Case Title: 99 CV 105 Responsible Use of Rural and Agricultural Land (RURAL) v.

Citation: 2000 WI 129

Docket Number: 9338

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2000-12-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
2000 WI 129 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
99-2430 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
Responsible Use of Rural and Agricultural Land 
(RURAL),  
 
Petitioner-Appellant, 
Daniel Gomez-Ibanez, Wendy Lynn Lein, Lynn 
Needham, and Kathryn A. Nekola,  
 
Petitioners, 
 
v. 
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin and 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,  
 
Respondents-Respondents, 
RockGen Energy LLC, Polsky Energy Corporation, 
and Alliant Energy-Wisconsin Power and Light 
Company,  
 
Intervenors-Respondents-Respondents. 
__________________________________ 
 
Village of Rockdale,  
 
Petitioner-Co-Appellant, 
 
v. 
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin,  
 
Respondent-Respondent, 
RockGen Energy LLC, Polsky Energy Corporation, 
and Alliant Energy-Wisconsin Power and Light 
Company,  
 
Intervenors-Respondents-Respondents. 
 
 
ON BYPASS FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
December 19, 2000 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
September 6, 2000 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Dane 
 
JUDGE: 
Gerald C. Nichol 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., dissents (opinion filed). 
 
 
BRADLEY, J., joins dissent. 
 
Not Participating: WILCOX, J., did not participate. 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For the petitioner-appellant, RURAL, there were 
briefs (in the court of appeals) by Susan Hedman and 
Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest, Chicago, and 
oral argument by Susan Hedman. 
 
 
For the petitioner-co-appellant, Village of 
Rockdale, there were briefs (in the court of appeals) by Allen D. 
Reuter, Kim I. Moermond and Reuter & Whitish, S.C., Madison, and 
oral argument by Allen D. Reuter. 
 
 
For the respondent-respondent, Public Service 
Commission of Wisconsin, there was a brief (in the court of 
appeals) by Kevin B. Cronin, assistant general counsel, Madison, 
and oral argument by Kevin B. Cronin. 
 
 
For the respondent-respondent, Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources, the cause was argued by Frank D. 
Remington, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief (in 
the court of appeals) was James E. Doyle, attorney general. 
 
 
For the intervenors-respondents-respondents, 
Rockgen Energy LLC and Polsky Energy Corporation, there was a 
brief (in the court of appeals) by Peter L. Gardon, Raymond M. 
Roder, Stephanie L. Mott and Reinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, 
Norris & Rieselbach, S.C., Madison, and oral argument by Peter L. 
Gardon. 
 
 
For the intervenor-respondent-respondent, Alliant 
Energy-Wisconsin Power and Light Company, there was a brief (in 
 
3 
the court of appeals) by Ritchie J. Sturgeon, Madison, and oral 
argument by Ritchie J. Sturgeon. 
 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Terrence C. 
Thom, Rocke A. Calvelli, William P. Croke and Quale, Feldbruegge, 
Calvelli, Thom & Croke, S.C., Milwaukee, on behalf of the 
Wisconsin Utilities Association. 
 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Frank J. 
Jablonski and Porter, Jablonski & Associates, S.C., Madison, on 
behalf of Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Citizens Utility 
Board, Senators Fred A. Risser and Charles Chvala, and 
Representative Tom Hebl. 
 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Cal W. 
Kornstedt, corporation counsel, and Maureen A. Plunkett, 
assistant corporation counsel, on behalf of the County of Dane. 
 
 
2000 WI 129 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 99-2430 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN                    :    IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Responsible Use of Rural and  
Agricultural Land (RURAL),  
 
          Petitioner-Appellant, 
 
Daniel Gomez-Ibanez, Wendy Lynn Lein,  
Lynn Needham, and Kathryn A. Nekola,  
 
          Petitioners, 
 
     v. 
 
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin  
and Wisconsin Department of Natural  
Resources,  
 
          Respondents-Respondents, 
 
RockGen Energy LLC, Polsky Energy  
Corporation, and Alliant Energy-Wisconsin  
Power and Light Company,  
 
          Intervenors-Respondents- 
          Respondents. 
 
__________________________________ 
 
Village of Rockdale,  
 
          Petitioner-Co-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin,  
 
          Respondent-Respondent, 
 
RockGen Energy LLC, Polsky Energy  
Corporation, and Alliant Energy-Wisconsin  
Power and Light Company,  
FILED 
 
DEC 19, 2000 
 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
2
 
          Intervenors-Respondents- 
          Respondents. 
 
 
APPEAL from an order of the Circuit Court for Dane County, 
Honorable Gerald C. Nichol, Circuit Court Judge.  Affirmed. 
 
¶1 
N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.   This appeal is before the court 
on certification from the court of appeals pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
(Rule) § 809.61 (1997-98).1  Petitioner-Appellant, Responsible Use 
of 
Rural 
and 
Agricultural 
Land 
(RURAL), 
and 
Petitioner-Co-
Appellant, the Village of Rockdale (Rockdale), appeal an order of 
the circuit court for Dane County, Honorable Gerald C. Nichol, 
Judge, dismissing RURAL and Rockdale's petitions challenging an 
Order of the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) entered 
in PSC docket numbers 9335-CE-101, 6680-CE-155 and 6630-CE-263 
(Order) and the related Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources' 
Record of Decision.  The PSC's Order, dated December 18, 1998, 
granted a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the 
construction 
and 
operation 
of 
a 
natural 
gas-fired 
electric 
generation power plant with a capacity of up to 525 megawatts (MW) 
                     
1 Wisconsin Stat. § (Rule) 809.61 (1997-98) provides: 
The supreme court may take jurisdiction of an appeal or 
other 
proceeding 
in 
the 
court 
of 
appeals 
upon 
certification by the court of appeals or upon the supreme 
court's own motion.  
 
All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are 
to the 1997-98 text unless otherwise noted. 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
3
located in the Town of Christiana, Dane County, Wisconsin.2  The 
Department of Natural Resources' (DNR's) Record of Decision, dated 
December 15, 1998, certified that the PSC and the DNR complied with 
the Wisconsin Environmental Protection Act with respect to their 
review of the proposed project.  
¶2 
The circuit court determined that the PSC and the DNR 
properly applied an expedited review process contained in the 
nonstatutory provision of § 96 of 1997 Wisconsin Act 204 to the 
application 
for 
the 
certificate 
of 
public 
convenience 
and 
necessity.3  The circuit court found that the PSC properly placed 
conditions 
on 
the 
Order 
issuing 
the 
certificate 
of 
public 
convenience and necessity.  The circuit court also found that the 
PSC sufficiently considered land use concerns in reviewing the 
certificate application.  We agree that § 96 of 1997 Wisconsin Act 
                     
2 The PSC's Order pertained to three related applications: (1) 
Under docket number 9335-CE-101, the Application of RockGen Energy 
LLC (Polsky Energy Corporation) for Authority to Construct and 
Place in Operation a Simple-Cycle Combustion Turbine Generating 
Facility, Known as the RockGen Energy Center to be Located in Dane 
or 
Rock 
County; 
(2) 
under 
docket 
number 
6880-CE-155, 
the 
Application of Alliant-Wisconsin Power and Light for Authority to 
Construct and Operate a New Substation and 138 kV [kilovolt] 
Transmission Line, or Update and Relocate an Existing 138 kV 
Transmission 
Line, 
Make 
Necessary 
Substation 
and 
138-69 
kV 
Transformer Modifications Associated With the RockGen Energy 
Center; and, (3) under docket number 6630-CE-263, the Application 
of Wisconsin Electric Power Company for Transmission System 
Improvement Associated With the RockGen Energy Center.  The first 
application is at issue here.  The capacity refers to the maximum 
megawatts of electricity the power plant can generate in one hour. 
3 Nonstatutory provisions are those provisions the legislature 
enacts 
but 
are 
not 
codified 
in 
the 
Wisconsin 
Statutes.  
Nonstatutory provisions typically involve legislation of limited 
application or limited duration, or both.  
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
4
204 (Act 204) applied here.4  We also agree that the PSC did not err 
in placing the conditions it did on its Order.  The PSC and the DNR 
                     
4 The pertinent parts of § 96 of 1997 Wisconsin Act 204 are as 
follows: 
Section 96.  Nonstatutory provisions. 
(1) REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS FOR ELECTRIC GENERATION 
CAPACITY: 
(a) In this subsection: 
1. 
"Certificate" means a certificate issued by 
the commission under section 196.49 of the statutes or 
under section 196.491(3) of the statutes, as affected by 
this act. 
2. 
"Commission" 
means 
the 
public 
service 
commission. 
3. 
"Contractor" 
means 
a 
person 
specified 
in 
paragraph (b) 3. that enters into a contract with an 
eastern 
Wisconsin 
utility 
for 
the 
construction 
of 
electric generation capacity. 
4. 
"Department" means the department of natural 
resources. 
5. 
"Eastern Wisconsin utility" has the meaning 
given in section 196.377(2)(a)1. of the statutes, as 
created by this act. . . .  
(b) By July 31, 1998, or a later date approved by 
the commission, each eastern Wisconsin utility that, 
before the effective date of this paragraph, has issued a 
request for proposals soliciting bids for contracts for 
the construction of new electric generation capacity 
shall do each of the following: 
 
1. 
Complete its evaluation of the bids that were 
submitted in response to the request for proposals. 
 
2. 
Select the bids for which it intends to award 
the contracts. 
 
3. 
Enter into contracts with the persons who 
submitted the bids specified in subdivision 2. for the 
construction of the new electric generation capacity. 
 
(c) Notwithstanding section 196.491(3)(a)1. of the 
statutes, as affected by this act, no later than August 
31, 1998, each [contractor] specified in paragraph (b) 
(intro.) 
shall 
apply 
to 
the 
commission 
for 
any 
certificate that is required for construction of new 
electric generation capacity under the contracts into 
which it enters under paragraph (b)3. and, if required 
under section 196.491(3)(a)3.a. of the statutes, as 
affected by this act, submit an engineering plan to the 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
5
reasonably interpreted and applied § 96 of Act 204 and other 
relevant provisions of the Wisconsin Statutes to fulfill the 
salutary purposes thereof.  We have not found a more reasonable 
interpretation, nor have 
we 
been provided 
one. 
 
Moreover, 
substantial evidence and reasoning evident in the record support 
the PSC's and the DNR's findings.  We therefore affirm the circuit 
court's decision. 
I 
                                                                  
department as specified in section 196.491(3)(a)3.a. of 
the statutes, as affected by this act. 
 
(d) Notwithstanding section 196.491(3)(a)3.a. and 
b. of the statutes, as affected by this act, if [a 
contractor] specified in paragraph (b) (intro.) submits 
an engineering plan to the department under paragraph 
(c), the [contractor] and the department shall satisfy 
each of the following: . . .  
 
4. 
The department shall complete action on an 
application submitted under subdivision 2. or re-filed 
under subdivision 3. within 45 days after the date on 
which the application is determined or considered to be 
complete under subdivision 3. 
 
(e) Notwithstanding section 196.491(3)(a)2., (b) 
and (g) 1. and 2. of the statutes, as affected by this 
act, the commission and [a contractor] specified in 
paragraph (b) (intro.) that applies for a certificate 
under section 196.491(3) of the statutes, as affected by 
this act, shall satisfy each of the following: . . .  
 
