Case Title: Wis. Realtors Ass’n v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Wis.

Citation: 2015 WI 63

Docket Number: 2013AP001407

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2015-06-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
2015 WI 63 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP1407 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Wisconsin Realtors Association, Wisconsin 
Builders  
Association, Wisconsin Towns Association, John 
E.  
Morehouse, Sr. and Ervin E. Selk, 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, 
     v. 
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, 
          Defendant-Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
(Reported at 353 Wis. 2d 554, 846 N.W. 2d 34) 
(Ct. App. 2014 – Unpublished) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 30, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
February 5, 2015 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Brown 
 
JUDGE: 
William M. Atkinson 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
ROGGENSACK, C.J., ZIEGLER, J. dissent. (Opinion 
Filed.)  
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For 
the 
plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners, 
there 
were 
briefs by John A. Kassner and von Briesen & Roper, S.C., Madison 
and oral argument by John Kassner. 
 
 
For the defendant-respondent, there was a brief by Cynthia 
E. Smith, Justin W. Chasco, and Public Service Commission of 
Wisconsin, and oral argument by Cynthia E. Smith. 
 
  
 
 
2015 WI 63 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP1407 
(L.C. No. 
2012CV1203) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Wisconsin Realtors Association, Wisconsin 
Builders Association, Wisconsin Towns 
Association, John E. Morehouse, Sr. and Ervin 
E. Selk, 
 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, 
 
     v. 
 
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, 
 
          Defendant-Respondent. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 30, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed. 
 
¶1 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   This is a review of an 
unpublished decision of the court of appeals affirming a summary 
judgment of the Circuit Court for Brown County, William M. 
Atkinson, Judge, in favor of the defendant (the Public Service 
Commission of Wisconsin) and against the plaintiffs (the 
Wisconsin 
Realtors 
Association, 
the 
Wisconsin 
Builders 
Association, the Wisconsin Towns Association, John E. Morehouse, 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
2 
 
Sr., and Ervin E. Selk).1  We refer to the plaintiffs 
collectively as the Wisconsin Realtors Association, or WRA. 
¶2 
The issue presented is whether Wis. Admin. Code ch. 
PSC 128,2 titled "Wind Energy Systems" and sometimes referred to 
herein as "the wind energy rules" or "the rules," is invalid 
because it was promulgated by the Public Service Commission 
"without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures."3 
¶3 
WRA asserts that in promulgating the wind energy 
rules, the Public Service Commission failed to comply with the 
procedural requirement set forth at Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2).  
Under Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2), if any rule proposed by an agency 
(including 
the 
Public 
Service 
Commission) 
"directly 
or 
substantially affects the development, construction, cost, or 
availability of housing in this state," then the Department of 
Commerce shall prepare a report, referred to by the parties and 
herein as a "housing impact report," before that rule is 
                                                 
1 Wis. Realtors Ass'n v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, No. 2013AP1407, 
unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2014). 
2 Wisconsin Admin. Code Ch. PSC 128 has not changed since it 
went into effect.  All references to ch. PSC 128 are therefore 
to the current December 2012 version. 
3 See Wis. Stat. § 227.40(4)(a) (2009-10) (providing that 
the court shall declare an administrative rule invalid if it 
finds that (1) the rule violates constitutional provisions; (2) 
the rule exceeds the statutory authority of the agency; or (3) 
the rule was promulgated without compliance with statutory rule-
making procedures).   
All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2009-10 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
3 
 
submitted to the Legislative Council staff.4  WRA asserts that a 
housing impact report was required for Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 
128 as a matter of law. 
¶4 
Thus, the more specific issue presented is whether 
under Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2), the Department of Commerce was 
required as a matter of law to prepare a housing impact report 
before Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 was submitted to the 
Legislative Council staff for review.  To decide this issue, the 
court must determine based only on the texts of the governing 
statutes and the wind energy rules themselves whether the rules 
directly or substantially affect the development, construction, 
cost, or availability of housing in this state. 
¶5 
The circuit court granted summary judgment to the 
Public Service Commission on its motion, concluding that Wis. 
Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 does not directly or substantially 
affect the development, construction, cost, or availability of 
housing in this state and thus that a housing impact report was 
not required. 
¶6 
The court of appeals affirmed, stating:  "We must 
presume PSC 128 was duly promulgated, and [WRA] has not cited 
any evidence to rebut that presumption."5 
                                                 
