior to 
the issuance of the certificate of public convenience and 
necessity."  See ch. 68, Laws of 1975. 
¶256 One piece of the legislative history of 1975 Assembly 
Bill 463 seems, at first glance, to run counter to the PSC's 
interpretation.  An early draft of the bill contained the 
language:   
A failure of the department to have issued any of the 
permits or approvals for which preliminary application 
has been made under par. (a) may not prevent issuance 
of the certificate of convenience and necessity, but 
the applicant may not undertake the specific part of 
the construction or the specific operation until the 
permit or approval therefor has been granted by the 
department [of natural resources]. 
Drafting records, ch. 68, Laws of 1975, on file at Wisconsin 
Legislative 
Reference 
Bureau, 
Madison, 
Wisconsin. 
 
This 
language, deleted from a subsequent draft, embodies the approach 
                                                 
60 Application of Wis. Elec. Power Co., 62 Wis. PSC 131, 145 
(1977). 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
128 
 
that the PSC now uses.  The deletion of this language from the 
draft weighs against the reasonableness of PSC's interpretation 
of the statute. 
¶257 However, the 1975 law as enacted contained a provision 
authorizing the DNR to waive compliance with § 196.491(3)(e): 
"At any time prior to the issuance of the certificate of public 
convenience and necessity, the department may, in consultation 
with the commission, waive the necessity of obtaining any such 
permit 
or 
approval 
in 
advance 
of 
such 
certificate."  
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(2m) 
(1975) 
(emphasis 
added). 
 
This 
provision established an escape hatch that allowed the PSC to 
avoid the dilemma that occurs when the PSC's time limit for 
action draws to a close before the DNR has issued its final 
decision on the permit applications.   
¶258 1997 Wis. Act 204 removed the DNR's authority to waive 
compliance with § 196.491(3)(e) and reinstated the potential for 
the PSC to face the present dilemma.  Shortly thereafter, the 
PSC began conditioning CPCN grants on DNR permit approvals; in 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
129 
 
fact, within the past five years, almost all its CPCN orders 
have been so conditioned.61 
¶259 Under these circumstances, we agree with the RURAL 
court that the PSC's "conditional issuance" approach harmonizes 
the goal of the statutes with the "purpose [of] expedit[ing] the 
construction 
of 
much-needed 
electric 
generation 
capacity."  
RURAL, 239 Wis. 2d 660, ¶61.  As the court put it:  "[T]he PSC 
reasonably interpreted and applied both § 96(1)(e)3. of Act 204 
and Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(e) to give them both full effect by 
issuing the certificate here with the condition that [the 
utility] 
obtain 
all 
necessary 
permits 
prior 
to 
starting 
                                                 
61 See, e.g., Application of Mirant Portage County LLC, No. 
05-CE-116, at 21 (Wis. PSC Mar. 22, 2002) ("Mirant shall not 
begin 
construction 
on 
the 
project 
until 
the 
appropriate 
DNR . . . permits have been obtained . . . ."); Application of 
Rock River Energy LLC, No. 9346-CE-100, at 21 (Wis. PSC Sept. 
24, 2002) ("The CPCN for the Riverside Energy Center takes 
effect only after the DNR issues all permits and approvals that 
it 
identified, 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.a. 
 . . . ."); Application of the Rainy River Energy Corp., No. 05-
CE-128, at 12 ("The CPCN for the Superior Generation Project 
takes effect only after the DNR issues all permits and approvals 
that it identified, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.a. 
 . . . ."); Joint Application of Fox Energy Co. LLC and Am. 
Trans. Co. LLC, No. 05-CE-115, at 26 (Wis. PSC Nov. 8, 2002) 
("Fox Energy shall not begin construction on the project until 
all 
air 
and 
water 
permits 
and 
approvals 
that 
the 
DNR 
identified . . . have been obtained . . . ."); Application of 
Fond du Lac Energy Center, LLC, No. 9343-CE-100, at 18 (Wis. PSC 
May 5, 2003) ("The CPCN for the Fond du Lac Energy Center takes 
effect only after the DNR issues all permits and approvals that 
it identified . . . as being required . . . ."); Application of 
Madison Gas & Elec. Co., No. 05-CE-121, at 43 (Wis. PSC Oct. 9, 
2003) ("This final decision takes effect on the day after it is 
mailed.  The CPCN for the WCCF takes effect when DNR issues all 
permits 
and 
approvals 
that 
it 
identified . . . as 
being 
required . . . ."). 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
130 
 
construction." 
 
Id. 
 
The 
same 
is 
true 
of 
the 
PSC's 
interpretation of § 196.491(3)(e) in this case.  Had the PSC 
simply approved the CPCN without conditions, or through inaction 
allowed the CPCN to be approved through operation of law, it 
would have acted without regard for the requirements of 
§ 196.491(3)(e).  It did not do so.  By conditionally approving 
the CPCN, it maintained the requirements of that section while 
simultaneously satisfying the strict time limits of chapter 196.   
¶260 The PSC and the DNR are independent regulatory 
agencies.  The PSC has no authority to order the DNR to complete 
its review by a certain date.  Clean Wisconsin argues that if 
Wisconsin Electric had timely filed all the appropriate permit 
applications with the DNR, then the DNR would have been forced 
to take final action before the PSC did.  Yet nothing in 
§ 196.491 gives the PSC the authority to extend the statutory 
time limits based on the applicant's, or the DNR's, failure to 
act within other time limits.  The PSC is limited to the options 
described above.   
¶261 We further observe that, practically speaking, the 
PSC's approach works.  In this case, for example, the DNR has 
now issued the required permits.  The PSC's method prevents 
applicants from escaping compliance with § 196.491(3)(e) while 
simultaneously maintaining the reliable supply of energy for the 
public.  The PSC has simply concluded that rather than make an 
applicant start from scratch and begin the cycle again, it will 
conditionally issue the CPCN so long as the applicant has 
complied with the other statutory requirements.  This does not 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
131 
 
excuse 
the 
applicant 
from 
ultimately 
complying 
with 
§ 196.491(3)(e) and obtaining the necessary permits, and thus, 
the object of the statute is maintained. 
¶262 Under the great weight deference standard of review, 
our role is not to say whether we believe the PSC's approach is 
the best way to handle this regulatory issue.  We are limited to 
deciding whether it is "a reasonable agency decision that 
comports with the purpose of the statute."  See RURAL, 239 
Wis. 2d 660, ¶46 (quoting UFE, 201 Wis. 2d at 286-87).  Because 
we cannot say that the PSC's approach fails that test, we 
reverse the circuit court's decision vacating the PSC's order 
pursuant to this issue. 
C. 
Mitigation Payments 
¶263 On April 2, 2003, the City of Oak Creek entered into 
an agreement with WEC and its subsidiaries regarding the 
construction of ERGS.  The agreement included provisions 
relating to air quality issues, the redevelopment of certain 
property, payment of mitigation costs, and the compromise of 
city claims.  The agreement noted that "it is anticipated that 
the construction and operation of the new facilities may have 
certain effects on the City" and that "in order to mitigate any 
such effects on the City, WEC and the City desire to enter into 
this agreement."   
¶264 The section of the agreement pertaining to payment of 
mitigation costs provided, in pertinent part: 
WEPCO shall support, and shall use its best efforts to 
have approved, an annual mitigation payment to the 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
132 
 
City in the amount of $1.5 million for the first unit 
(Elm Road Unit 1), $750,000 for the second unit (Elm 
Road Unit 2), and $250,000 for the third unit (Elm 
Road Unit 3), respectively (a "Mitigation Payment").  
If, 
and 
to 
the 
extent, 
approved 
by 
the 
PSCW, 
Mitigation Payments will be made on a calendar year 
basis.  The first Mitigation Payment for each unit 
shall be made thirty days after commencement of 
construction . . . of a unit.  Thereafter, Mitigation 
Payments shall be paid in one annual payment on June 
30th 
each 
year during 
the Lease 
Term. . . . The 
obligation to pay Mitigation Payments is independent 
of the receipt of shared revenue funds from the State 
of Wisconsin and of any future changes in state law 
pertaining 
to 
utility 
taxation. 
 