3. 
The commission shall take final action on the 
application within 90 days after the application is 
determined or considered to be complete under subdivision 
1.  If the commission fails to take final action within 
the 90-day period, the commission is considered to have 
issued a certificate with respect to the application.  
1997 Wis. Act 204, § 96(1)(a)1.-5., (b), (c), (d)4., 
(e)3. 
The bracketed references to "contractor" reflect an amendment 
that substituted the term "contractor" for the term an 
"eastern Wisconsin utility" in subdivisions (1)(c), (d) and 
(e).  1997 Wis. Act 306, §§ 7d - 7f. 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
6
¶3 
A certificate of public convenience and necessity is a 
statutory prerequisite for the construction and operation of a 
facility that generates 100 MW or more of electricity.  Wis. Stat. 
§ 196.491(1)(e), (g), (3)(a).  Wisconsin Stat. § 196.491(3) and 
related provisions govern the certificate application process.  "No 
person may commence the construction of a facility unless the 
person has applied for and received a certificate of public 
convenience and necessity from the commission as provided in this 
section."  Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)1.5 
¶4 
In 1997, Act 204 modified the application process for 
certificates 
of 
public 
convenience 
and 
necessity. 
Act 
204 
eliminated over a year from the process.  1997 Wis. Act 204, §§ 63-
67; compare also Wis. Stat. §  196.491(2m) and (3) (1995-96) with 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3) (1997-98).  Prior to Act 204, an 
engineering plan had to be filed with the DNR 120 days before the 
application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity 
was filed with the PSC.  Wis. Stat. § 196.491(2m), (3) (1995-96).  
The certificate application had to be filed with the PSC 18 months 
before construction began.  Id.  Since Act 204, an engineering plan 
must be filed 60 days before the certificate application, and the 
certificate application needs to be filed six months before 
construction begins.  Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3).  Act 204 also 
repealed the provision that the PSC could approve a utility's 
                     
5 "Commission" refers to the PSC.  Wis. Stat. § 196.01(2m).  
With 
respect 
to 
an 
electric generating 
facility, 
the 
term 
"facility" refers to "electric generating equipment and associated 
facilities designed for nominal operation at a capacity of 100 
megawatts or more."  Wis. Stat. § 196.491(1)(g).   
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
7
application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity 
only if the proposed facility substantially complied  "with the 
most 
recent 
advance 
plan 
filed . . . and 
approved 
by 
the 
commission."  Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)(1) (1995-96); 1997 Wis. 
Act 204, § 69.  Section 96 of Act 204 further shortened the 
timeline for qualified certificate applications, compressing the 
review time to approximately 90 days.  Compare 1997 Wis. Act 204, 
§ 96(1)(c)-(e) with Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3). 
¶5 
The facts surrounding the application for a certificate 
of public convenience and necessity at issue here are not in 
dispute.  Beginning in the summer of 1997, concerns arose regarding 
the reliability of Wisconsin's supply of electricity.  "Wisconsin 
faced 
unprecedented 
power 
supply 
problems 
due 
to 
extended 
unexpected generating plant outages, a delay in the on-line 
availability of a new power plant, and a seriously constrained 
transmission system."  Order at 4.6  During this time, the PSC 
determined that there was an unacceptable level of risk in the 
current electric generating capacity in eastern Wisconsin and 
concluded that there was an immediate need for 500 MW of additional 
electric generation capacity.  In September 1997, the PSC issued a 
report to Governor Tommy G. Thompson recommending that 500 MW be 
added to Wisconsin's electric generation capacity on an expedited 
basis. 
                     
6 The PSC's Order is found in the record at 27:100.  Page 
references herein are to page numbers of the Order.  
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
8
¶6 
Also in September 1997, the PSC directed utilities that 
supply electricity to eastern Wisconsin, Wisconsin Electric Power 
Company (WEPCO), Wisconsin Power and Light Company, and Madison Gas 
and Electric Company (MGE), to submit detailed supply plans 
indicating how they intended to secure the electric generating 
capacity required to meet the needs of its customers.7 The PSC 
specifically required Wisconsin Power and Light Company, now known 
as Alliant Energy-Wisconsin Power and Light Company (Alliant-WPL), 
to prepare a plan to procure a firm resource to supply 170 MW of 
additional electric generation capacity.    
¶7 
On December 4, 1997, Alliant-WPL issued a request for 
proposals or bids for additional electric generation capacity  in 
order to comply with the PSC's mandate.  According to Alliant-WPL's 
request for proposals, Alliant-WPL had an immediate need for 150 MW 
peak capacity.8  Alliant-WPL's request also pointed to the larger 
need for 500 MW of capacity in eastern Wisconsin and indicated that 
one of its sites between Janesville and Beloit could support an 
electric generation plant of that size and should be considered.  
The proposals were due on February 27, 1998.   
¶8 
On July 30, 1998, Alliant-WPL informed the PSC that it 
had entered into an agreement in principle with RockGen Energy LLC 
and Polsky Energy Corporation (collectively, RockGen) for the 
                     
7 These three utilities are also known and referred to herein 
as eastern Wisconsin utilities.  See Wis. Stat. § 196.377(2)(a)1.  
8 Peak capacity is that capacity for electricity that is 
reserved for those times when demand peaks or exceeds its normal 
level, for example, during the summertime.    
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
9
construction 
of 
a 
new 
electric 
generation 
power 
plant 
in 
conformance with the requirements of § 96 of Act 204.  On August 
10, 1998, Alliant-WPL entered into a Power Purchase Agreement with 
RockGen.  On August 13, 1998, the PSC notified Alliant-WPL of its 
finding that the contract between Alliant-WPL and RockGen met the 
conditions of § 96(1)(b)3.  
¶9 
The Power Purchase Agreement has been designated as a 
confidential document by the circuit court.  Although the exact 
terms of the Agreement are confidential, the parties disclosed 
pertinent aspects of the Agreement in their submissions to this 
court and at oral argument.  According to the Agreement, RockGen 
will supply Alliant-WPL with electricity when needed during peak 
times.  The Agreement also indicates that Alliant-WPL has the first 
right to electricity generated by the plant, and that RockGen could 
sell the electricity to others when Alliant-WPL does not have a 
need for it. 
¶10 On August 31, 1998, RockGen submitted an application to 
the PSC for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to 
construct and operate a wholesale merchant plant.9  The 770-page 
application proposed a 525 MW plant at a site in the Town of 
                     
9 Wholesale merchant plants were first allowed in Wisconsin as 
a result of 1997 Wisconsin Act 204.  1997 Wis. Act 204, §§ 38, 69, 
81.  Wholesale merchant plants are electric generating facilities 
that are not owned by a public utility but can supply electricity 
to a utility at wholesale.  Wis. Stat. § 196.491(1)(w).  Wholesale 
merchant plants cannot provide electric service to any retail 
customer in Wisconsin, but may provide electric service to retail 
customers 
outside 
Wisconsin. 
 
Id.; 
see 
also 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 196.491(3m).  
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
10
Christiana in Dane County, or, alternatively, a 350 MW plant at a 
site in Johnstown Township in Rock County.  
¶11 The PSC reviewed RockGen's certificate application, and 
the DNR reviewed the engineering plan for the proposed plant.  On 
September 10, 1998, the DNR notified RockGen of the permits needed 
from the DNR for the construction and operation of the proposed 
plant, which included a high capacity well permit and an air 
pollution control permit; RockGen then applied for the required 
permits. On September 15, 1998, the PSC notified RockGen that its 
application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity 
was incomplete; but after RockGen submitted additional material, 
the PSC determined that the application was complete on September 
22, 1998.  
¶12 The PSC and DNR also prepared an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) evaluating the environmental impact of RockGen's 
proposed facilities at both the Christiana and Johnstown sites.  
The DNR issued the EIS on October 31, 1998, and it remained open 
for public comments until November 20, 1998.  According to the EIS, 
the impact of the construction and operation of the proposed 
facility on human environment in Christianaair quality, water 
quality, 
vegetation, 
wetlands, 
as 
well 
as 
property 
values, 
recreation, aesthetics, zoning, traffic, etc.would be minimal.  
¶13 On October 16, 1998, the PSC issued a public notice of 
RockGen's pending application and upcoming public hearings.   The 
PSC held public hearings both during the day and in the evening in 
Cambridge and Janesville, on November 16 and November 17, 1998, 
respectively.  The PSC also held hearings during the day on 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
11
November 18, 19, and 20, 1998, in Madison.  Over 185 individuals 
testified at the hearings.   
¶14 RURAL and Rockdale, as well as Alliant-WPL and RockGen, 
participated as full parties in RockGen's certificate application 
process.10  RURAL's interest arose from its purpose to maintain the 
rural and agricultural character of eastern Dane County and 
adjacent western Jefferson County, and to promote environmental 
quality thereof.  Rockdale's interest arose from its extra-
territorial zoning jurisdiction over the Town of Christiana.  Among 
other things, RURAL and others objected to the scope of the EIS and 
the short time to review it.  They also expressed a number of 
concerns about the possible impact of the project. 
¶15 On December 15, 1998, the DNR notified the PSC that its 
review of two outstanding permits would be concluded shortly.  Also 
on December 15, 1998, the DNR issued its Record of Decision, 
concluding that RockGen's proposed 525 MW plant in Christiana could 
comply with all regulatory requirements and that the DNR complied 
with the applicable provisions of the Wisconsin Environmental 
Protection Act in reviewing the proposed project.  The next day, 
the DNR issued one of the outstanding permits.  The DNR 
subsequently issued the other, an air pollution control permit, on 
January 25, 1999.   
                     
10 Full party status allows a person or entity to actively 
participate in the PSC certificate application process by making 
motions and an opening statement, presenting evidence, cross-
examining witnesses and presenting rebuttal evidence.  Wisconsin 
Envtl. Decade v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 84 Wis. 2d 504, 528, 267 
N.W.2d 609 (1978).   
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
12
¶16 On December 18, 1998, the PSC issued its Order on 
RockGen's certificate application, which included Findings of Fact, 
Conclusions of Law, Decision, and Certificate of Public Convenience 
and Necessity.  The Order issued a certificate for a plant at the 
Christiana site and explained that "[s]everal factors establish the 
reasonableness of the Project at the Christiana site." 
 
 
A large electric substation is approximately 0.25 
mile from the site. [A] natural gas transmission pipeline 
is located approximately eight miles from the site.  The 
town planning committee recommended overwhelmingly (5-0-
1) to permit the Facility in an area otherwise zoned 
agricultural.  Construction at the Christiana site will 
require far less disruption of the surrounding areas than 
would be required in Johnstown.  Greater environmental 
impacts would arise from construction in Johnstown, 
including impacts to the extensive wetlands adjacent to 
the Mukwonago River and Lulu Lake and damage to natural 
areas, including the Young Prairie and the Kettle Moraine 
State Forest with a large southern oak forest. 
Order at 5.  The Order also imposed a number of conditions to 
address 
environmental, 
aesthetic, 
land 
use, 
and 
permitting 
concerns.  
¶17 Two of the three PSC commissioners voted in favor of the 
project.  The third dissented, expressing his belief that § 96 was 
intended to apply to an application for a plant with a capacity of 
no greater than 170 MW based upon the PSC's September 1997 
directive that Alliant-WPL obtain 170 MW of firm capacity.  
¶18 In January 1999, RURAL and Rockdale each petitioned Dane 
County Circuit Court for review of the PSC's Order and the DNR's 
Record of Decision pursuant to Wis. Stat. Chapter 227, and Alliant-
WPL and RockGen intervened.  The circuit court then consolidated 
RURAL and Rockdale's petitions.  On July 26, 1999, the circuit 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
13
court affirmed the PSC's Order and the DNR's Record of Decision.  
The circuit court found that there was substantial evidence in the 
record to support the PSC's findings of fact.  The court concluded, 
applying a due deference standard of review, that the PSC properly 
interpreted § 96 to apply to RockGen's certificate application for 
the project.  The circuit court also concluded that the PSC 
properly interpreted the law to impose the conditions it did on 
RockGen's certificate of public convenience and necessity.  The 
circuit court thus dismissed RURAL and Rockdale's petitions. 
¶19 On September 20, 1999, RURAL and Rockdale appealed the 
circuit court's order dismissing their petitions.  Pending the 
appeal, RURAL asked the circuit court for a stay of the plant 
construction.  The circuit court denied the motion; RURAL renewed 
it in the court of appeals.  Meanwhile, RockGen moved this court to 
bypass the court of appeals.  We granted the motion for bypass.  
RURAL then moved this court for a stay pending the appeal.  The 
court denied the motion,  
 