4 The version of Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2) applicable in the 
instant case assigned the responsibility for preparing housing 
impact reports to the Department of Commerce.  Responsibility 
for preparing housing impact reports is now in the Department of 
Administration. 
 
See 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 227.115(1)(a) 
(2011-12) 
(defining "[d]epartment" as "the department of administration"). 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
4 
 
¶7 
We conclude that WRA has not demonstrated that a 
housing impact report was required as a matter of law for Wis. 
Admin. Code ch. PSC 128.  The texts of the governing statutes 
and the wind energy rules do not demonstrate as a matter of law 
that the rules directly or substantially affect the development, 
construction, cost, or availability of housing in this state. 
¶8 
We further conclude that invalidating Wis. Admin. Code 
ch. PSC 128 under the circumstances presented in the instant 
case would infringe on the role of the legislature, which we 
decline to do. 
¶9 
Accordingly, WRA's challenge to Wis. Admin. Code ch. 
PSC 128 fails. 
¶10 Our analysis will proceed as follows.  First, we set 
forth the relevant facts and procedural history.  We then recite 
the applicable standard of review.  Next, we examine the 
statutory framework underlying this dispute.  Finally, we 
determine that WRA has not demonstrated that a housing impact 
report was required as a matter of law for Wis. Admin. Code ch. 
PSC 128. 
I 
¶11 The relevant facts are not in dispute. 
                                                                                                                                                             
5 Wis. Realtors Ass'n v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, No. 2013AP1407, 
unpublished slip op., ¶23 (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2014). 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
5 
 
¶12 The 
Public 
Service 
Commission 
is 
an 
independent 
regulatory agency with "jurisdiction to supervise and regulate 
every public utility in this state . . . ."6 
¶13 On September 30, 2009, the legislature enacted Wis. 
Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b), which provides that "the [Public Service 
Commission] shall, with the advice of the wind siting council, 
promulgate rules that specify the restrictions a political 
subdivision may impose on the installation or use of a wind 
energy system . . . ."7 
¶14 The statute further provides that the rules to be 
promulgated by the Public Service Commission shall include 
setback 
requirements 
for 
wind 
turbines 
and 
may 
include 
requirements for other aspects of wind energy systems, such as 
their visual appearance, lighting, and electrical connections to 
the power grid; the shadow flicker they produce; the noise they 
produce and the proper means of measuring that noise; and their 
interference with radio, telephone, or television signals.  The 
statute also states that the setbacks established by the Public 
Service Commission shall "provide reasonable protection from any 
health effects . . . ."8 
¶15 Wisconsin Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b) provides in full as 
follows: 
                                                 
6 Wis. Stat. § 196.02(1) 
7 See 2009 Wis. Act 40, § 12. 
8 Wis. Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b). 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
6 
 