Notwithstanding 
anything to the contrary contained herein, in no event 
will 
WEC 
or 
any 
of 
the 
Subsidiaries 
have 
any 
obligation under this paragraph 3 in the event that 
(i) the PSCW determines that the payments described in 
this Section 3 may not be properly included in the 
rent payments under the Facility Lease, or (ii) a unit 
of the New Facility permanently ceases operation after 
start-up and is decommissioned. 
There is no dispute that the mitigation payments to which the 
agreement refers will be passed onto ratepayers if the agreement 
is approved and that the mitigation payment is contingent upon 
WEC's ability to pass the costs of the payment on to ratepayers.   
¶265 In its final decision and order issuing the CPCN, the 
PSC approved only partial mitigation payments under this 
agreement.  The PSC limited mitigation payments to the period 
during which ERGS would be constructed, noting that a change in 
state law pertaining to shared revenue would offset the City's 
costs once ERGS was constructed: 
This new shared revenue program commences the 
annual 
payments 
when 
a 
generating 
unit 
becomes 
operational.  Shared revenue payments to the city of 
Oak Creek will be $1.6 million for the first SCPC unit 
and increase to $3.2 million for the second unit.  
These payments will be added to the shared revenue 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
133 
 
payments that the city is currently receiving for the 
existing OCPP [$750,000 per year].   
Under Act 31, the annual state shared revenue 
payments to the city of Oak Creek when ERGS is 
completed 
will 
exceed 
the 
amount 
the 
city 
is 
requesting in the form of mitigation payments from 
WEPCO ratepayers.  Thus, mitigation payments are not 
required while compensating shared revenue dollars for 
ERGS are forthcoming.  The shared revenue payments, 
however, will not begin until 2009 when SCPC 1 is 
first scheduled to be in service, and the city has 
introduced evidence that it will begin incurring costs 
as soon as construction commences.  For this reason, 
the Commission finds it appropriate to authorize 
annual mitigation 
payments, as described 
in the 
Development 
Agreement, 
for 
the 
period 
from 
the 
commencement of construction of SCPC 1 until the year 
when SCPC 2 enters service, which is scheduled for 
2010.  The shared revenue payments for ERGS that 
commence in 2009, however, will partially offset the 
city’s costs and it is appropriate to reduce the 
annual mitigation payment by the amount of shared 
revenue that the city receives for ERGS.  When ERGS is 
fully in service, the shared revenue payments will 
fully 
replace 
any 
mitigation 
payment 
under 
the 
Development 
Agreement, 
so 
any 
further 
mitigation 
payment cannot be billed to WEPCO.  If, however, state 
shared revenue payments decrease during the course of 
the 
30-year 
Facility 
Lease 
and 
are 
no 
longer 
sufficient to offset fully the mitigation payment that 
would have been paid under the Development Agreement, 
the Commission finds it reasonable for W.E. Power LLC 
to make a partial mitigation payment to the city that 
equals the remaining portion. 
¶266 Following the PSC's final decision and order, the 
legislature enacted 2003 Wis. Act 89.  Section 33 of 2003 Wis. 
Act 89 created Wis. Stat. § 196.20(7)(2003-04).62  This section 
provides: 
                                                 
62 All subsequent references to Wis. Stat. § 196.20(7) are 
to the 2003-04 version.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
134 
 
(a) In this subsection, "mitigation payment" 
means, as approved by the commission, an unrestricted 
or recurring monetary payment to a local unit of 
government in which an electric generating facility is 
located to mitigate the impact of the electric 
generating facility on the local unit of government. 
"Mitigation payment" does not include payments made or 
in−kind 
contributions 
for 
restricted 
purposes 
to 
directly address health or safety impacts of the 
electric generating facility on the local unit of 
government.  
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), an electric 
public utility may not recover in rates any of the 
following: 
1. The cost of mitigation payments paid by the 
utility.  
2. The cost of mitigation payments paid by the 
owner or operator of an electric generating facility 
that the owner or operator recovers from the utility 
by selling electricity to the utility, by leasing the 
facility to the utility, or by any agreement between 
the owner or operator of the electric generating 
facility and the public utility. 
(c) 
The 
commission 
shall 
only 
approve 
a 
mitigation payment agreement that is received by the 
commission 
before 
June 
10, 
2003, 
and, 
if 
the 
commission finds the agreement to be reasonable, shall 
not subsequently modify the agreement. 
¶267 The City sought review of that portion of the PSC's 
order 
modifying 
the 
mitigation 
payment 
agreement. 
 
When 
addressing this issue, the circuit court noted: 
The parties agree that the agreement between the 
City of Oak Creek and WEC was submitted to the PSC 
before June 10, 2003 and involves a "mitigation 
payment" within the meaning of sec. 196.20(7), Wis. 
Stats., as amended by 2003 Wisconsin Act 33.  The 
parties further agree that the treatment of the 
agreement by the PSC is to be governed by section 
196.20, Wis. Stats., as amended by 2003 Wisconsin Act 
89, Section 33, effective December 18, 2003 . . . . 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
135 
 
¶268 The circuit court concluded that under the statute, 
the PSC was limited to accepting a mitigation payment agreement 
in whole or rejecting it in whole.  Thus, the circuit court 
concluded that the PSC was without jurisdiction to modify the 
agreement.  As such, it remanded this issue to the PSC to accept 
or reject the agreement in whole.   
¶269 Before this court, the PSC argues that § 196.20(7) 
does not apply retroactively and that in any event, it does not 
curtail the PSC's ratemaking authority or require the PSC to 
approve a mitigation agreement in its entirety.  In contrast, 
the City argues that the PSC has waived any argument that 
§ 196.20(7) does not apply retroactively, as it conceded the 
applicability of the statute in the circuit court.  The City 
asserts that § 196.20(7) specifically exempts payments for 
"health and safety impacts" from the statutory limitations.  As 
such, the City argues that the PSC had no authority to review 
the reasonableness of payments for "health and safety impacts."  
In the alternative, the City asserts that even if § 196.20(7) is 
inapplicable, the PSC erroneously exercised its ratemaking 
authority 
under 
Wis. Stat. § 196.37 
because 
there 
is 
not 
substantial evidence to support the conclusion that passing the 
mitigation 
payments 
onto 
ratepayers 
would 
be 
"unjust 
or 
unreasonable."   
¶270 We begin by first addressing the issue of waiver.   
The 
waiver 
rule 
is 
a 
rule 
of 
judicial 
administration, and as such, a reviewing court has the 
inherent authority to disregard a waiver and address 
the merits of an unpreserved issue in exceptional 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
136 
 
cases.  Also, Wis. Stat. §§ 751.06 and 752.35 provide 
a procedural mechanism for discretionary appellate 
review and reversal on grounds not preserved in the 
circuit court.   
Village of Trempealeau v. Mikrut, 2004 WI 79, ¶17, 273 
Wis. 2d 76, 681 N.W.2d 190(citation omitted).   
¶271 We believe this case to be one of the "exceptional" 
cases where it is appropriate to relieve parties of any waiver.  
Given the public importance of the legal issues and ultimate 
result in this case, it is more important in this instance to 
settle the legal issues raised correctly, rather than hold 
parties to any waiver.  We also note that if we were to hold the 
PSC to any waiver regarding the retroactive application of 
§ 196.37, the City would be precluded from arguing that the 
agreement at issue falls within the exclusion to the statutory 
definition of "mitigation agreement" in § 196.20(7)(a).  The 
circuit court specifically stated:  "The parties agree that the 
agreement between the City of Oak Creek and WEC was submitted to 
the PSC before June 10, 2003 and involves a 'mitigation payment' 
within the meaning of sec. 196.20(7) . . . ."  (emphasis added).   
¶272 Wisconsin Stat. § 196.20(7)(c) 
provides: 
 