"noting, [in its Order], that the respondents have 
acknowledged that by proceeding with construction 
during 
the 
pendency 
of 
this 
appeal, 
they 
are 
proceeding at their own risk, that they have a duty 
and capability to remediate, and that they can and 
will 
remediate 
the 
site 
should 
the 
certificate 
authorizing this construction be vacated on appeal." 
The parties informed us at oral argument that construction had 
begun.  
II 
¶20 An administrative agency's statutory construction and 
application thereof to the presented facts involve questions of law 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
14
that are subject to judicial review.  Brauneis v. LIRC, 2000 WI 69, 
¶ 15, 236 Wis. 2d 27, 612 N.W.2d 635.  Correspondingly, although we 
ultimately affirm the circuit court's decision, the focus of our 
review is the PSC's Order and the DNR's Record of Decision, not the 
circuit court's decision.  Id. at ¶ 14.  Insofar as the PSC's and 
the 
DNR's 
statutory 
construction 
depend 
upon 
their 
factual 
findings, we review those findings to determine whether there is 
substantial evidence to support them.  "Substantial evidence does 
not mean a preponderance of the evidence.  Rather, the test is 
whether, taking into account all the evidence in the record, 
'reasonable minds could arrive at the same conclusion as the 
agency.'"  Madison Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 109 Wis. 
2d 127, 133, 325 N.W.2d 339 (1982) (quoting Sanitary Transfer & 
Landfill, Inc. v. DNR, 85 Wis. 2d 1, 15, 270 N.W.2d 144 (1978)).  
Where there is substantial evidence in the record, we will uphold 
those findings.  Wis. Stat. § 227.57 (6).  
¶21 Even though the court is not bound by the agencies' 
statutory interpretation here, circumstances may warrant according 
some level of deference to their interpretation.  Brauneis, 2000 WI 
69, ¶ 15.  Depending upon the circumstances of the case, we will 
review an agency's statutory interpretation according to one of 
three levels:  great weight deference, due weight deference and de 
novo review.  Id.   
¶22 For divergent reasons, RURAL and Rockdale contend that no 
deference should be accorded to the PSC and DNR's decisions,  and 
the court should review them de novo.  De novo review is 
appropriate where there is no evidence that the agency used any 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
15
special knowledge or expertise, the issue is clearly one of first 
impression, or the agency's position on an issue has been 
inconsistent.  Id. at ¶ 18.  De novo review is not appropriate here 
because both the DNR and the PSC relied upon their special 
knowledge 
and 
expertise 
to 
process 
RockGen's 
certificate 
application.  The PSC and the DNR each have responsibilities for 
processing applications for certificates of public convenience and 
necessity.  Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3); see also 1997 Wis. Act 204, 
§ 96(1).  The DNR, with the PSC, prepared a 200-page EIS.  The PSC 
reviewed and processed a 770-page certificate application, and 
considered 
the 
testimony 
of 
nearly 
200 
individuals. 
 
The 
administrative record amassed here exceeds 3400 pages.  The DNR and 
PSC processed RockGen's application as they would have any other 
application, only in a shorter time. Section 96 expedited the 
certificate application process; it did not substantively change 
the procedure.  Compare 1997 Wis. Act 204, § 96(1) with Wis. Stat. 
§ 196.491(3).  
¶23 Alliant-WPL and RockGen contend that the PSC and DNR's 
statutory 
interpretations 
should 
be 
accorded 
great 
weight 
deference.  
 
Great weight deference is appropriate once a court has 
concluded that: (1) the agency was charged by the 
legislature with the duty of administering the statute; 
(2) that the interpretation of the agency is one of long-
standing; (3) that the agency employed its expertise or 
specialized knowledge in forming the interpretation; and 
(4) 
that 
the 
agency's 
interpretation 
will 
provide 
uniformity and consistency in the application of the 
statute. 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
16
Harnischfeger Corp. v. LIRC, 196 Wis. 2d 650, 660, 539 N.W.2d 98 
(1995). 
We 
disagree. 
 
Even 
though 
the 
PSC's 
and 
DNR's 
interpretation of the provisions governing the substantive review 
of certificate applications in Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3) is long-
standing, their interpretation of § 96 and Act 204 is not, and 
could not be, one of long-standing.  There is no indication that 
the agencies had used § 96 prior to RockGen's application.11  Act 
204 also first allowed for wholesale merchant plants and eliminated 
the requirement that a certificate application had to substantially 
comply with an advance plan that the PSC previously approved.  Wis. 
Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)1. (1995-96); 1997 Wis. Act 204, §§ 38, 69, 
81; see also Wis. Stat. § 196.491(1)(w), (3m)(d).  Act 204, and 
                     
11 We know of only one other application that the PSC processed 
according to § 96 of Act 204. The resulting order, PSC Order for 
Application of SEI Wisconsin, LLC et al., Docket No. 9338-CE-10 
dated February 2, 1999 (SEI Order), suggests that the PSC's 
approach under § 96 may have been inconsistent.  There, the PSC 
considered a certificate application for a wholesale merchant plant 
with a capacity of 300 to 360 MW.  SEI Order at 2, 10.  The 
proposed plant was to supply another eastern Wisconsin utility, 
WEPCO, with electricity.  Id. at 2.  The PSC had, in September 
1997, as it did with Alliant-WPL, ordered WEPCO to procure needed 
additional capacity; however, the amount was 250 MW.  Id. at 1.  
The PSC considered in the SEI Order that WEPCO's projected needs 
had increased since September 1997.  Id. at 1-2.  Here, in 
contrast, the PSC did not consider that Alliant-WPL's projected 
needs had also increased since September 1997.  Instead, regarding 
RockGen's 
certificate 
application, 
the 
PSC 
concluded 
that 
"[b]ecause the Facility is a wholesale merchant plant, the 
Commission was not permitted to consider whether the Facility would 
satisfy the reasonable needs of the public for an adequate supply 
of electricity under Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)2."  Order at 6.  
That the PSC appears to have inconsistently applied § 96 argues 
against both de novo review and great weight deference.  See 
Harnischfeger Corp. v. LIRC, 196 Wis. 2d 650, 660, 539 N.W.2d 98 
(1995).  
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
17
particularly § 96, present novel circumstances, making great weight 
deference inappropriate.  Brauneis, 2000 WI 69, ¶ 18.  
¶24 The standard of review that the DNR advocates, due weight 
deference, is the appropriate standard of review.  Due weight 
deference, the middle ground between great weight deference and de 
novo review, is warranted where an agency has some experience in 
the area, but has not developed any particular expertise in 
interpreting and applying the statute at hand that positions the 
agency more favorably to interpret that statute than a reviewing 
court.   
 
The deference allowed an administrative agency under 
due weight is not so much based upon its knowledge or 
skill as it is on the fact that the legislature has 
charged the agency with the enforcement of the statute 
in question. Since in such situations the agency has 
had at least one opportunity to analyze the issue and 
formulate a position, a court will not overturn a 
reasonable agency decision that comports with the 
purpose of the statute unless the court determines 
that 
there 
is 
a 
more 
reasonable 
interpretation 
available.   
UFE, Inc. v. LIRC, 201 Wis. 2d 274, 286-87, 548 N.W.2d 57 (1996).12 
 Even though the DNR and PSC are charged with, and have substantial 
                     
12 Contrary to the dissent's interpretation of the due 
weight deference standard of review, at ¶¶ 100-106, the standard 
is not outcome determinative.  Regardless of the court's 
conclusion, the due weight deference standard remains the same. 
 Indeed, the outcome does not dictate the standard of review, 
but 
rather, 
it 
is 
the 
relative 
circumstances 
of 
the 
administrative agency's experience vis-à-vis the statute that 
the agency is interpreting that is determinative.  Due weight 
deference will result in a court upholding a reasonable decision 
by the agency, that is consistent with the purpose of the 
statute, unless the reviewing court finds a more reasonable 
interpretation.  Id.  
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
18
experience in, processing certificate applications and related 
environmental impact statements, they had not yet developed any 
particular expertise in processing certificate applications under 
§ 96's expedited procedures, or applications involving wholesale 
merchant 
plants, 
as 
of 
the 
time 
they 
reviewed 
RockGen's 
application.  Consequently, "[t]his is precisely the situation that 
warrants due weight deference."  Brauneis, 2000 WI 69, ¶ 19.   
¶25 Due weight deference accords an agency's statutory 
interpretation and application some weight; however, the agency's 
interpretation and application are not conclusive.  UFE, Inc., 201 
Wis. 2d at 286-87.  If the agency's interpretation complies with 
the statutory purpose and is reasonable, we will not overturn it.  
Id.  Accordingly, we now turn to RURAL's and Rockdale's challenges 
to determine whether the PSC and DNR's interpretation of § 96 and 
other provisions necessary to process RockGen's certification 
application was not only reasonable, but also fulfilled the purpose 
of Act 204, generally, and § 96, specifically.  
III 
¶26 RURAL makes four challenges to the PSC's and the DNR's 
interpretation and application of § 96 to RockGen's certificate 
application: (1) RockGen was not a contractor as defined by § 96; 
(2) because of its size, the project did not qualify for § 96's 
accelerated 
procedures; 
(3) 
because 
of 
the 
Power 
Purchase 
Agreement, the project did not qualify for treatment under §96; 
and, (4) because § 96 did not apply here, the PSC and DNR violated 
the Wisconsin Environmental Protection Act.  We address each 
argument in turn. 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
19
A. 
¶27 RURAL contends that RockGen is not a contractor under 
§ 96(1) because the PSC did not find that the contract between 
Alliant-WPL and RockGen was entered into by July 31, 1998, or 
officially approve a later date.  Section 96 defines contractor as 
a "person specified in paragraph (b)3. that enters into a contract 
with an eastern Wisconsin utility for the construction of electric 
generation capacity."  1997 Wis. Act 204, § 96(1)(a)3.  Paragraph 
(b) requires that the contract was entered into with the selected 
bidder from those who had responded to the pending request for 
proposals, and that the contract was entered into by July 31, 1998, 
or by a later date approved by the PSC.  1997 Wis. Act 204, § 
96(1)(b).  
¶28 RURAL's contention is without merit.  The PSC plainly 
could, and did, approve of the date that RockGen entered into the 
contract with Alliant-WPL, August 10, 1998, even though it was 
after July 31, 1998.  On August 13, 1998, the PSC notified Alliant-
WPL that it had reviewed the contract and specifically found that 
it met the conditions of § 96(1)(b)3.  In addition, the PSC made a 
finding of fact in its Order that "[o]n August 10, 1998, Alliant-
WPL and RockGen . . . entered into a contract for the construction 
of a combustion turbine (CT) electric generating facility . . . and 
into a Power Purchase Agreement."  Order at 1.  The PSC's approval 
of the contract, evident from its notification to Alliant-WPL and 
subsequent finding of fact is sufficient to show compliance with 
§ 96(1)(a)3. of Act 204. 
B. 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
20
¶29 RURAL next contends that RockGen's proposed facility did 
not qualify for § 96's expedited review because of § 96's reference 
to "request[s] for  proposals."  1997 Wis. Act 204, § 96(1)(b).  
According to RURAL, that term limited § 96 to, in Alliant-WPL's 
case, projects with a capacity of 170 MW or less, based upon the 
PSC's mandate to Alliant-WPL in September 1997 to procure 170 MW of 
additional electric generation capacity. 
¶30 Whether the PSC correctly interpreted and applied § 96 
here turns on the purpose of § 96.  Discerning the purpose or 
intent 
of 
the 
legislature 
is 
the 
lodestar 
of 
statutory 
interpretation.  Brauneis, 2000 WI 69, ¶ 21.  We start with the 
language of the statute in discerning the intent of the legislature 
and look no further if that intent is self-evident.  UFE, Inc., 201 
Wis. 2d at 281;  Kelley Co. v. Marquardt, 172 Wis. 2d 234, 247, 493 
N.W.2d 68 (1992).  "While it is true that statutory interpretation 
begins with the language of the statute, it is also well 
established that courts must not look at a single, isolated 
sentence or portion of a sentence, but at the role of the relevant 
language in the entire statute."  Alberte v. Anew Health Care 
Serv., Inc., 2000 WI 7, ¶ 10, 232 Wis. 2d 587, 605 N.W.2d 515 
(citation omitted).  Accordingly, we look at § 96 with regard to 
its role in 1997 Wisconsin Act 204. 
¶31 From the language of Act 204, we find that its 
unambiguous purpose is to facilitate the increased reliability of 
Wisconsin's electric generation.  This purpose, which the parties 
do not dispute, is evident from the changes Act 204 made to Wis. 
Stat. § 196.491(3) to streamline the certificate application 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
21
process.  Act 204 shortened the certificate application timeline 
from approximately 22 months to eight months.  Compare Wis. Stat. 
§ 196.491(2m)(3) (1995-96) with Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3).  Act 204 
also eliminated the requirement that a certificate application for 
new electric generation construction must comply with a pre-
approved plan.  1997 Wis. Act 204, § 69. 
¶32 Act 
204 
obviously 
intended 
to 
bolster 
Wisconsin's 
electric generation reliability not only by streamlining the new 
electric generation construction process, but also by providing for 
independent and alternative sources for electric generation and 
capacity, namely, wholesale merchant plants.  1997 Wis. Act 204, 
§§ 38, 69, 81.  Wholesale merchant plants are not owned by public 
utilities. 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 196.491(1)(w). 
 