The commission shall, with the advice of the wind 
siting council, promulgate rules that specify the 
restrictions a political subdivision may impose on the 
installation or use of a wind energy system consistent 
with the conditions specified in s. 66.0401(1m)(a) to 
(c).  The subject matter of these rules shall include 
setback 
requirements 
that 
provide 
reasonable 
protection from any health effects, including health 
effects from noise and shadow flicker, associated with 
wind energy systems.  The subject matter of these 
rules shall also include decommissioning and may 
include 
visual 
appearance, 
lighting, 
electrical 
connections to the power grid, setback distances, 
maximum audible sound levels, shadow flicker, proper 
means of measuring noise, interference with radio, 
telephone, or television signals, or other matters.  A 
political subdivision may not place a restriction on 
the installation or use of a wind energy system that 
is more restrictive than these rules.9 
¶16 The enactment of Wis. Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b) began a 
three-year process that culminated in the promulgation of Wis. 
Admin. Code ch. PSC 128. 
¶17 Shortly after Wis. Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b) was enacted, 
the Public Service Commission appointed the members of the Wind 
Siting Council.  The Wind Siting Council was created by the 
legislature to provide research and advice to the Public Service 
Commission on the regulation of wind energy systems.10 
                                                 
9 See 
also 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 66.0401(1m) 
("No 
political 
subdivision may place any restriction . . . on the installation 
or use of a wind energy system that is more restrictive than the 
rules promulgated by the [Public Service Commission] under s. 
196.378(4g)(b)."). 
10 Wis. Stat. § 15.797(1)(b) ("There is created in the 
public service commission a wind siting council that consists 
of . . . members appointed by the public service commission for 
3-year terms . . . ."). 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
7 
 
¶18 Between March 29, 2010, and August 4, 2010, the Wind 
Siting Council met 20 times to discuss the restrictions a 
political subdivision should be permitted to impose on wind 
energy systems.  At three of these meetings, the Wind Siting 
Council spent all or a substantial portion of its time 
considering the impact of wind energy systems on property 
values. 
¶19 The Wind Siting Council ultimately concluded that 
there is no causal relationship between the siting of wind 
turbines and a measurable change in property values.  The Wind 
Siting Council set forth this conclusion (along with various 
other findings and recommendations) in its final recommendations 
to the Public Service Commission dated August 9, 2010. 
¶20 In developing the wind energy rules, the Public 
Service Commission considered the Wind Siting Council's findings 
and recommendations in conjunction with information gathered 
from various other sources, including: 
• 
Wind-siting regulations and guidelines from a variety 
of states, including those immediately adjacent to 
Wisconsin; 
• 
A wide variety of local ordinances and community 
agreements from throughout the state; 
• 
Various white papers and best practices; 
• 
Papers from a conference on wind-siting effects; 
• 
Commission experience and precedent in wind-siting 
decisions; 
• 
Environmental impact statements prepared for wind 
energy projects in Wisconsin; 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
8 
 
• 
Technical and scientific research and writing on wind 
siting; 
• 
Presentations 
and 
lectures 
given 
on 
wind-siting 
issues; 
• 
Research by non-profit organizations and educational 
institutions on wind siting; 
• 
Expert testimony on wind-siting issues; 
• 
Other states' investigations and precedent on wind 
siting; 
• 
Advice 
from 
consulting 
professionals 
with 
public 
health experience in Wisconsin; 
• 
Court cases on wind-siting issues; 
• 
Joint 
development 
agreements 
between 
wind 
energy 
developers and political subdivisions; 
• 
Lease agreements for wind energy developments; 
• 
Complaint 
resolution 
documentation 
from 
past 
complaints about wind energy projects; 
• 
The Public Service Commission's noise measurement 
protocols, stray voltage protocols, and application 
filing requirements; 
• 
Federal 
regulations 
and 
Federal 
Aviation 
Administration processes, standards, and provisions; 
• 
Other state agencies' processes regarding political 
subdivision decision-making; and 
• 
Research, writing, and presentations by the federal 
government and national energy labs on wind-siting 
issues. 
¶21 On May 17, 2010, the Public Service Commission 
submitted the first draft of its proposed wind energy rules to 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
9 
 