"The 
commission shall only approve a mitigation payment agreement 
that is received by the commission before June 10, 2003, and, if 
the commission finds the agreement to be reasonable, shall not 
subsequently modify the agreement."  There is no dispute that 
the agreement in this case was received by the PSC before June 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
137 
 
10, 2003.63  However, the effective date of 2003 Wis. Act 89 was 
December 17, 2003, a full month after the PSC rendered its final 
decision and order.64  Although § 51 of 2003 Wis. Act 89 
contained 
three 
specific 
initial 
applicability 
provisions, 
§ 196.20(7) was not listed in any of them.   
¶273 Simply put, 2003 Wis. Act 89 was not in effect on 
November 10, 2003, the date the PSC rendered its final decision 
and order in this case.  Thus, there simply was no way the PSC 
could have evaluated the mitigation payment agreement in this 
case under the standards set forth in § 196.20(7).  Further, 
there is nothing in the text of 2003 Wis. Act 89 that expressly 
indicates 
the 
legislature 
intended 
§ 196.20(7) 
to 
apply 
retroactively to PSC orders issued before the Act's effective 
date.  Likewise, there is no "necessary implication" in the text 
of 
§ 196.20(7) 
that 
the 
statute 
was 
intended 
to 
apply 
retroactively. 
 
State 
v. 
Chrysler 
Outboard 
Corp., 
219 
Wis. 2d 130, 162, 580 N.W.2d 203 (1998).   
¶274 That the statute provides the PSC "shall only approve 
a 
mitigation 
payment 
agreement 
that 
is 
received 
by 
the 
                                                 
63 We note that the City's position on appeal is somewhat 
inconsistent. 
 
On 
the 
one 
hand, 
it 
argues 
that 
Wis. Stat. § 196.20(7) applies to the agreement at issue because 
the agreement was filed before June 10, 2003.  Yet, the City 
also argues that the agreement at issue is not subject to the 
provisions of Wis. Stat. § 196.20(7)(c) because the agreement is 
not 
a 
"mitigation 
agreement" 
as 
defined 
in 
Wis. Stat. § 196.20(7)(a).   
64 Pursuant 
to 
Wis. Stat. § 991.11, 
every 
act 
of 
the 
legislature takes effect the day after its date of publication 
unless the act specifically provides otherwise.   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
138 
 
commission 
before 
June 
10, 
2003" 
does 
not 
"necessarily 
implicate" an intent that the statute apply retroactively.  
Given the effective date of 2003 Wis. Act 89 and the absence of 
§ 196.20(7) from the initial applicability provisions of § 51 of 
the Act, the only "necessary implication" in the statute is that 
the statute applies to mitigation payment agreements received by 
the PSC prior to June 10, 2003, that are considered by the PSC 
on or after December 18, 2003.  A contrary conclusion would 
require every mitigation payment agreement approved or rejected 
by 
the 
PSC 
issued 
prior 
to 
December 
18, 
2003, 
to 
be 
reconsidered. 
 
Therefore, 
we 
conclude 
that 
Wis. Stat. § 196.20(7) does not apply to the agreement at issue 
in this case.65   
¶275 The City concedes that if § 196.20(7) does not apply 
to this case, then the PSC decision in relation to the agreement 
between the City and WEC is to be evaluated under § 196.37, 
governing the PSC's ratemaking authority.  As noted supra, under 
                                                 
65 Even if we assume, arguendo, that the statute does apply 
retroactively to the PSC's order in this case, under the City's 
argument, the statute nonetheless would not apply to the 
agreement at issue here.  The City argues that the agreement 
here is not a "mitigation payment agreement" as defined 
in § 196.20(7)(a) because the agreement here relates to "health 
and safety impacts."  If we were to accept the City's argument, 
then § 196.20(7)(c) simply has no bearing in this case because 
the statute applies only to "mitigation payment agreement[s]."  
Rather than excepting agreements related to "health and safety 
impacts" from the reasonableness standard in § 196.20(7)(c), as 
the City argues, the statute simply does not apply at all to 
agreements that fail to meet the definition of "mitigation 
payment agreement" in § 196.20(7)(a).   
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
139 
 
the agreement, the mitigation payments from WEC are contingent 
upon the PSC approving the payments as part of WEC's "Facility 
Lease."  Given that the "Facility Lease" is part of WEC's PTF 
expansion project, which is designed to provide adequate service 
to ratepayers, the PSC would be required to allow WEC to pass 
the costs of the lease onto ratepayers, Wis. Pub. Serv. Corp. v. 
PSC, 109 Wis. 2d 256, 263, 325 N.W.2d 867 (1982), assuming such 
increased 
rates 
were 
not 
"unjust" 
or 
"unreasonable."  
Wis. Stat. § 196.37(2).   
¶276 Wisconsin Stat. § 196.37(2) provides: 
If the commission finds that any measurement, 
regulation, practice, 
act 
or service 
is 
unjust, 
unreasonable, 
insufficient, 
preferential, 
unjustly 
discriminatory or otherwise unreasonable or unlawful, 
or that any service is inadequate, or that any service 
which reasonably can be demanded cannot be obtained, 
the commission shall determine and make any just and 
reasonable 
order 
relating 
to 
a 
measurement, 
regulation, practice, act or service to be furnished, 
imposed, observed and followed in the future. 
¶277 The 
City 
agrees 
that 
in 
analyzing 
the 
PSC's 
determination 
under 
the 
framework 
of 
§ 196.37(2), 
the 
appropriate inquiry is whether the PSC's decision had a rational 
basis.  The PSC's final decision and order notes that due to a 
substantial change in the state's shared revenue law, the City 
will receive an annual sum of money exceeding the sum the City 
would receive from WEC ratepayers once the first proposed power 
plant is scheduled to be in service.  Under the new law, 
municipalities hosting a power plant are to be paid double and 
sometimes triple what they receive under the current law.  
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
140 
 