But, 
they 
supply 
electricity to utilities at wholesale. "[I]n this case, the 
electricity generated by RockGen Energy at the Facility will be 
sold to Alliant-WPL and other buyers at wholesale."  Order at 6.   
¶33 Wholesale merchant plants cannot provide service to any 
retail customer in Wisconsin, ensuring that the plants will first 
serve the utilities.  Wis. Stat. § 196.491(1)(w).13  Wholesale 
merchant 
plants 
are 
also 
exempt 
from 
certain 
certificate 
application requirements. In considering an application for the 
construction of a wholesale merchant plant, the PSC is not to 
consider whether "[t]he proposed facility satisfies the reasonable 
                     
13 But see Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3m)(d):  "The commission may 
not promulgate rules or issue orders that prohibit owners or 
operators of wholesale merchant plants from providing electric 
service to retail customers in another state."  
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
22
needs of the public for an adequate supply of electric energy."  
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)2.  And, "the commission may not consider 
alternative sources of supply or engineering or economic factors if 
the application is for a wholesale merchant plant."  Wis. Stat. 
§ 196.491(3)(d)3.  As the PSC noted in its Order here, the 
wholesale merchant plant provisions in Act 204 "is legislative 
recognition that the need to bolster the reliability of Wisconsin's 
generation calls for incentives for independent power producers to 
locate facilities of adequate size and scope in this state."  Order 
at 6. 
¶34 Section 96, albeit with limited application, was intended 
to further the purpose of Act 204 to strengthen Wisconsin's 
electric generation reliability by facilitating "the construction 
of new electric generation capacity" in the area served by eastern 
Wisconsin utilities.  1997 Wis. Act. 204, § 96(b)(intro.).  It is 
evident from § 96 that there was an  additional purpose to expedite 
construction of that new electric generation capacity.  Time was of 
the essence.  The contractor for the new electric generation 
capacity 
construction had 
to submit 
its 
application for 
a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity to the PSC and its 
engineering plan to the DNR "no later than August 31, 1998."  1997 
Wis. Act 204, § 96(c).  The DNR had 15 days to determine whether 
the engineering plan was complete and notify the contractor of the 
permits and/or approvals required for construction or operation of 
the proposed facility.  1997 Wis. Act 204, § 96(1)(d)1.14  Then, the 
                     
14 1997 Wis. Act 204, § 96(1)(d)1. provides: 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
23
contractor had 10 days to apply for the required permits or 
approvals.  1997 Wis. Act 204, § 96(1)(d)2.15  The DNR had 15 days 
to determine if the contractor's application was complete.  1997 
Wis. Act 204, § 96(1)(d)3.16  If the DNR did not make a 
determination regarding the plan, it was deemed complete by 
operation of law.  Id.  The DNR had 45 days to complete all action 
                                                                  
 
Within 15 days after the eastern Wisconsin utility 
provides the engineering plan, the department shall 
provide the eastern Wisconsin utility 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. 
 
  
15 1997 Wis. Act 204, § 96(1)(d)2., as amended by 1997 Wis. Act 
306, § 7d, provides: 
Within 10 days after the department provides a 
listing specified in subdivision 1., the [contractor] 
shall apply for the permits and approvals identified in 
the listing.  
 
16 1997 Wis. Act 204, § 96(1)(d)3., as amended by 1997 Wis. Act 
306 § 7e, provides: 
 
The 
department 
shall 
determine 
whether 
an 
application under subdivision 2. is complete and, no 
later than 15 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.  A 
[contractor] 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 
subdivision.  If the department fails to determine 
whether an application is complete within 15 days after 
the application is filed, the application shall be 
considered to be complete. 
 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
24
on the contractor's permit application, or the permit application 
would be deemed complete.  1997 Wis. Act 204, § 96(1)(d)4. 
¶35 Similar deadlinesapproximately half the time allotted 
for applications for certificates of public convenience and 
necessity after Act 204's streamliningapplied to the PSC.  The PSC 
had 15 days to determine whether the certificate application was 
complete; if the PSC did not make a determination within the 15-day 
limit, the application was deemed complete.  1997 Wis. Act 204, 
§ 96(1)(e)1.17  The PSC had to hold hearings on the application, 
again, within a shortened notice period of 15 days.18  In addition, 
the PSC had to make a final decision on the applicationapprove it 
                     
17 1997 Wis. Act 204, § 96(1)(e)1., as amended by 1997 Wis. Act 
360, § 7f, provides:  
 
1. 
The commission shall determine whether the 
application is complete and, no later than 15 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.  A [contractor] may 
supplement and refile an application that the commission 
has determined to be incomplete.  There is no limit on 
the number of times that a [contractor] may refile an 
application under this subdivision.  If the commission 
fails to determine whether an application is complete 
within 15 days after the application is filed, the 
application shall be considered to be complete. 
 
18 1997 Wis. Act 204, § 96(1)(e)2. provides:  
 
 
The commission shall hold a public hearing on an 
application that is determined or considered to be 
complete under subdivision 1. in the area affected 
pursuant to section 227.44 of the statutes and, at least 
15 days prior to the hearing, shall give a class 1 notice 
regarding the hearing under chapter 985 of the statutes.  
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
25
or reject itwithin 90 days, or, by operation of law, the 
application was deemed approved.  1997 Wis. Act 204, § 96(1)(e)3. 
¶36 Even though § 96 provided for an accelerated certificate 
application 
review 
process, 
§ 96 
had 
limited 
duration 
and 
application.  First, § 96 applied only to the eastern Wisconsin 
utilities.  1997 Wis. Act 204, § 96(1)(a)5., (b).  Second, to 
qualify for the accelerated procedures under § 96, those eastern 
Wisconsin utilities had to have "issued a request for proposals 
soliciting bids for contracts for the construction of new electric 
generation capacity" before May 12, 1998.  1997 Wis. Act 204, 
§§ 96(b)(intro.); 98m.  Third, the eastern Wisconsin utilities had 
to evaluate and select a bid from those submitted and then enter 
into a contract with the winning bidder by July 31, 1998, or by a 
later date that the PSC approved.  1997 Wis. Act 204, § 96(b).   
¶37 RURAL would further limit § 96 by reading into the term 
"request for proposals," a limit on the construction of new 
electric generation capacity to, in the case of Alliant-WPL, 170 
MW.  "[W]e will not read extra words into a statute to achieve a 
specific result."  Lang v. Lang, 161 Wis. 2d 210, 224, 467 N.W.2d 
772 (1991) (citing Noack v. Noack, 149 Wis. 2d 567, 576, 439 N.W.2d 
600 (Ct. App. 1989)).  On its face, § 96 uses the phrase that "each 
eastern Wisconsin utility that, before the effective date of this 
paragraph, has issued a request for proposals soliciting bids for 
contracts 
for 
the 
construction 
of 
new 
electric 
generation 
capacity," to designate those eastern Wisconsin utilities to which 
§ 96 applied.  Nowhere does § 96 limit the capacity of the 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
26
construction 
of 
new 
electric 
generation 
capacity 
for 
those 
qualifying eastern Wisconsin utilities.   
¶38 Even if such limit could be read into § 96, and we find 
that it cannot, Alliant-WPL's request for proposals contained no 
such limitation.  Alliant-WPL's request offered bidders to consider 
a site between Janesville and Beloit that could support an electric 
generating plant with a capacity of 500 MW, referring to the 
capacity deficit that the PSC recommended be added on an expedited 
basis.19  
¶39 We trust that had the legislature intended to further 
limit the applicability of § 96 by restricting the capacity of new 
electric 
generation 
construction 
for 
the 
eastern 
Wisconsin 
utilities to a specified capacity, the legislature would have done 
so.  Consider § 27 of Act 204, which  created Wis. Stat. 
§ 196.377(2).  That provision mandated that "no later than December 
31, 2000, each eastern Wisconsin utility shall construct or 
                     
19 It is noteworthy that the PSC's September 1997 determination 
was based upon Advance Plan 7, a demand forecast and supply plan 
for the years 1994-2013 that the PSC had previously approved 
according to a statutory planning process that was in effect at 
that time.  See Wis. Stat. § 196.491(2) (1995-96).  By January 
1998, Alliant-WPL projected that it needed an additional 705 MW in 
peaking capacity by the year 2003.  This projection represented an 
increase of 373 MW in projected demand since Alliant-WPL had last 
submitted a projection to the PSC.  Even though Act 204 replaced 
the advance plan process with a "strategic energy assessment" 
process (see 1997 Wis. Act 204, §§ 32-61), those provisions 
regarding planning did not go into effect until January 1, 1999, 
after the PSC had completed Advance Plan 8.  See 1997 Wis. Act 204 
§ 98m(1). Even so, the limitation tying the capacity of a 
certificate application to a capacity previously approved in an 
advance plan had been eliminated by Act 204, effective May 12, 
1998. 
 
1997 
Wis. 
Act 
§§ 69, 
98m; 
see 
also 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 196.491(3)(d)1. (1995-96).  
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
27
procure, on a competitive basis, the construction of an aggregate 
total of 50 megawatts of new electric capacity in this state that 
is, to the satisfaction of the commission, generated from renewable 
energy sources."  1997 Wis. Act 204, § 27 (emphasis added).  "If a 
word or words are used in one subsection but are not used in 
another 
subsection, 
we 
must 
conclude 
that 
the 
legislature 
specifically intended a different meaning."  Oney v. Schrauth, 197 
Wis. 2d 891, 901-02, 541 N.W.2d 229 (Ct. App. 1995) (citing cf. 
Cardinal v. Leader Nat'l Ins. Co., 166 Wis. 2d 375, 388, 480 N.W.2d 
1, 6 (1992)).  We can think of no reason that this principle should 
not also apply to provisions of a single piece of legislation.  
Accordingly, we find that had the legislature intended to limit the 
eastern Wisconsin utilities to constructing a specific megawatt 
amount of new electric generation capacity in § 96, the legislature 
would have done so, as it did in § 27.20   
¶40 In sum, we find that the language of Act 204, generally, 
and § 96 thereof, specifically, clearly indicates a legislative 
purpose to increase the reliability of Wisconsin's electric 
generation capability, and, in eastern Wisconsin, to bolster that 
reliability 
by 
expediting 
the 
construction 
of 
new 
electric 
generation capacity within the limits set forth in § 96. 
                     
20 We do not find persuasive the after-the-fact media 
reports upon which the dissent relies, at ¶ 92, n.5.  Just as ex 
post facto explanations from legislators cannot be relied upon 
to determine legislative intent, ex post facto newspaper 
articles cannot provide guidance as to legislative intent.  See 
State v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 72 Wis. 2d 727, 738, 242 
N.W.2d 192 (1976) (citing Wisconsin S. Gas Co. v. Public Serv. 
Comm'n, 57 Wis. 2d 643, 652, 205 N.W.2d 403 (1973)). 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
28
¶41 It is not necessary to look to the legislative history of 
Act 204 because the language of the statute is unambiguous.  
 