¶278 The PSC concluded that "mitigation payments are not 
required while compensating shared revenue dollars for ERGS are 
forthcoming."  The PSC further concluded that the increased 
money in shared revenue would "partially offset the city's 
costs" once the first plant is in service and once both plants 
were in service "the shared revenue payments will fully replace 
any mitigation payment under the Development Agreement[.]"  The 
PSC further noted "the annual state shared revenue payments to 
the City of Oak Creek when ERGS is completed will exceed the 
amount the city is requesting in the form of mitigation payments 
from [WEC] ratepayers."  Therefore, the PSC ruled that "it is 
appropriate to reduce the annual mitigation payment by the 
amount of shared revenue that the city receives for ERGS."   
¶279 The PSC, noting the City would incur costs during the 
construction of ERGS, left intact the mitigation payments in 
full while the first SCPC is being constructed and merely 
reduced mitigation payments during the construction of the 
second SCPC in proportion to the amount of money the City would 
receive in increased shared revenue.  Bearing in mind that one 
of the purposes of judicial review of final orders of the PSC is 
to "protect the interests of the ratepayer," Algoma, 91 
Wis. 2d at 265, we cannot conclude that the PSC's decision that 
ratepayers in this state should not be double-taxed for the ERGS 
project is without a rational basis.  
¶280 While the City argues that the costs of ERGS project 
to the City are far in excess of the amount requested as 
mitigation payments, the PSC specifically found that "mitigation 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
141 
 
payments are not required while compensating shared revenue 
dollars for ERGS are forthcoming."  Given the public hearing 
testimony that the increased shared revenue payments are "almost 
exactly the same amount as the city is requesting in the form of 
mitigation payments[,]" we cannot conclude the PSC's finding was 
without "substantial evidence."  Therefore, we uphold the PSC's 
determination that the mitigation payments to the City from 
ratepayers under its agreement with WEC should be reduced in an 
amount corresponding to the increased monies the City will 
receive in the form of shared revenue.  As such, we reverse that 
part of the circuit court's decision reversing and remanding 
this issue to the PSC.   
V. 
CONCLUSION 
¶281 In sum, we hold as follows.  First, we uphold the 
PSC's determination that WEC's application was "complete."  In 
reaching this conclusion, we hold:  that the PSC's determination 
of 
completeness 
is 
judicially 
reviewable; 
that 
the 
PSC 
reasonably 
concluded that 
WEC's application 
contained two 
distinct site alternatives; that WEC's application contained all 
necessary information relating to DNR permits; and that WEC's 
application contained all necessary information relating to 
transmission line agreements. 
¶282 Second, we conclude that the PSC's approval of WEC's 
CPCN application was not contrary to law or unreasonable.  When 
it approves an application for a power-generating facility like 
the one WEC proposed, the PSC must interpret, harmonize, and 
apply the provisions of the EPL, the Plant Siting Law, and WEPA.  
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
142 
 
Applying a deferential standard of review, we conclude that the 
PSC reasonably performed all these tasks in issuing the CPCN.  
We also conclude that the PSC did not exceed its authority in 
conditionally issuing the CPCN.   
¶283 Third, we conclude the PSC did not erroneously reduce 
the mitigation payments from WEC to the City of Oak Creek, as we 
conclude this decision was a proper exercise of the PSC's 
ratemaking authority.   
¶284 Thus, we uphold the PSC's order in all respects.   
 
By the Court.—The decision of the circuit court is 
reversed.   
¶285 N. PATRICK CROOKS, J., did not participate.   
 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
1
 
Appendix:  Glossary of Terms 
 
ATC – American Transmission Company; owns all transmission 
assets in eastern Wisconsin. 
 
Baseload – Capable of producing power effectively on a 
constant basis, not less than 70 percent of the time, day in day 
out. 
 
Brownfields - Abandoned industrial sites, some of which 
have actual or perceived environmental contamination.   
 
BTA - Best Technology Available. 
 
CPCN - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. 
 
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement. 
 
EGEAS - Electric Generation Expansion Analysis System; a 
software tool that is used to find least-cost generation system 
expansion plans. 
 
Entrainment occurs when aquatic organisms, eggs, and larvae 
are drawn into a cooling system, through the heat exchanger, and 
then pumped back out to the water.   
 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
2
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency 
 
EPL – Wisconsin's Energy Priority Law, Wis. Stat. § 1.12(4). 
 
ERGS - Elm Road Generating Station; WEC's proposed power 
plant. 
 
Greenfields – Pristine, undisturbed land; as opposed to 
brownfields. 
 
HAPs - Hazardous Air Pollutants. 
 
IGCC unit - Integrated Gasoline Combined Cycle Unit, 
proposed with ERGS. 
 
MW – Mega-Watt. 
 
Impingement – Occurs when fish and other aquatic life are 
trapped against cooling water intake screens that remove debris 
from the cooling water as it enters the intake system.   
 
Market Power – Ability of a firm to charge prices for its 
product above what a competitive market would allow. 
 
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act. 
 
NOx – Nitrogen Oxides. 
No. 
2004AP3179   
 
 
3
 
OCPP - Oak Creek Power Plant. 
 
OCPP property – site on which Oak Creek Power Plant is 
located; divided into three individual sites considered for 
ERGS:  1) North Site; 2) South Site; and 3) South-Site-Exp. 
 
PM – Particulate Matter. 
 
PTF – Power the Future. 
 
SCPC units - Super-Critical Pulverized Coal units of ERGS. 
 
SOx – Sulphur Oxides. 
 
VOC – Volatile Organic Compounds. 
 
WEPA 
– 
Wisconsin 
Environmental 
Policy 
Act, 
Wis. Stat. § 1.11. 
 
WPDES permit - Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System permit issued by DNR. 
 
WUMS - Wisconsin Upper Michigan System wholesale electric 
service market. 
 
 
No.  2004AP3179.lbb 
 
1 
 
 
¶286 LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J.   (concurring).  It is not 
our function to determine this state's energy policy or to 
decide whether the construction of the power plants here is in 
the public interest.  Majority op., ¶35.  These are legislative 
determinations 
assigned 
to 
the 
PSC. 
 
Id.; 
see 
also 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)3. (2001-02).  We cannot substitute 
our judgment for that of an administrative agency determining a 
legislative matter within its province.  Majority op., ¶35; see 
City of Beloit v. Town of Beloit, 37 Wis. 2d 637, 647, 155 
N.W.2d 633 (1968).   
¶287 While I am troubled by the environmental analysis 
conducted by the Public Service Commission (PSC), particularly 
with 
the 
little 
information 
that 
is 
set 
forth 
in 
the 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), for me, this is a standard 
of review case.  Our review of an EIS is narrow, and the PSC's 
determination that an EIS is adequate is to be accorded great 
weight deference.  Majority op., ¶190; see Citizens' Util. Bd. 
v. PSC, 211 Wis. 2d 537, 550, 565 N.W.2d 554 (Ct. App. 1997).  
It is not our role to determine the adequacy of the EIS, but we 
instead evaluate whether the PSC's determination that the EIS 
was adequate was reasonable.  Majority op., ¶190; see Citizens' 
Util. Bd., 211 Wis. 2d at 553-54.  We will sustain the PSC's 
determination of adequacy unless we are persuaded that there is 
no rational basis for that determination.  Majority op., ¶190; 
see Citizens' Util. Bd., 211 Wis. 2d at 553.  Because I agree 
with the majority that the PSC's determination that the EIS was 
No.  2004AP3179.lbb 
 
2 
 
adequate is reasonable, I join the majority's decision and 
mandate. 
¶288 Nevertheless, I write separately because, but for the 
standard of review, I would conclude that the EIS is premised 
upon what I construe to be a faulty conclusion which leads to a 
systemic analytical flaw in the EIS.  But for the standard of 
review, I would conclude that that flaw undermines the adequacy 
of the EIS regarding the long-term environmental consequences of 
building the coal-fired power plants.   
¶289 Under our narrow standard of review, we have concluded 
that the EIS thoroughly analyzed the consequences of the power 
plants' once-through cooling system.  Majority op., ¶198.  Our 
conclusion is based in large part upon the fact that the EIS 
examined a one-year monitoring study in 1975-76 of the then Oak 
Creek Power Plant's (OCPP's) once-through cooling system's 
effects 
on 
Lake 
Michigan. 
 
Id. 
 
The 
EIS 
noted 
that, 
notwithstanding the loss of millions of aquatic life forms,66 the 
1970s 
monitoring 
report 
concluded 
that 
the 
impacts 
of 
entrainment and impingement as a result of once-through cooling 
                                                 
66 Impingement occurs when fish and other aquatic life are 
trapped against cooling water intake screens that remove debris 
from the cooling water as it enters the intake system.  In 
contrast, entrainment occurs when aquatic organisms, eggs, and 
larvae are drawn into a cooling system, through the heat 
exchanger, and then pumped back out to the water. 
According to the monitoring study, 6.2 million fish larvae, 
9.3 million fish eggs, and 15.6 million invertebrates were 
entrained.  Also, 2.8 million fish weighing 109,414 pounds were 
impinged.  Alewife comprised 78 percent of the number impinged, 
while smelt accounted for 21 percent.  Forage fish added one 
percent and salmonids were negligible. 
No.  2004AP3179.lbb 
 
3 
 
were "inconsequential" to aquatic life in Lake Michigan.  Id.  
This conclusion in part led to the determination in the EIS that 
the operation of the power plants did not significantly affect 
fish populations, and that the individual and aggregate impacts 
of power plant cooling water discharges on the Lake Michigan 
ecosystem were insignificant.  Id., ¶199.67   
¶290 In my view, the problem with the determinations 
reached by the EIS is that they are based upon the faulty 
conclusion that the impacts of entrainment and impingement were 
"inconsequential" 
to 
aquatic 
life 
in 
Lake 
Michigan.  
"Inconsequential" 
has 
been 
defined 
as 
"irrelevant" 
and 
"inconsequent."  Webster's Third New International Dictionary,  
1144 (3d ed. 1986).  The definition of "inconsequent" includes 
"of no consequence: lacking worth, significance, or importance."  
Id.  "Inconsequential" has been further defined as "lacking 
importance."  The American Heritage Dictionary, 314 (3d ed. 
1992).   
¶291 When we allude in the opinion to the fact that 
"different 
minds 
can 
disagree 
on 
what 
constitutes 
'inconsequential effects,'" majority op., ¶200, I happen to be 
one of those different minds.  I fail to see how the "wholesale 
destruction of millions of fish and other aquatic life"68 is of 
no consequence, irrelevant, and lacking importance.  Of course 
                                                 
67 Results of the 1976 OCPP study did notice localized 
influences on fish distribution, including slight changes in the 
areal distribution of resident fishes.    
68 Bradley, J., dissenting, ¶¶310-11. 
No.  2004AP3179.lbb 
 
4 
 
there are consequences to losing tens of millions of aquatic 
life forms comprised of fish, crustaceans and shellfish during a 
one-year time span.  We simply have no way of knowing what those 
consequences are over time precisely because the EIS assumes 
that there will be no long-term impacts because the short-term 
impacts on aquatic life are inconsequential.  Given this 
conclusion, 
the 
"hard 
look" 
taken 
by 
the 
PSC 
at 
the 
environmental consequences of the OCPP was necessarily limited 
in 
its 
focus 
as 
there 
was 
no 
need 
to 
look 
at 
these 
"inconsequential" consequences over time. 
¶292 The dissent may be correct that Lake Michigan's 
ecosystem has changed significantly in the last 30 years.  
Bradley, J., dissenting, ¶316.  The dissent is correct that the 
proposed cooling system is substantially different and much more 
ambitious than the one examined in 1976.  Id. at ¶317.  Yet, the 
EIS does not take into account the long-term cumulative effects 
that a larger plant will have on that different ecosystem 
because the EIS accepts the conclusion that any environmental 
effects are inconsequential.  If there are no consequences to 
the proposed action, then there is simply no need to take a 
"hard look" at those nonexistent consequences over any extended 
period of time. 
¶293 I do not take issue with our opinion.  It is not our 
role to determine the adequacy of the EIS.  Because I cannot 
conclude that there was no rational basis for the PSC's 
determination, I cannot substitute my judgment for that of the 
PSC.  The PSC has been authorized to make that determination.  
No.  2004AP3179.lbb 
 
5 
 
The PSC has teams of environmental experts available to it to 
assist in making that determination.  This decision properly 
rests with the PSC.  Having said that, I still conclude that 
because that determination rests on a house of cards, I simply 
do not agree that the EIS was adequate.  I am therefore troubled 
by the result that I am legally compelled to join. 
¶294 As I stated during the oral argument in this matter, 
everything about this case screams of its extreme importance for 
the state and people of Wisconsin, in terms of its energy needs 
and the environment.  It is far more important that we "get it 
right and do it correctly," as opposed to just getting this 
done.  The people of Wisconsin, the state's energy needs, and 
our environment will be best served should the PSC decide to 
take one more good hard look at long-term environmental 
consequences while evaluating those consequences (good, bad, or 
unknown) over time instead of assuming that there are no 
consequences.  That being said, I reluctantly join the decision 
and mandate of the court, as our standard of review requires. 
¶295 For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully concur.                
              
 
 
No.  2004AP3179.awb 
 
1 
 
 
 
¶296 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   (dissenting).  Employing the 
mantra of great weight deference, the majority defers to the 
Public Service Commission (PSC) in all respects.  Yet, an 
agency's conclusion is not entitled to great weight deference if 
it directly contravenes the plain meaning of a statute or its 
own administrative rules.   
¶297 This court is burdened with the task of ensuring that 
the PSC's process meets the statutory and regulatory demands.  
Because the agency's conclusions regarding the adequacy of the 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are contrary to the basic 
requirements of both the PSC's own rules and the Wisconsin 
Environmental Policy Act (WEPA), I conclude that no deference is 
due.  Rather, I determine that the PSC's decision to approve the 
project based on an inadequate EIS was in error. 
¶298 The proposed Oak Creek Power Plant (OCPP) would be the 
largest power plant construction project in this state's 
history.  Many of the briefs filed in this case, either 
challenging or supporting the decision of the PSC, are filed on 
behalf of those parties who have substantial financial interests 
in the project.  One brief, however, stands alone. 
¶299 The State of Illinois has filed a brief on behalf of 
its citizens because it recognizes that the project's effect 
would not respect state boundaries.  Inevitably, any harm caused 
by the 
project to Lake 
Michigan 
and 
its 
fishery 
would 
necessarily affect Illinois residents as well. 
No.  2004AP3179.awb 
 
2 
 
¶300 The State of Illinois shares my conclusion that the 
EIS is inadequate.  Citing federal regulations, Illinois asserts 
that an EIS is expressly required to "present the environmental 
impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative 
form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear 
basis for choice among options by the decisionmaker and the 
public."  40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. 
¶301 Although voicing concerns about the failure of the EIS 
to consider alternative sources of energy that would reduce 
mercury emissions, a primary focus of the State of Illinois is 
the project's proposed cooling system.  This type of system has 
been banned in Illinois for more than 30 years.  The State of 
Illinois charges that the PSC has "declined to conduct even the 
most basic inquiry into alternatives to the environmentally-
destructive cooling system proposed by the applicant, to which 
Illinois 
has 
found 
alternatives 
for 
more 
than 
three 
decades . . . ."  In concluding its argument, it asserts that 
both Illinois and Wisconsin citizens are "entitled to an EIS 
that gives full consideration to cooling technologies that will 
reduce damage to their shared Lake Michigan resource."  I agree. 
¶302 Accordingly, while I believe that the majority opinion 
in many regards is flawed, I focus upon the inadequacy of the 
EIS prepared in this case.  In its decision, the majority 
applies a great weight deference standard of review and rubber-
stamps the PSC's acceptance of the EIS.  The majority explains 
that 
its 
"determination 
that 
the 
EIS 
was 
adequate 
is 
reasonable."  Majority op., ¶226.    
No.  2004AP3179.awb 
 