The well established tenets of the plain meaning rule 
preclude courts from resorting to legislative history to 
uncover ambiguities in a statute otherwise clear on its 
face.  No canon, however, prevents this court from 
examining 
legislative 
history 
"to 
reinforce 
and 
demonstrate that a statute plain on its face, when viewed 
historically, is indeed unambiguous." 
State ex rel. Cramer v. Schwarz, 2000 WI 86, ¶ 37, 236 Wis. 2d 473, 
613 N.W.2d 591 (quoting State v. Martin, 162 Wis. 2d 883, 897 n.5, 
470 N.W.2d 900 (1991), and citing State v. Sample, 215 Wis. 2d 487, 
508-09, 573 N.W.2d 187 (1998) (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring)). 
¶42 Here, the legislative history reinforces our conclusion 
that the purpose of § 96 of Act 204 was to expedite the 
construction of new sources of electric generation for eastern 
Wisconsin, 
without 
also 
limiting 
the 
capacity 
of 
that new 
construction to the capacity the PSC determined to be an unmet need 
in September 1997.  In response to the problems during the summer 
of 1997, a number of State Senators introduced the initial electric 
reliability legislation, 1997 Senate Bill 418, in January 1998.  
According to the Analysis of the Legislative Reference Bureau, 
Senate Bill 418 would have required the PSC to "issue an order that 
is designed to ensure, to the extent practicable, that the 
aggregate 
total 
electric 
generating 
capacity 
that 
is 
available . . . in a specified area of the state [that area served 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
29
by eastern Wisconsin utilities] is increased by 500 megawatts."21  
1997 Senate Bill 418, Analysis of the Legislative Reference Bureau, 
at 2.  However, the full Senate did not consider Senate Bill 418.  
Instead, on March 19, 1998, a number of Assembly representatives 
introduced, at the request of Governor Tommy G. Thompson, Assembly 
Bill 940, publicly referred to as the Electric Reliability Act.  
According to Governor Tommy G. Thompson's press release, the Act 
provided three different "reliability solutions," "streamline the 
regulatory 
process, 
increase 
generation 
and 
improve 
the 
transmission system."   Governor Tommy G. Thompson, Press Release 
(March 13, 1998) at 3. On April 28, 1998, Assembly Bill 940 was 
enacted as 1997 Wisconsin Act 204.  Assembly Bill 940 made no 
reference to the 500 MW goal that Senate Bill 418 did.22  
¶43 The 
Governor's 
Drafting 
Instructions 
also 
made 
no 
reference to a 500 MW limit.  The Drafting Instructions indicate 
that the legislation was to direct eastern Wisconsin utilities with 
                     
21 Of interest from this legislative history file is the press 
release 
announcing 
the 
legislation 
from 
the 
consumer 
group 
Customers First!, "a coalition to preserve Wisconsin's reliable and 
affordable electricity."  The press release states that Senate Bill 
418 "require[d] [the] PSC to take immediate action to add at least 
500 MW of least-cost [sic] environmentally sound generation within 
[eastern Wisconsin utilities]."  1997 Drafting Records Senate Bill 
418, 
Press 
Release 
for 
Wisconsin 
Electric 
Reliability 
Act, 
Customers First! (emphasis added). 
22 The DNR's fiscal estimate of Assembly Bill 940 apparently 
refers to the non-statutory provisions of § 96, stating that a 
"shortened process is established for 500 MW of capacity currently 
under bid by the Wisconsin utilities, with a 45-day time limit for 
permit issuance."  Fiscal Estimate, AB 940, 1997 Session.  We do 
not find this single reference to 500 MW to dictate a capacity 
limitation on § 96, especially where all of the legislative history 
indicates that no such limit was intended. 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
30
pending requests for proposals to complete those requests by a date 
certain, and to direct the PSC to complete action on related 
certificates of public convenience and necessity by a date certain. 
 Governor Thompson's Reliability Proposal, Drafting Instructions 
(March 12, 1998) at 5.  Conspicuously, there is no reference to a 
capacity limitation in those drafting instructions.  However, there 
is a specific capacity reference in the drafting instructions that 
direct the eastern Wisconsin utilities to construct 50 MW in 
renewable energy resources.23  Id.  This provision became Wis. Stat. 
§ 196.377(2), discussed above.  
¶44 Our due weight deference review, as well as the 
legislative intent underlying public utility law, requires that we 
determine whether the PSC acted reasonably here.  "[I]f we look to 
the entire act we discover some indication of a legislative intent 
that all orders of the commission shall be subject to the test of 
reasonableness."  Union Coop. Tel. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 206 
Wis. 160, 163, 239 N.W. 409 (1931) (referring to the public utility 
law, ch. 196, Stats.).  Even though § 96 did not specifically limit 
the capacity of the construction of new electric generation 
facilities, we do not read § 96 to present a carte blanche for the 
                     
23 Both the plain meaning of § 96 and its legislative history 
undermine RURAL's reliance on Senator Charles Chvala's statements 
on November 16, 1998  six months after it became effective  that 
§ 96 of Act 204 was to be limited to a 500 MW capacity.  We should 
not rely upon the testimony of a member of the legislature to 
determine legislative intent.  "[N]either a legislator, nor a 
private citizen, is permitted to testify as to what the intent of 
the legislature was in the passage of a particular statute."   
Consolidated Freightways Corp., 72 Wis. 2d at 738. 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
31
construction of new electric generation facilities with unlimited 
capacity.  Section 96 imposed many limitations, and the PSC, the 
DNR, 
Alliant-WPL 
and 
RockGen 
abided 
by 
those 
limitations.  
Moreover, we find that the PSC reasonably interpreted § 96 to apply 
to RockGen's certificate application for a facility with a capacity 
of up to 525 MW.   This capacity does not unreasonably exceed the 
500 MW capacity deficit that PSC discovered in September 1997, an 
amount that was set prior to Alliant-WPL's subsequent projections 
in January 1998 indicating additional peak capacity shortfall.24  
¶45 We are further convinced that the PSC reasonably applied 
§ 96 because the PSC specifically found in its Order that "the 
public convenience and necessity require the Project."  There is 
substantial evidence in the record to support this finding.  There 
existed an immediate need in eastern Wisconsin for at least 500 MW 
in electric generation capacity.  The proposed facility was 
situated so that three eastern Wisconsin utilities, WEPCO, MGE and 
Alliant-WPL, would have access to the electricity generated there 
because all three were or could be connected to the substation 
through which the electricity is to be transmitted.  As the PSC 
concluded, "the 525 MW Facility will be a valuable addition to 
Wisconsin's 
electric 
energy 
portfolio, 
enhancing 
not 
only 
                     
24 Indeed, as the dissent notes at ¶ 88 n.3, in February 
1999, the PSC also approved WEPCO's certificate application to 
build a 300 to 360 MW facility even though the PSC had initially 
ordered WEPCO only to procure 250 MW in September 1997.  
Obviously, had the PSC limited the utilities to the PSC's 
initial projections, there would have been an even greater 
shortfall in the needed supply.   
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
32
generation available to serve native load, but bolstering the 
transmission system, allowing increased imports of electricity in 
times of need."  Order at 5. 
¶46 The PSC's interpretation and application of § 96 here to 
expedite the processing of RockGen's application for a certificate 
of public convenience and necessity was not only reasonable, it 
also furthered the purpose of Act 204 generally, and § 96 
specifically, to "streamline the regulatory process, increase 
generation and improve the transmission system," in the Governor's 
words. 
Governor 
Thompson's 
Reliability 
Proposal, 
Drafting 
Instructions (March 12, 1998) at 5.  The due weight deference 
standard requires that the "court will not overturn a reasonable 
agency decision that comports with the purpose of the statute 
unless the court determines that there is a more reasonable 
interpretation available."  UFE, Inc., 210 Wis. 2d at 286-87 
(emphasis added).  The petitioners have not provided a more 
reasonable interpretation.  Id. at 288.  And, we have not found a 
more reasonable interpretation.  Consequently, we will not overturn 
the PSC's decision here.  
¶47 If, however, there was any error in applying § 96's 
expedited procedures considering the date or terms of the Power 
Purchase Agreement, or the capacity of the proposed project, that 
error would have been harmless procedural error.  Only if "the 
fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action has 
been impaired by a material error in procedure or a failure to 
follow prescribed procedure," will this court remand the case to 
the agency.  Wis. Stat. § 227.57(4).   
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
33
¶48 The burden is on RURAL to establish that a claimed 
procedural error is prejudicial.  Nu-Roc Nursing Home, Inc. v. 
DHSS, 200 Wis. 2d 405, 418, 546 N.W.2d 562 (Ct. App. 1996).  In Nu-
Roc, the nursing home complained of error because the Department 
improperly shortened the time during which the nursing home could 
submit objections to the Department's proposed decision denying 
medical assistance reimbursement.  Id. at 410, 417-18.  The court 
of appeals disagreed. 
 
Nu-Roc fails to establish that "either the fairness of 
the proceedings or the correctness of the action" was 
impaired by shortening the reply date so as to warrant 
remand under § 227.57(4), Stats.  Further, it fails to 
suggest how its reply would have been different had it 
been given the additional time. 
Id. at 418.  Here, too, RURAL has failed to establish that either 
the fairness of the PSC's proceedings or the correctness of its 
decision was impaired by following § 96.  RURAL voiced concerns 
about the possible environmental impact of the proposed facility 
and purported deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) that the PSC and DNR prepared.  But RURAL only raised 
questions about the procedure followed, not concrete defects.25  
This is insufficient to establish how the PSC's use of § 96's 
                     
25 RURAL argued to the PSC that the accelerated timeline 
prevented the development of expert testimony that, according to 
RURAL, should be in the record.  However, RURAL did not specify 
what that expert testimony would have established.  Moreover, RURAL 
claims that had it obtained intervenor compensation, from the PSC 
to retain experts (see Wis. Stat. § 196.31), that would have 
mitigated the effect of the shortened timeline.  However, RURAL has 
not challenged the PSC's decision to deny intervenor compensation, 
and, accordingly, we do not consider that decision here. 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
34
expedited procedure prejudiced RURAL.  Consequently, remand is not 
warranted here.  
C. 
¶49 RURAL next contends that the Power Purchase Agreement 
between Alliant-WPL and RockGen disqualified the project from use 
of § 96 because the Agreement did not further the purpose of § 96 
and Act 204.  According to RURAL, where the size of the project was 
too big, Alliant-WPL's share of the electric generationpeaking 
capacity onlywas too small.  As we have already determined, the 
purpose of § 96 and Act 204 was to increase the reliability and 
capacity of electric generation in eastern Wisconsin on an 
expedited basis, and, the PSC's application of § 96 here reasonably 
furthered that purpose.  We also find that the Agreement fulfilled 
the purpose of § 96 and Act 204.   
¶50 Because the Agreement involves a wholesale merchant 
plant, the PSC could not consider whether "the proposed facility 
satisfies the reasonable needs of the public for an adequate supply 
of electric energy," or whether the "design and location or route 
is in the public interest considering . . . economic factors."  
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)2., 3.  Consequently, "the Commission 
ma[de] no finding in this proceeding as to the reasonableness of 
the purchase power agreement executed between Alliant-WPL and 
RockGen Energy."  Order at 3.  However, the fact that the Agreement 
facilitated 
the 
construction 
of 
a 
wholesale 
merchant 
plant 
fulfilled in part the purpose of Act 204 to increase reliability.  
As we noted above, the purpose of wholesale merchant plants is to 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
35
provide independent and alternative sources of electricity, thereby 
increasing reliability.26  
¶51 The Agreement also furthered the purpose of Act 204 and 
§ 96 to increase the reliability of Wisconsin's electric generation 
supply because it facilitated Alliant-WPL's acquisition of the 
peaking capacity it needed.  In addition, under the Agreement, 
Alliant-WPL has the first right to electricity generated at the 
facility, increasing the reliability of Alliant-WPL with the 
capability of supplying its customers with electricity when needed. 
 The Agreement facilitated, by bringing the project within § 96's 
expedited process, the construction of a plant that will add to in-
state 
electric 
generation 
capacity"a 
valuable 
addition 
to 
Wisconsin's electric energy portfolio."  Order at 5.    
¶52 RURAL contends, however, that when Alliant-WPL is not in 
need of the facility's electricity, RockGen intends to sell it to 
out-of-state customers, thereby undermining reliability.  The law 
does not prohibit those sales.  More importantly, the record does 
not support RURAL's contention. Alliant-WPL would have the first 
right to that electricity.  As testified to before the PSC, the 
other utilitiesthose with access to the substation attached to the 
proposed project, WEPCO and MGEcould also purchase electricity 
from RockGen.  (R. at 27:1220.).  WEPCO and MGE could purchase 
                     
26 A 
wholesale 
merchant 
plant 
is 
independent 
from 
the 
regulatory process of calculating a utility's fair return on the 
electricity it generates.  "A merchant plant is a generating 
facility built on speculation.  Unlike the current system, this 
means there is no regulatory guarantee of return on investment from 
the operation of the facility." Governor Tommy G. Thompson,  Press 
Release (March 12, 1998) at 3.  
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
36
electricity without incurring "wheeling" charges or surcharges for 
transmitting electricity across another utility's transmission 
system.  Id.  The overall arrangement here bolsters, rather than 
undermines, the reliability of electric generation in Wisconsin.    
D. 
¶53 RURAL'S final argument is that, because § 96 did not 
apply to RockGen's application, the DNR did not comply, and could 
not have complied, with the timeline established in the Wisconsin 
Environmental 
Protection 
Act. 
 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 1.11. 
 
RURAL 
specifically contends that there should have been a draft EIS and a 
longer time for public comments on the EIS.  We have already 
determined that § 96 applied to RockGen's application.  We 
additionally find that the DNR and the PSC reasonably interpreted 
and applied the Wisconsin Environmental Protection Act (WEPA) in 
light of § 96. 
¶54 WEPA, Wis. Stat. § 1.11, requires state agencies to 
prepare an EIS for any "major actions significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment."  The PSC and DNR prepared a 
joint EIS, as authorized by Wis. Adm. Code § NR 150.20(f).  
Typically, the PSC and the DNR would have prepared a draft EIS, 
taken public comments for 45 days, issued a final EIS, and then 
taken comments for another 30 days.  Wis. Adm. Code § PSC 4.30.  
However, § 96(1)(e)3. limited the time that the PSC had to take 
final action on a qualified certificate application to 90 days.  
Consequently, using its authority under Wis. Stat. §§ 196.02(1), 
(3), 227.11, and 227.24, the PSC promulgated emergency rules that 
suspended the requirement of a draft EIS, and the corresponding 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
37
public comment period thereon, for those projects that qualified 
for § 96's expedited procedures.  
¶55 The DNR also had to operate within the 90-day window set 
by § 96(1)(e)3.  Accordingly, the DNR reasonably interpreted its 
authority to shorten the public comment timeline to accommodate 
§ 96's timeline.  The DNR may shorten the public comment period for 
an EIS in order to comply with other statutory time limits, i.e., 
the time limits in § 96.  See Wis. Admin. Code §§ NR 150.20(2)(j); 
150.22(3)(d)2.  Given the time constraints in § 96, and its 
dominant purpose to expedite the construction of new electric 
generation 
capacity in 
eastern 
Wisconsin, 
the 
PSC 
and DNR 
reasonably abided by both § 96 and WEPA.  They prepared a 200 page 
EIS, and kept it open for public comments for 20 days. 
¶56 It is noteworthy that RURAL does not make any substantive 
challenges to the EIS, and only contends that a longer time frame 
should have been followed.  Here, also, RURAL has failed to 
establish any resulting prejudice, and the error, if any, by the 
PSC and the DNR, would be harmless procedural error.  Accordingly, 
there is no reason to vacate the DNR's Record of Decision 
certifying compliance with WEPA.  
IV 
¶57 We now turn to Rockdale's objections to the PSC's Order: 
(1) the PSC improperly placed conditions on its Order; (2) the PSC 
improperly excluded Rockdale from land use considerations; and, (3) 
the PSC erred in its finding that the proposed project would not 
unreasonably interfere with land use and development plans.  We 
address each in turn. 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
38
A. 
¶58 Rockdale contends that the PSC had no authority to issue 
a certificate to RockGen before the DNR had issued all the permits 
it identified that RockGen must obtain prior to construction.  One 
of the conditions the PSC imposed is that "RockGen Energy shall 
obtain from [the] DNR all permits and approvals that are required 
before beginning any construction."  Order at 8.  
¶59 According to Wis. Stat. § 196.395, the PSC "may issue 
conditional . . . orders."  The PSC's authority to issue orders 
includes the authority to issue conditional orders.  City of 
Appleton v. Transportation Comm'n, 116 Wis. 2d 352, 358, 342 N.W.2d 
68 (Ct. App. 1983).  However, "[t]he power contained in sec. 
196.395 to issue conditional . . . orders is subject of course to 
the procedural requirements of other provisions of ch. 196, Stats., 
because they are in pari materia."27  Mid-Plains Tel. v. Public 
Serv. Comm'n, 56 Wis. 2d 780, 787, 202 N.W.2d 907 (1973), quoting 
Wisconsin Tel. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 232 Wis. 274, 287 N.W. 
122 (1939).  Rockdale points to Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(e), 
contending that it prohibited the PSC from issuing the certificate 
before RockGen obtained all of the DNR permits.  Wisconsin Stat. 
§ 196.491(3)(e) states in pertinent part: 
 
The commission may not issue a certificate of public 
convenience and necessity until the [DNR] has issued all 
permits 
and 
approvals 
identified 
in 
the 
listing . . . that are required prior to construction. 
                     
27 In pari materia is a canon of statutory construction that 
statutes that relate to the same subject are construed together to 
resolve inconsistencies that arise between statutes.  Black's Law 
Dictionary 794 (7th ed. 1999).  
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
39
We disagree, given the particulars of this case.  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).  However, had 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.  
 "In construing statutes that are seemingly in conflict, it is our 
duty to attempt to harmonize them, if it is possible, in a way 
which will give each full force and effect."  Milwaukee v. Kilgore, 
193 Wis. 2d 168, 184, 532 N.W.2d 690 (1995).  
¶60 The PSC deemed RockGen's application to be complete on 
September 22, 1998.  The PSC thus had until December 21, 1998 to 
take final action on the certificate application.  1997 Wis. Act 
204, § 96(1)(e)3.  If the PSC did not issue a decision regarding 
the application by December 21, 1998, the pocket provision of 
§ 96(1)(e)3. of Act 204 would operate to issue a certificate on the 
applicationwithout conditions.  As of December 18, 1998, the date 
that the PSC issued its decision on RockGen's application, there 
was only one DNR permit outstanding.28  The PSC was faced with three 
choices: one, issue the permit with the condition that RockGen must 
obtain all necessary permits; two, allow the pocket provision to 
operate and have a certificate issue on the application without any 
conditions; or, three, reject RockGen's certificate application 
because one permit had not yet been issued.  
                     
28 That permit, for air pollution control, was issued on 
January 25, 1999.  Air pollution control permits are subject to a 
separate statutory timeline.  Wis. Stat. §§ 285.60-285.69.  
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
40
¶61 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.  That 
approach was to issue a conditional order.  Had the PSC rejected 
RockGen's application because the DNR had not yet issued all the 
required permits, even though they were imminent, the PSC would 
have single-handedly defeated the mandate of § 96 to immediately 
address the shortfall of electric generation capacity in eastern 
Wisconsin that the legislature imposed upon the PSC.  Here, the 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 RockGen obtain all 
necessary permits prior to starting construction.29 
¶62 Rockdale contends that the PSC also improperly placed 
conditions on the certificate that delegated the PSC's authority 
over land use considerations to RockGen.  For example, the PSC 
ordered that "RockGen Energy shall confer, consult and work with 
the town of Christiana to develop and execute a landscape plan that 
reasonably harmonizes the Facility landscaping with the surrounding 
area."  Order at 9.  Rockdale points to no authority, and we know 
                     
29 The DNR also acted properly here.  The DNR had to take final 
action on RockGen's application permit by October 15, 1998, 45 days 
after determining that RockGen's application was complete, or the 
application would be deemed complete.  1997 Wis. Act 204, 
§ 96(1)(d)4.  However, through the PSC's condition that RockGen had 
to obtain all necessary permits prior to starting construction, the 
DNR ensured that RockGen complied with applicable permitting 
despite § 96's pocket provision.  
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
41
of none, suggesting that such a condition is improper. There is no 
applicable statutory mandate, like Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(e), that 
conflicts with the PSC's authority under Wis. Stat. § 196.395.  
Accordingly, the PSC's authority under Wis. Stat. § 196.395 to 
issue conditional orders, applies. 
¶63 If, however, the PSC made a procedural error by issuing 
RockGen a certificate before the DNR issued all the required 
permits, that error, like the error, if any, the PSC made by 
applying § 96 to RockGen's application, is harmless.  Rockdale has 
not established that "the fairness of the proceedings or the 
correctness" of the PSC's Order was impaired by the PSC's issuance 
of that Order before the DNR completed the permitting process.  
Wis. Stat. § 227.57(4).  The outstanding permit was issued before 
the circuit court heard arguments on Rockdale's instant challenge, 
and more than a month after the PSC Order was issued.   
B. 
¶64 Rockdale also contends that other conditions the PSC 
imposed pertaining to what Rockdale describes as zoning-type 
controls had the effect of wrongfully excluding Rockdale from its 
extra-territorial zoning authority over the Town of Christiana.  As 
an example, Rockdale points to the PSC's condition that "RockGen 
Energy shall seek from the town of Christiana and, if applicable, 
the village of Rockdale, rezoning to deed restricted, exclusive 
agriculture, any Carpenter property lands not used for the 
construction and operation of the Facility."  Order at 9. 
¶65 We find that the PSC reasonably interpreted and applied 
statutory authority that precludes zoning or other local ordinances 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
42
from inhibiting the construction or operation of a facility.  Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 196.491(3)(i) 
provides 
that 
"[i]f 
installation 
or 
utilization of a facility for which a certificate of convenience 
and necessity has been granted is precluded or inhibited by a local 
ordinance, the installation and utilization of the facility may 
nevertheless proceed."  The purpose of this provision is clear on 
its face.  Local ordinances, such as zoning ordinances, cannot 
impede what has been determined to be of public convenience and 
necessity.  
¶66 Although it is unnecessary to look to the history of 
prior legislation regarding certificates of public convenience and 
necessity, that history supports our conclusion.  State ex rel. 
Cramer, 2000 WI 86 at ¶ 37.  According to the legislative analysis 
of this prior legislation, one of the three effects of a 
certificate is to abrogate those local zoning ordinances that would 
impede the construction of a facility that was found to be of 
public convenience and necessity: 
 
(1) [A certificate of public convenience and necessity] 
allows the utility to commence construction of the 
facility; 
(2) It allows the utility to condemn land for the 
facility and operates as the determination of necessity 
of taking those lands described in the [certificate of 
public convenience and necessity]; and 
(3) It overrides all local zoning and other ordinances 
inhibiting the construction of the facility. 
 
Chapter 68, Laws of 1975, Wisconsin Legislative Council Staff's 
Summary and Analysis 10 (emphasis added). 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
43
¶67 The PSC cannot ignore land use considerations, however. 
Section 196.491(3)(d) requires the PSC to consider land use and 
development plans, among other environmental concerns: 
 
[T]he commission shall approve an application for a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity only if 
the commission determines: . . .  
 
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.  . . .  
 
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. . . .  
 
6. 
The proposed facility will not unreasonably 
interfere with the orderly land use and development plans 
for the area involved. 
 
Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d) 3., 4., 6. 
¶68 Even though § 96 expedited the time in which the PSC 
processed RockGen's application, the PSC still complied with Wis. 
Stat. § 196.491(3)(d), and in so doing, made the following 
findings: 
 
12. The design and location of the Project at Christiana 
is in the public interest considering alternative sources 
of supply 
(except with 
respect 
to 
the 
Facility), 
alternative locations or routes (including Johnstown), 
individual 
hardships, 
safety, 
reliability, 
and 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
44
environmental factors (other than the impact of air 
pollution).30   
13. The Project at Christiana will not have undue 
adverse impacts 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. 
14. The Project at Christiana will not unreasonably 
interfere with the orderly land use and development plans 
for the area involved. 
Order at 2. 
 
C. 
¶69 Rockdale contends that the record does not support the 
PSC's finding that the proposed project would not unreasonably 
interfere 
with 
land 
use 
and 
development 
plans. 
 