3 
 
 
¶303 I am mindful of the narrow scope of permissible 
judicial review here.  However, an agency's interpretation of a 
statute or regulation cannot be upheld if it is inconsistent 
with its plain meaning: 
A court does not  . . . give deference to an agency's 
interpretation of a statute when the court concludes 
that the agency's interpretation directly contravenes 
the words of the statute, is clearly contrary to 
legislative intent, or is otherwise unreasonable or 
without rational basis. 
State ex rel. Parker v. Sullivan, 184 Wis. 2d 668, 699-700, 517 
N.W.2d 449 (1994) (citing Lisney v. LIRC, 171 Wis. 2d 499, 506, 
493 N.W.2d 14 (1992)). 
¶304 I conclude that the PSC's decision to accept the EIS 
was contrary to the plain language of the law.  The EIS (1) 
failed to adequately evaluate the proposed action's cumulative 
environmental effects and (2) failed to adequately evaluate 
reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. 
I.  The EIS 
¶305 As noted by the majority, WEPA is patterned after its 
federal counterpart, the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA).  Majority op., ¶188 n. 42.69  The object of both statutes 
is to ensure that agencies carefully consider environmental 
impacts before committing to undertake certain "major" actions.  
State ex rel. Boehm v. DNR, 174 Wis. 2d 657, 665, 497 N.W.2d 445 
(1993); Simmons v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 120 F.3d 664, 
                                                 
69 As a result, federal NEPA case law is an essential source 
of guidance regarding the proper implementation of WEPA, 
constituting highly relevant persuasive authority.  State ex 
rel. Boehm v. DNR, 174 Wis. 2d 657, 676 n. 4, 497 N.W.2d 445 
(1993). 
No.  2004AP3179.awb 
 
4 
 
666 (7th Cir. 1997).  To this end, the statutes require agencies 
to prepare an EIS on actions that would significantly affect the 
quality of the human environment.  Wis. Stat. § 1.11(2)(c); 42 
U.S.C. § 4332(c). 
¶306 The purpose of the EIS is to enable agencies to take a 
"hard look" at the environmental consequences of its proposed 
action. 
 
Milwaukee 
Brewers 
Baseball 
Club 
v. 
DHSS, 
130 
Wis. 2d 56, 72, 387 N.W.2d 245 (1986) (citing New York Natural 
Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. Kleppe, 429 U.S. 1307, 1311 
(1976)).  This "hard look" is necessary in order to inform the 
"commission and the public of significant environmental impacts 
of a proposed action and its alternatives, and reasonable 
methods 
of 
avoiding 
or 
minimizing 
adverse 
environmental 
effects."  Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.30(1). 
¶307 To fulfill its function, "the EIS must set forth 
sufficient information for the general public to make an 
informed evaluation, and for the decisionmaker to 'consider 
fully the environmental factors involved and to make a reasoned 
decision after balancing the risks of harm to the environment 
against the benefits to be derived from the proposed action.'"  
Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 701 F.2d 1011, 1029 
(2d Cir. 1983) (citations omitted).  "In so doing, the EIS 
insures the integrity of the process of decision by giving 
assurance that stubborn problems or serious criticisms have not 
been 'swept under the rug.'"  Id.  
¶308 This "hard look" requirement "sets a high standard for 
the agencies, a standard which must be rigorously enforced by 
No.  2004AP3179.awb 
 
5 
 
the reviewing courts."  Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Comm., Inc. 
v. U.S. Atomic Energy Comm'n, 449 F.2d 1109, 1114 (D.C. Cir. 
1971).  If an agency's "decision was reached procedurally 
without 
individualized 
consideration 
and 
balancing 
of 
environmental factors--conducted fully and in good faith--it is 
the responsibility of the courts to reverse."  Id. at 1115.  
Indeed, courts have not hesitated to invalidate an EIS that 
fails 
to 
include 
the 
requisite 
level 
of 
discussion 
and 
analysis.70 
II. The Failure To Evaluate Cumulative Effects 
 
¶309 One of the more controversial aspects of the project 
is its proposed cooling system, a type banned by both Illinois 
and Indiana.  See, e.g., 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.509; 327 IAC 2-
1.5-8(c)(4)(D)(v)(AA).  The system uses cold water from Lake 
Michigan to cool steam after it passes through the electric 
turbine, so that the steam condenses to water and can be fed 
back into the coal-fired boiler to be converted back into steam.  
Because the cold water would be used only once before being 
                                                 
70 See, e.g., League of Wilderness Defenders v. Forsgren, 
309 F.3d 1181, 1191-92 (9th Cir. 2002) (EIS failed to consider 
impacts of pesticide drift outside target spray area); Utahns 
For Better Transp. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 305 F.3d 1152, 
1179-80 (10th Cir. 2002), modified on other grounds, 319 F.3d 
1207 (10th Cir. 2003) (highway project's impacts to migratory 
birds); Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 
800, 810-11 (9th Cir. 1999) (impacts of land exchange); City of 
Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1160-
61 (9th Cir. 1997) (cumulative impacts of highway); Town of 
Huntington v. Marsh, 859 F.2d 1134, 1140-43 (2d Cir. 1988) 
(effects of discharge to Long Island Sound). 
No.  2004AP3179.awb 
 
6 
 
piped back to Lake Michigan, the system is known as "once-
through" cooling. 
 
¶310 The drawback of the once-through cooling system is 
that it has the potential to cause large-scale destruction of 
aquatic life.  The system functions by taking in vast amounts of 
water on a continuing basis.  Here, the proposed facility would, 
together 
with 
the 
existing 
units, 
suck 
in 
approximately 
2,250,000 gallons per minute, i.e., 3.24 billion gallons per 
day.  Experts in this case testified that the massive water 
intake required for once-through cooling would result in the 
wholesale destruction of millions of fish and other aquatic 
life.   
 
¶311 For instance, fish eggs and larvae passing through the 
fine filter screens to the power plant's condensers could suffer 
a mortality rate as high as 97 percent.71  Likewise, larger fish 
would be killed or fatally injured through impingement when they 
are pressed against the filter screens by the force of the 
intake.  Even with mitigating measures in place, "[t]he proposed 
once-through 
cooling 
system 
will 
result 
in 
the 
annual 
destruction of tens of millions of fish, crustaceans and 
shellfish by entrainment and impingement."72  The aquatic 
environment of Lake Michigan will be forever altered. 
 
¶312 The minimum content of an adequate EIS includes the 
proposed action's cumulative environmental effects.  Wis. Admin. 
                                                 
71 Direct testimony of Dr. Peter A. Henderson.  R. 18, Item 
157 at 4287. 
72 Id. at 4285.   
No.  2004AP3179.awb 
 
7 
 
Code § PSC 4.30(3) requires in relevant part that an EIS 
contain: 
(b) An analysis of the probable impact of the proposed 
action on the environment, including: 
1. An evaluation of positive and negative effects on 
the 
affected 
local 
and 
regional 
environments, 
including the proposed action's direct, indirect and 
cumulative environmental effects. 
(Emphasis added.) 
 
¶313 Likewise, WEPA clearly mandates that the EIS contain a 
"detailed statement" of: 
1. The environmental impact of the proposed action; 
2. Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be 
avoided should the proposal be implemented. 
Wis. Stat. § 1.11(2)(c)1&2. 
 
¶314 Here, after sparse discussion, the EIS dismisses 
cumulative effects of once-through cooling as "inconsequential" 
to the ecosystem of Lake Michigan.  It notes: 
relative to the Lake Michigan fishery, the impacts of 
entrainment and impingement were inconsequential to 
aquatic life in Lake Michigan. 
(Emphasis added.) 
 
¶315 This conclusion, however, was not based on a current 
analysis of Lake Michigan and the proposed water intake system.  
Rather, it was based on a 1975-76 monitoring study of the Lake 
and the then existing water intake system of the power plant.  
There are two problems with reliance on this study.   
¶316 First, 
Lake 
Michigan's 
ecosystem 
has 
changed 
significantly in the last 30 years.  For example, there are 36 
new nonindigenous species that have been first observed in Lake 
No.  2004AP3179.awb 
 
8 
 
Michigan since 1976.  Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin. Great 
Lakes Envtl. Resarch Lab., Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous 
Species 
List 
(May 
27, 
2003). 
 
Available 
at 
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/invasive/ansmechofintro05
2703.html.  The EIS does not take into account the significant 
changes to the ecosystem. 
¶317 Second, the proposed cooling system is substantially 
different and much more ambitious than the one examined in the 
1970s.  Its intake system, extending almost two miles into Lake 
Michigan, would be ten times longer than the original structure.  
Moreover, the total exposure width of the proposed system would 
be more than twice that of the original system.73  The estimated 
3.24 billion gallons of water consumed each day represents a 
183% increase over the consumption considered in the 1975-76 
                                                 
73 The original water intake system at OCPP consisted of 
eight pumps, divided equally between two pumphouses.  The pumps, 
positioned 50 feet inland from the lakeshore, drew water from a 
900-foot long, 200-foot wide, artificial channel in Lake 
Michigan.  Each pumphouse was connected to the lakeshore via an 
intake structure fitted with mesh screens to prevent fish from 
being drawn into the water system.  The width of these intakes 
effectively regulated the amount of water subject to intake.  
The width of the intake on the north pumphouse was 35 feet; on 
the south pumphouse, the width was 58 feet; the total exposure 
width of the system was thus 93 feet. 
By contrast, the proposed water intake structure would be 
located up to 9,000 feet offshore, at a depth of 43 feet.  The 
intake itself would be an array of 24 cylinders, each 8 feet in 
diameter and 32 feet long, connected to 27-foot diameter tunnel 
bored 200 feet below the surface of Lake Michigan.  The total 
exposure width of the proposed system would be 192 feet, more 
than twice that of the original system analyzed in the 1976 
study.    
No.  2004AP3179.awb 
 
9 
 
study.74  Again, the EIS fails to consider these substantial 
differences. 
¶318 In an attempt to curb the criticism for reliance on a 
study conducted almost 30 years ago, the majority quotes from 
the EIS' reference to a 2003 report.  Majority op., ¶201.  In 
doing so, the majority attempts to substitute an interim report 
of 
data 
collection 
for 
the 
mandated 
evaluation 
of 
the 
environmental impact of the aquatic life. 
¶319 The interim 2003 report describes the data compiled 
during the first year of a two-year study.  It is narrow in 
scope and limited to counting fish eggs and larvae in the 
vicinity of the existing and proposed structures.   
¶320 The report fails to consider the impact of entrainment 
and impingement on tens of millions fish, crustaceans, and 
shellfish.  Indeed, the report offers no conclusion whatsoever 
as to the environmental impact of the proposed structure.  This 
                                                 
74 The study relied on data collected from periodic 
sampling——89 total samples over a one-year period——of the north 
pumphouse.  WEPCO, Intake Monitoring Studies, at II-1 (1976).  
The four pumps at this site were each rated at 110,000 gpm, with 
the four pumps at the south pumphouse rated at 198,000 gpm.  
Thus, the maximum volume of water intake at the existing OCPP 
structure was 1,232,000 gpm, or 1.77 billion gallons per day.  
Id. at I-3. 
The proposed water intake system would consist of three 
parts: 
 
the 
remaining 
OCPP 
units, 
originally 
the 
south 
pumphouse; the two proposed SCPC plants; and the proposed IGCC 
plant.  The remaining OCPP units are still rated to 792,000 gpm.  
The proposed SCPC plants would demand an estimated 970,000 gpm.  
Finally, the proposed IGCC plant would demand an additional 
485,000 gpm.  All totaled, the proposed ERGS water intake system 
would consume an estimated 3.24 billion gallons of water each 
day. 
No.  2004AP3179.awb 
 
10 
 
interim data collection report of an incomplete study falls 
short 
of 
providing 
a 
"hard 
look" 
at 
the 
environmental 
consequences of the proposed action. 
¶321 In light of these shortcomings, there was no adequate 
evaluation of the "proposed action's direct, indirect and 
cumulative environmental effects" as required by Wis. Admin. 
Code § PSC 4.30(3).  Absent from the EIS is any "detailed 
statement" of the "environmental impact of the proposed action" 
as mandated by WEPA.  By relying on outdated and incomplete 
studies, the EIS failed to assess the future cumulative 
environmental effects of this proposed action.  As such, the 
PSC's 
decision 
to 
accept 
the 
EIS 
contravened 
the 
basic 
requirements of the PCS's own rules and WEPA. 
III. The Failure To Evaluate Reasonable Alternatives 
 
¶322 In contrast to the proposed once-through cooling 
system, two available alternative cooling technologies, "cooling 
towers" and "dry cooling," would reduce water intake by 90 
percent or more.75 
 The 
former 
operates 
by 
continuously 
circulating a limited amount of water, drawing in more only as 
necessary to replace the water that evaporates in the cooling 
                                                 
75 Direct testimony of Dr. Peter A. Henderson.  R. 18, Item 
157 at 4298. 
No.  2004AP3179.awb 
 
11 
 
process.  The latter, meanwhile, uses even less water, operating 
on the same principle as an automobile radiator.76   
 
¶323 Analysis 
of 
alternatives 
is 
"the 
heart 
of 
the 
environmental 
impact 
statement." 
 
Milwaukee 
Brewers, 
130 
Wis. 2d at 73.  Accordingly, the minimum content of an adequate 
EIS includes an evaluation of the reasonable alternatives to the 
proposed action.   
 
¶324  Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.30(3)(c) requires in 
relevant part: 
(c) An evaluation of the reasonable alternatives to 
the proposed action and significant environmental 
consequences of the alternatives, including those 
alternatives that could avoid some or all of the 
proposed action's adverse environmental effects and 
the alternative of taking no action. 
(Emphasis added.) 
¶325 Likewise, WEPA mandates that the EIS contain a 
"detailed statement" of "[a]lternatives to the proposed action." 
Wis. Stat. § 1.11(2)(c)3. 
¶326 Additionally, the water intake structure must satisfy 
the requirements of the Clean Water Act, which requires that 
"the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling 
water intake structures reflect the best technology available 
                                                 
76 The Great Lakes region hosts five dry-cooling stations:  
Olmstead 
County 
Waste-to-Energy 
Facility 
(1 
megawatt 
in 
Rochester, MN); Chicago Northwest Waste-to-Energy Facility (1 
megawatt); Arbor Hills Landfill Gas Facility (9 megawatts in 
Northville, MI); Pine Bend Landfill Gas Facility (6 megawatts in 
Eden Prairie, MN); and Mallard Lake Landfill Gas Facility (9 
megawatts in Hanover Park, IL). 
No.  2004AP3179.awb 
 
12 
 
for minimizing adverse environmental impact."  33 U.S.C.A. 
§ 1326(b) (emphasis added).   
¶327 While an agency is not required to evaluate "the 
environmental consequences of alternatives it has in good faith 
rejected as too remote, speculative, or  . . . impractical or 
ineffective," All Indian Pueblo Council v. United States, 975 
F.2d 1437, 1444 (10th Cir. 1992), "[t]he existence of a viable 
but unexamined alternative renders an environmental impact 
statement inadequate."  Resources Ltd., Inc. v. Robertson, 35 
F.3d 1300, 1307 (9th Cir. 1994).   
 