Rockdale 
specifically contends that the PSC did not consider the Town of 
Christiana Land Use Plan and the Dane County Farmland Preservation 
Plan.  To the contrary, the record reflects substantial evidence 
and reasoning that supports the PSC's findings and shows that the 
PSC considered land use plans. 
¶70 The record reflects that the PSC considered the Town of 
Christiana Land Use Plan insofar as the Town of Christiana's 
planning committee approved of the project.  Order at 5.    
Although not identified by name, the record also reflects that the 
PSC did consider the purpose of the Dane County Farmland 
                     
30 "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." Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)3.  Chapter 285 of the 
Wisconsin Statutes, Wis. Stat. § § 285.01-285.87, relates to air 
quality control and air pollution control permitting.  The DNR 
issued RockGen the necessary air pollution control permit in 
January 1999.    
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
45
Preservation Planto preserve agricultural land in Dane County 
even though the property was not under any farmland preservation 
agreements.  According to the jointly-issued Environmental Impact 
Statement, the project would use less than 15 acres of agricultural 
land; land not used for the project would be re-zoned as 
exclusively agricultural.  The EIS specifically considered the 
agricultural uses of the land surrounding the project site, and 
found that the project "would not interfere with farming on 
adjacent properties" and "would not impair the ability of the 
zoning 
authority 
to 
prohibit 
development 
incompatible 
with 
agriculture."   
¶71 In the 770-page EIS, the PSC and the DNR considered 
myriad environmental impacts. For example, there already exists 
near the site a large electric substation.  Attached thereto are 
several electric transmission lines, strung on power poles that are 
taller than the stacks that are to accompany the power plant.  Also 
nearby is an operating quarry with concomitant dust and blasting.  
That quarry may have to close, but another quarry is expected to 
open near the site.   
¶72 The PSC further developed its analysis of the proposed 
site at Christiana during the public hearing held there on November 
16, 1998.  For example, two dairy farmers who live near the 
Christiana site testified that they expected no significant impact 
from the plant.  The EIS, as well as testimony at the public 
hearings, reasonably and sufficiently support the conclusion that 
RockGen's 
proposed 
project 
would 
only 
minimally 
impact 
the 
surrounding environment.  Contrary to the view of the dissent, 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
46
legitimate community and environmental concerns were adequately 
considered within the framework of the expedited procedure provided 
by the legislature. 
V 
¶73 We conclude, in giving due weight deference to the PSC's 
and the DNR's experience with issuing certificates of public 
convenience 
and 
necessity 
and 
related 
environmental 
impact 
statements, albeit not under the novel circumstances presented 
here, that the PSC and DNR reasonably interpreted and applied § 96 
of Act 204 and other relevant provisions of the Wisconsin Statutes 
in a manner which furthered the purposes of those provisions.  The 
petitioners have not provided a more reasonable interpretation of 
the applicable provisions, and we have not found one.  We also 
conclude that substantial evidence and reasoning evident in the 
record support the PSC's and the DNR's findings.  Unlike the 
dissent's hypertechnical interpretation of § 96 of Act 204, which 
ignores the potential electric generation crisis facing the 
citizens of Wisconsin today, we believe that our conclusion is not 
only reasonable and consistent with the legislature's intent, but 
it is also cognizant of an unmet need for which the citizens will 
pay dearly if it is not immediately addressed.  Accordingly, for 
the reasons set forth, we affirm the order of the circuit court 
By the Court.—The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. 
¶74 JON P. WILCOX, J., did not participate. 
 
 
 
No. 
99-2430 
 
 
47
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 99-2430.ssa 
 
1 
¶75 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE (dissenting).  
The flaws in the majority opinion allowing the expedited process 
under § 96 of 1997 Act 204 for the RockGen power plant are many, 
but this dissent will touch upon only three points. 
¶76 First, § 96 of 1997 Act 204 expressly applies to new 
electric 
generation 
facilities 
of 
limited 
capacity.  
Accordingly, the Public Service Commission's (PSC) and majority 
opinion's interpretation that § 96 applies to the facility in 
question is not reasonable, much less the most reasonable 
interpretation.  By an overreaching statutory construction, the 
majority opinion allows construction of a facility more than 
three times that authorized by the legislature. 
¶77 Second, the majority opinion errs in its standard of 
review. 
 
The 
majority 
opinion 
concludes 
that 
the 
PSC's 
interpretation of the law is entitled to due weight deference 
but sometimes applies the great weight deference standard of 
review instead of the due weight deference standard.   
¶78 Third, the majority opinion's approval of the PSC's 
actions in this case undermines a legislative process designed 
to 
enable 
the 
PSC 
to 
consider 
legitimate 
community 
and 
environmental concerns. 
 
I 
 
¶79 Section 96 of 1997 Act 204 expressly limits its 
application to specified facilities.  Section 96(1)(b) applies 
to: 
No. 99-2430.ssa 
 
2 
1) 
"each eastern Wisconsin utility"; 
2) 
"that 
before 
the 
effective 
date 
of 
this 
paragraph"; 
3) 
"has issued a request for proposals soliciting 
bids for contracts for the construction of new 
electric generation capacity" (emphasis added).31 
 
¶80 The first phrase is defined in 1997 Act 204 and is not 
the subject of dispute.  The effective date mentioned in the 
second phrase is May 12, 1998, and is not the subject of 
dispute. 
¶81 We therefore look at the third requirement.  Instead 
of stating the capacities set forth in the requests for 
proposals that had been issued before the effective date of the 
law, the legislature has incorporated these requests for 
proposals by reference into the law.  Reading the language of 
the requests for proposals into the law is not, as the majority 
opinion would have us believe, reading extra words into the 
                     
31 Section 96(1)(b), 1997 Act 204, states in its entirety: 
By July 31, 1998, or a later date approved by the 
commission, 
each 
eastern 
Wisconsin 
utility 
that, 
before the effective date of this paragraph, has 
issued a request for proposals soliciting bids for 
contracts 
for 
the 
construction 
of 
new 
electric 
generation capacity shall do each of the following: 
 
1. Complete its evaluation of the bids that were 
submitted in response to its request for proposals. 
2. Select the bids for which it intends to award 
the contracts. 
3. Enter into contracts with the persons who 
submitted the bids specified in subdivision 2. for the 
construction of the new electric generation capacity. 
 
No. 99-2430.ssa 
 
3 
law.32  Rather, reading the language of the requests for 
proposals into the law is exactly what the law directs.  
¶82 The legislature has told the reader that the expedited 
process applies only to utilities that have issued specified 
requests for proposals for facilities.  If we want to know the 
facilities covered by the law, we must turn to the requests for 
proposals to which the legislature refers.  It is these requests 
for proposals that limit the capacity of the new electric 
generation facilities. 
¶83 In sum, because the statute expressly incorporates the 
utilities' 
already 
issued 
requests 
for 
proposals, 
these 
documents must be considered as part of § 96.  Indeed, § 96 
makes no sense without examining the requests for proposals in 
existence when the law was enacted.  
¶84 The question then is do the already issued requests 
for proposals to which the legislature refers envision new 
facilities with specified capacities?  We can easily locate 
these requests in the documents available to the drafters and 
the legislature.  The documents point to Alliant-WPL's request 
for proposals being for a 150-170 megawatt (MW) facility. 
¶85 We 
begin 
with 
Governor 
Thompson's 
drafting 
instructions to the Legislative Reference Bureau, to which the 
majority 
opinion 
also 
refers. 
 
The 
governor's 
drafting 
instructions 
state 
that 
§ 96 
should 
cover 
"EWU 
[Eastern 
Wisconsin Utilities] utilities with pending RFPs (WEPCO, WPL, 
                     
32 See majority opinion at ¶37. 
No. 99-2430.ssa 
 
4 
MGE) complete same by date certain."  The drafter's note from 
the Legislative Reference Bureau to Governor Thompson dated 
March 16, 1998, explained that the expedited procedure drafted 
in § 96 would apply to those utilities that had outstanding 
requests for proposals, citing "Wisconsin Electric, Madison Gas 
and Electric and Wisconsin Power and Light."  The drafter 
assured the governor that these utilities would therefore be 
able to enter contracts by July 31, 1998.  The drafter explained 
that he had followed the schedules for awarding contracts 
appearing on the utilities' Internet Web sites.  The drafting 
file makes clear that the reference in § 96(1)(b) to "requests 
for proposals" refers specifically to existing documents for 
three utilities.  These documents were available to the governor 
and the drafter in drafting § 96. 
¶86 Next we review Alliant-WPL's request for proposals 
issued before May 12, 1998, to determine whether the request can 
reasonably be interpreted to refer to a 525 MW project, as the 
majority opinion concludes. 
¶87 The only reasonable interpretation of the request is 
that Alliant-WPL was requesting proposals for a facility in the 
150-170 MW range.  First, the opening sentence of Alliant-WPL's 
request for proposals calls "for contracts totaling 150 MW 
(net)."  This call for contracts totaling 150 MW appears in the 
first section of the request for proposals entitled "Purpose."  
Based on the stated purpose of Alliant-WPL's request for 
proposals, 
the 
most 
reasonable 
interpretation 
of 
the 
legislature's reference to requests for proposals in § 96 is that 
No. 99-2430.ssa 
 
5 
it intended to authorize expedited review for Alliant-WPL's plan 
for 150 MW. 
¶88 Additional 
language 
in 
Alliant-WPL's 
request 
for 
proposals supports this interpretation.  The request for 
proposals stated that the resulting contracts "will satisfy the 
need for new electric generating capacity identified by the 
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) in its September 
24, 1997 Letter Order to WP&L."  Turning to the PSC's letter of 
September 24, 1997, we read that the PSC informed Alliant-WPL 
"that a reasonable assessment of WPL's resource requirements 
indicates a need for approximately 170 MW of firm capacity."  
Indeed, the PSC ordered Alliant-WPL to file an updated supply 
plan that would address the identified 170 MW need.  Alliant-WPL 
responded by issuing the very request for proposals that is 
referred to above.  In its response letter to the PSC dated 
December 5, 1997, Alliant-WPL described its issued request for 
proposals to the PSC as calling for sources with a "total 
generating capacity of 150 MW."  Finally, in March 1998, the PSC 
approved each of the three utilities' plans to procure its share 
of the 500 MW total.  Specifically, the PSC approved Alliant-
No. 99-2430.ssa 
 
6 
WPL's plan to procure 170 MW of new capacity.
33  The PSC records 
clearly show that the understanding was that three Wisconsin 
utilities would construct facilities totaling 500 MW, with 
Alliant-WPL at 150-170 MW.34 
¶89 The majority opinion ignores the language of the 
request for proposals and also ignores the PSC actions leading 
up to the request for proposals and the adoption of § 96.  
Instead the majority opinion finds language in the request for 
proposals that it reads to support its conclusion that the 525 
                     
33 See Public Service Commission and Department of Natural 
Resources, RockGen Energy Center Environmental Impact Statement 
v, 1 (October 1998), R.102, Item 90.  At the same time it 
approved Alliant-WPL's plan for 150-170 MW, the PSC also approved 
MG&E's plan to procure 100 MW and WEPCO's plan to procure 250 MW. 
 See id. at 1.  Ultimately, the PSC issued certificates of public 
convenience and necessity to MG&E and WEPCO for facilities that 
bore a close resemblance to their approved requests for 
proposals.  On December 22, 1998, the PSC approved MG&E's plan to 
build an 83 MW facility.  On February 2, 1999, the PSC approved 
WEPCO's plan to build a 300-360 MW facility in Neenah.   
The majority suggests that the approximately one-third 
increase in size from WEPCO's initial authorization compares 
meaningfully to the more than threefold increase in size from 
Alliant-WPL's initial authorization for 150-170 MW.  Majority 
op. at ¶44 n.24.  The difference between an increase of one-
third and an increase of more than threefold is obvious; the 
latter exceeds anyone's bounds of reasonableness. 
34 The PSC's own procedures reinforce the conclusion that 
the only reasonable interpretation of Alliant-WPL's request for 
proposals is that it called for a 150 MW facility.  The PSC's 
public notice announcing Alliant-WPL's proposal to construct the 
RockGen facility only referred to 150 MW of new electric 
generation capacity.  The absence of any other mention of the 
size of the planned facility in the PSC's public notice 
undermines the majority opinion's interpretation of the law.  
See PSC Notice of Proceeding, Investigation, Assessment of 
Costs, and Hearing, Dockets 9335-CE-101, 6680-CE-155, 6630-CE-
263 (October 16, 1998). 
No. 99-2430.ssa 
 
7 
MW facility is included in the request for proposals issued 
before § 96 was enacted.  Majority op. at ¶38.  The majority 
opinion correctly quotes language from the request referring to 
the possibility of a larger capacity facility.  But this 
language comes from portions of the request for proposals 
designed to allow the utility to refuse to accept proposals that 
comply with the request and to allow the utility to change its 
request.  The language is, in my opinion, taken out of context 
and transparently stretched to support the PSC's interpretation 
of the law. 
¶90 In light of the language in Alliant-WPL's request for 
proposals and the PSC history behind this request, with which 
everyone was familiar, the only reasonable interpretation is that 
§ 96 authorizes the PSC to apply the expedited process to the 
150-170 MW project it had previously approved for Alliant-WPL, 
rather than to a 525 MW project considered after the enactment of 
§ 96 of 1997 Act 204.  
¶91 Finally, the fiscal estimate accompanying A.B. 940, 
enacted as 1997 Act 204, further confirms the legislature's 
intentions.  The fiscal estimate, prepared by the Department of 
Natural Resources (DNR), one of the agencies to apply § 96, 
states 
expressly 
that 
§ 96 
establishes 
a 
"shortened 
process . . . for 500 MW of capacity currently under bid by the 
Wisconsin utilities" (emphasis added).  This reference to 500 MW 
is obviously to the proposals under bid by the three utilities 
mentioned 
in 
the 
governor's 
drafting 
instructions. 
 
The 
No. 99-2430.ssa 
 
8 
reference is not to a 500 MW facility to be built by a single 
utility. 
¶92 The governor (who sponsored this legislation), the 
Legislative Reference Bureau (which reviewed the utilities' 
requests for proposals) and the legislature (which enacted 
legislation that specifically referred to the existing requests 
for proposals), intended to refer to the requests for proposals 
explained herein.  If they did not, the terms of the requests 
would have to be set forth in the law.  Instead the legislature 
took a permissible shortcut and incorporated the requests by 
reference, three requests that apparently everyone knew totaled 
500 MW.35 
¶93 Despite the request for proposals and the underlying 
PSC documents contemplating a total of 500 MW of new energy 
resources to be built by three Wisconsin utilities, the majority 
opinion asserts that the PSC's interpretation of § 96 as 
applying to a single utility's 525 MW facility that would sell a 
substantial portion of its electricity outside the state is 
reasonable. 
                     
35 The 
media 
reported 
in 
July 
and 
August 
1998 
the 
understanding that appears in the documents referred to above.  
For example, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported in July 
1998 after passage of the law: "The state Public Service 
Commission ordered three Wisconsin utilities to use private 
developers to build a total of 500 megawatts of power plants by 
2000.  With the Alliant-Polski plan alone bigger than that, it's 
expected that far more generation will be built in Wisconsin 
than expected."  Lee Bergquist, $140 Million Power Plant 
Proposal to be Announced, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 24, 
1998.  See also Lee Bergquist, More Power to You, for $2 
billion, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Aug. 9, 1998. 
No. 99-2430.ssa 
 
9 
¶94 The 525 MW power plant proposal is Wisconsin's largest 
power plant proposal in over 20 years.  It is hard to believe 
that the legislature created a narrowly tailored exception for a 
giant power plant.  Applying the due weight deference standard 
proposed by the majority, the only reasonable reading of the 
language of § 96 is that the legislature limited eligibility for 
the § 96 expedited process to power plant projects that had been 
mandated by the PSC to meet the identified capacity needs of 
three eastern Wisconsin utilities, including Alliant-WPL's needs 
for 150-170 MW, and that were described in the requests for 
proposals.36 
                     
36 The majority opinion contrasts the absence of a specific 
limit on plant size in § 96 with § 27 of 1997 Act 204, in which 
the legislature instructed 
eastern 
Wisconsin 
utilities to 
procure "an aggregate total of 50 megawatts of new electric 
capacity" generated from renewable energy sources.  It concludes 
that 
§ 27 
imposes 
a 
"limit" 
on 
the 
specific 
megawatts 
contemplated, while § 96 does not.  See majority op. at ¶39.  
This argument is not persuasive. 
Section 27 pertains to renewable energy that the utilities 
would not build absent special incentives to do so, despite the 
long-term benefits of reduced environmental degradation and 
decreased reliance on foreign energy sources.  See Robert D. 
Hazel, Note: Electric Utility Regulatory Reform: The Demise of 
Alternative Energy, 8 S.C Envtl. L.J. 137, 139 (1999) (noting 
that renewable energy sources are more expensive and thus less 
likely to be offered in this era of deregulation).  Here, the 
Wisconsin legislature has given the utilities the necessary 
incentive to procure renewable energy sources, by statutorily 
requiring them to procure 50 MW of new capacity.  Thus, the 
reference to "50 megawatts of new electric capacity" is not a 
limit, but rather a necessary statement of the legislature's 
intent that the utilities derive a specific amount of their new 
capacity from renewable sources.  I disagree with the majority's 
suggestion that the legislature included this reference to 50 MW 
in order to prevent the utilities from procuring more renewable 
energy sources. 
No. 99-2430.ssa 
 
10
¶95 I agree with Commissioner Farrow of the PSC who 
dissented from the PSC's order granting the certificate of 
public convenience and necessity.  Commissioner Farrow properly 
read § 96 as narrowly authorizing an expedited process for 
specific projects contemplated by the legislature when it 
enacted 1997 Act 204. 
 
II 
 
¶96 The majority opinion sometimes confuses two standards 
of review: (A) the majority opinion adopts the due weight 
deference standard but its reasoning points to the application 
of a de novo standard; and (B) although the majority opinion 
concludes that due weight deference is the appropriate standard 
of review in this case, its analysis sometimes reflects the 
great weight deference standard.  
 
A. 
 
¶97 The majority opinion acknowledges that the PSC has 
been inconsistent in its application of the expedited review 
provisions of § 96 of 1997 Act 204.  Majority op. at ¶23 n.11.  
The majority then concludes that this inconsistent approach 
"argues against both de novo review and great weight deference." 
 Majority op. at ¶23 n.11. 
¶98 I disagree with the majority opinion that the PSC's 
inconsistent approach to statutory interpretation argues against 
No. 99-2430.ssa 
 
11
de novo review.  However, I do agree with the majority opinion 
that the PSC's inconsistent approach argues against giving the 
PSC's interpretation of the statute great weight deference.  
¶99 I suggest that when an agency has taken inconsistent 
approaches the court might very well undertake a de novo review. 
 In UFE, Inc. v. LIRC, 201 Wis. 2d 274, 286, 548 N.W.2d 57 
(1996), the court concluded that when an agency is consistent in 
its treatment of an issue, it is not appropriate to apply a de 
novo interpretation.  The implication from UFE, Inc. is 
therefore that the opposite must also be true: when an agency is 
inconsistent in its treatment of an issue, it is appropriate for 
a reviewing court to apply a de novo approach.  Indeed, in 
Brauneis v. LIRC, 2000 WI 69, ¶18, 236 Wis. 2d 27, 612 N.W.2d 
635, 
this 
court 
stated 
that 
"[d]e 
novo 
review 
also 
applies . . . 'when the agency's position on an issue has been 
so inconsistent so as to provide no real guidance'" (quoting 
UFE, 201 Wis. 2d at 285).  In the present case, the PSC has 
apparently had only two opportunities to interpret the relevant 
laws and those two interpretations are inconsistent.  Under 
these circumstances neither of the agency's interpretations 
provides real guidance to the courts. 
¶100 Upon reexamining our cases, I observe that the 
difference between the due weight standard and a de novo review 
seems slight indeed.  Under the due weight deference standard, 
"'a court need not defer to an agency's interpretation which, 
while reasonable, is not the interpretation which the court 
considers best and most reasonable.'"  UFE, Inc. v. LIRC, 201 
No. 99-2430.ssa 
 
12
Wis. 2d 274, 286, 548 N.W.2d 57 (1996) (quoting Harnischfeger 
Corp. v. LIRC, 196 Wis. 2d 650, 660 n.4, 539 N.W.2d 98 (1995)).37 
 Thus under both the due weight deference standard and the de 
novo standard, a court will overturn an agency's interpretation 
in favor of an interpretation that the court concludes to be 
more reasonable than the agency's.  
 
B. 
 
¶101 In any event, although the majority opinion correctly 
states the due weight deference standard, it sometimes applies 
the great weight deference standard.  The majority opinion 
concludes in several places that the PSC's interpretation is 
reasonable and will therefore be upheld.  Majority op. at ¶¶25, 
44, 45, 49 and 73.  The majority then shifts to the due weight 
deference 
standard, 
stating 
that 
no 
more 
reasonable 
interpretation exists.  Majority op. at ¶46.  Though this 
conclusory statement is based on the proper standard of review, 
it is not supported by the record or by the majority's analysis. 
 
III 
 
                     
37 "Once it is determined . . . that great weight deference 
is appropriate, we have repeatedly held that an agency's 
interpretation must then merely be reasonable for it to be 
sustained."  Harnischfeger Corp. v. LIRC, 196 Wis. 2d 650, 661, 
539 N.W.2d 98 (1995). 
No. 99-2430.ssa 
 
13
¶102 By approving the PSC's action in this case, the 
majority opinion has undermined a legislatively mandated process 
that would ensure adequate consideration of legitimate community 
and environmental concerns.  I offer two examples. 
¶103 First, the majority opinion allows the PSC to issue a 
conditional certificate of public necessity and convenience 
before the DNR issues all necessary permits, contrary to Wis. 
Stat. § 196.491(3)(e).  See majority op. at ¶¶58-61. 
¶104 When all is said and done, the majority opinion falls 
back on "harmless error" to justify its conclusion, which is 
contrary to the express language of the statute.  Majority op. 
at ¶63.  The majority's conclusion that the PSC's failure to 
follow the proper procedures is harmless error misses the point 
of the legislatively mandated procedures. 
¶105 A major aspect of § 96 is that the legislature has set 
forth detailed procedures for an expedited process to help 
ensure that the PSC reaches its conclusions based on adequate 
information and analysis.38  This is not a case in which an 
agency failed to follow a minor procedural requirement.  In this 
statute, the procedure is a major issue.  The PSC's failure to 
follow the legislatively mandated procedures casts doubt on its 
ultimate result, and this doubt cannot be glossed over with the 
phrase "harmless error." 
                     
38 See 
Wisconsin Legislative Council Staff 
Information 
Memorandum 75-8 at 1 (Oct. 20, 1975) (stating that the purpose 
of Wis. Stat. § 196.491 is "to prescribe an orderly and 
efficient process through which utilities can obtain a permit" 
and to clarify the "respective areas of jurisdiction of the PSC 
and the DNR"). 
No. 99-2430.ssa 
 
14
¶106 Second, the PSC's expedited time frame for the 
environmental impact statement reduced the time frame for public 
comment to a mere twenty days.  RURAL argues that a twenty-day 
comment 
period 
is 
simply 
not 
enough 
time 
for 
adequate 
environmental review. 
¶107 The majority opinion faults RURAL for not making "any 
substantive challenges" to the environmental impact statement 
and 
for 
"failing 
to 
establish 
any 
resulting 
prejudice."  
Majority op. at ¶56.  I disagree with the majority opinion.  
RURAL's 
brief 
identifies 
numerous 
deficiencies 
in 
the 
environmental impact statement, including specific areas where 
additional data and analysis were necessary.  
¶108 Moreover, I find it relevant that the PSC denied RURAL 
the intervenor compensation that would enable RURAL to hire 
experts to evaluate the environmental impact statement and 
conduct fieldwork to supplement the record where necessary.  The 
majority opinion correctly states that the decision to deny 
intervenor funding is not before this court.  Majority op. at 
¶48 n.25.  However, this decision substantially reduced the 
possibility of meaningful public comment within the expedited 
time frame. 
¶109 Viewed in their entirety, the PSC's actions in 
approving the RockGen project undermined the legislative process 
to 
enable 
the 
PSC 
to 
consider 
legitimate 
community 
and 
environmental 
concerns. 
 
The 
PSC's 
failure 
to 
follow 
legislatively mandated procedures casts doubt on its ultimate 
result. 
No. 99-2430.ssa 
 
15
¶110 If the legislature wanted the expedited process set 
forth in § 96 of Act 204 to apply to a single 525 MW facility, 
it would have said so.  The legislature, not this court, should 
determine how our electric generation needs should be met. 
¶111 For the reasons set forth, I dissent. 
¶112 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY joins this dissent. 
No. 99-2430.ssa 
 
1