¶328 Here, 
the 
EIS 
failed 
to 
evaluate 
reasonable 
alternatives to the proposed once-through cooling system that 
would greatly reduce harm to aquatic life in Lake Michigan.  
Instead, the EIS merely states that measures should be taken to 
mitigate the harm that would be caused, and that additional 
studies of entrainment and impingement should be conducted after 
the system has been built.   
¶329 As one aquatic life expert indicated, this approach 
amounts to closing the barn door after the horse has left.  
After all, once an open-cycle cooling system is allowed, there 
is very little that can be done to significantly reduce its harm 
to the aquatic environment.  The expert explained, "It is my 
opinion that there are few options to protect lake life from an 
offshore intake of the size proposed and that these options are 
further restricted if implementation is attempted after design 
and completion of construction."77 
                                                 
77 Direct testimony of Dr. Peter A. Henderson.  R. 18, Item 
157 at 4314. 
No.  2004AP3179.awb 
 
13 
 
¶330 When asked by several entities78 why the EIS failed to 
discuss any alternatives to environmentally-destructive once-
through cooling system, the EIS writers both acknowledged and 
defended this complete failure.  They explained: 
Once-through cooling water and closed-cycle cooling 
are commonly used cooling alternatives. WEPCO has 
proposed to use once-through cooling water for the 
ERGS.  The Clean Water Act does not prohibit the use 
of once-through cooling water, nor does it compel 
anyone to use closed-cycle cooling.  DNR does not have 
the authority to require closed-cycle cooling for this 
project. 
¶331 There are two problems with this explanation.  First, 
it is illogical.  The conclusion that one need not address the 
common alternative of closed-cycle cooling because the DNR does 
not have the authority to require it is a non sequitur.  Second, 
and more importantly, it is against the clear language of the 
PSC's own rule and WEPA.   
 
¶332 Absent from the EIS is the required evaluation of: 
alternatives, including those alternatives that could 
avoid some or all of the proposed action's adverse 
environmental effects . . . . 
Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.30(3)(c). 
¶333 Likewise, 
missing 
from 
the 
EIS 
is 
a 
"detailed 
statement" of "[a]lternatives to the proposed action."  Wis. 
Stat. § 1.11(2)(c)3. 
¶334 The majority proceeds to whitewash this inadequacy by 
construing "the EIS's writers' response as concluding that 
cooling towers are not a reasonable alternative due to the DNR's 
                                                 
78 The entities include Lake Michigan Federation, Citizens' 
Utility Board, and SC Johnson. 
No.  2004AP3179.awb 
 
14 
 
inability to require them."  Majority op., ¶205.  It then 
explains, "[g]iven that the PSC is best situated to determine 
what constitutes a reasonable alternative, we cannot conclude 
that the PSC's determination that this analysis is reasonable 
lacks a rational basis."  Id.   
¶335 Contrary to the assertions of the majority, there is 
nothing unreasonable about closed-cycle cooling.  This would not 
require the authors of the EIS to engage in "remote and 
speculative analysis."  Id.  Indeed, many other power plants 
have also been using cooling towers for decades, including the 
last coal-fired plant that Wisconsin Energy Corporation built, 
Pleasant Prairie.  Tellingly, the EIS writers themselves 
described 
closed-cycle 
cooling 
as 
a 
"commonly 
used 
. . . alternative[]."79 
¶336 As 
such, 
the 
EIS 
needed 
to 
evaluate 
these 
alternatives, 
along 
with 
their 
significant 
environmental 
                                                 
79 Since oral argument in this case, Clean Wisconsin and SC 
Johnson have filed a lawsuit in the Dane County Circuit Court, 
challenging the Wisconsin 
Department 
of Natural 
Resources 
issuance of a permit to operate the controversial once-through 
cooling system that would serve the proposed OCPP.   
At a public hearing on that matter, Peter Howe, a biologist 
for the Environmental Protection Agency, submitted 22 pages of 
testimony expressing his serious reservations with the permit.  
"Testimony of Peter H. Howe in Objection to Conditions in Draft 
WPDES Permit No. WI-0000914-07-0," Prepared February 13, 2005, 
available at the Department of Natural Resources. 
Howe noted that "all power plants built in the past 20 
years of which [he was] aware use closed cycle cooling."  Id.  
Additionally, Howe observed, "if cooling towers had been 
selected, we would not be having the following debate on 
entrainment, thermal or mercury . . . ." 
No.  2004AP3179.awb 
 
15 
 
consequences.  Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.30(3)(c).  This 
analysis, of course, need not be extraordinarily detailed.  
However, "more than nothing was required."  Utahns For Better 
Transp. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 305 F.3d 1152, 1166 n. 6 (10th 
Cir. 2002), modified on other grounds, 319 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 
2003). 
¶337 Instead of evaluating these alternatives, however, the 
PSC asserts that the proposed water intake structure is the 
"best technology available."  Again, citing to the 1975-76 
monitoring study conducted in conjunction with permits related 
to the original power plant, the PSC states: 
The report concluded . . . .  ["]The impact on the 
environment must be considered to be minimal."  In an 
April 15, 1977 letter to Wisconsin Electric Power 
Company, 
the 
Department 
[of 
Natural 
Resources] 
concurred with this conclusion.  The Department has 
not evaluated this conclusion since 1977. 
 
¶338 I agree with the State of Illinois that the PSC has 
"declined 
to 
conduct 
even 
the 
most 
basic 
inquiry 
into 
alternatives to the environmentally-destructive cooling system 
proposed by the applicant . . . ."  The relevance of the 1975-76 
study to the proposed project is tenuous at best.  It certainly 
cannot be viewed as a thorough analysis of what represents the 
"best technology available" for the proposed site, as required 
by the Clean Water Act.  33 U.S.C.A. § 1326(b).   
¶339 In 
the 
end, 
the 
EIS 
provides 
but 
a 
fleeting 
consideration of the environmental impact of the proposed water 
intake system, and no consideration whatsoever of the reasonable 
alternatives.  Therefore, the PSC's decision to accept the EIS 
No.  2004AP3179.awb 
 
16 
 
was contrary to the requirements of its own administrative rules 
and WEPA.  Accordingly, I conclude that no deference is due.   
¶340 I recognize that this project is important for 
southeast Wisconsin and the state as a whole.  Yet it is also 
critically important to the citizens of this state that the 
process approving the project adheres to the requirements of 
law.  Because the PSC decision to accept the EIS was in error, 
this court should reverse the agency's decision and remand to 
the PSC for the mandated evaluations. 
¶341 I am authorized to state that Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. 
ABRAHAMSON joins this dissent.  
 
No.  2004AP3179.awb 
 
 
 
1