the Legislative Council staff.11  On June 14, 2010, after 
reviewing 
the 
Public 
Service 
Commission's 
proposal, 
the 
Legislative Council submitted a report to the Public Service 
Commission suggesting specific changes to the rules.  The Public 
Service 
Commission 
incorporated 
many 
of 
the 
Legislative 
Council's suggestions. 
¶22 The Public Service Commission then held three public 
hearings around the state on its proposed wind energy rules:  
one in Fond du Lac on June 28, 2010; one in Tomah on June 29, 
2010; and one in Madison on June 30, 2010.  Written comments 
from the public were accepted until noon on July 7, 2010. 
¶23 On August 31, 2010, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.19, 
which provides for legislative review of proposed rules, the 
Public Service Commission submitted its proposed wind energy 
rules to the legislature. 
¶24 The proposed rules were accompanied by a report to the 
legislature, as required by Wis. Stat. § 227.19(2).12 
                                                 
11 See Wis. Stat. § 227.15 ("Prior to a public hearing on a 
proposed rule . . . an agency shall submit the proposed rule to 
the legislative council staff for review.").  See also Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 13.91 
(creating 
a 
nonpartisan 
bureau 
entitled 
"Legislative Council Staff" and setting forth its duty to review 
proposed administrative rules). 
12 Wisconsin Stat. § 227.19(2) provides that "[a]n agency 
shall submit a notice to the chief clerk of each house of the 
legislature when a proposed rule is in final draft form.  The 
notice shall be submitted in triplicate and shall be accompanied 
by a report in the form specified under sub. (3). . . ." 
(continued) 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
10 
 
¶25 The Public Service Commission did not submit a housing 
impact report.  The Public Service Commission's report to the 
legislature did, however, comment on the likely effect of the 
proposed rules on property values.13  The report states as 
follows: 
Comments submitted by members of the public and 
government officials [c]ite studies, report individual 
experiences, and express fears that large wind energy 
systems 
have 
a 
negative 
impact 
on 
property 
values. . . . The property value impacts described 
included not being able to get a real estate company 
to list a property, a greatly reduced number of 
interested 
buyers, 
an 
increased 
length 
of 
time 
required to sell a property, and offers well below the 
appraised 
value 
of 
the 
property. . . . Existing 
property value studies contain insufficient data to 
quantify property value impacts to properties one-half 
mile and closer to turbines (emphasis added). 
                                                                                                                                                             
Subsection (3)(g) lists numerous matters to be included in 
the report an agency submits to the legislature with a proposed 
rule, including "[t]he report of the department of commerce, as 
required by s. 227.115, if a proposed rule directly or 
substantially affects the development, construction, cost, or 
availability of housing in this state."  See note 4, supra. 
13 See Wis. Stat. § 227.115(3)(a) (explaining that housing 
impact reports shall contain information about the effect of a 
proposed agency rule on housing in this state, including the 
"policies, strategies and recommendations of the state housing 
strategy plan," the "cost of constructing, rehabilitating, 
improving or maintaining single family or multifamily dwellings, 
the "purchase price of housing," the "cost and availability of 
financing to purchase or develop housing," and "housing costs," 
as defined in Wis. Stat. § 560.9801(3)(a) and (b)). 
The state housing strategy plan, a comprehensive five-year 
housing strategy plan, is governed by Wis. Stat. § 560.9802.  
The plan is submitted to the governor, the legislature, and the 
federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.  
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
11 
 
¶26 The proposed wind energy rules were then subject to a 
lengthy legislative review process.14 
¶27 The Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy 
and Rail considered the proposed wind energy rules at a 
Committee hearing held on October 13, 2010.  At the hearing, 
lobbyists and members of the public offered criticism and 
suggested changes to the proposed rules.  Representatives from 
the Wisconsin Realtors Association and the Wisconsin Towns 
Association, two of the plaintiffs in the present case, were 
among those who shared their perspectives with the Senate 
Committee. 
¶28 Based on its review of the proposed rules and the 
testimony presented, the Senate Committee voted to return the 
proposed rules to the Public Service Commission for further 
consideration and potential modification. 
¶29 In a letter to the Public Service Commission dated 
November 30, 2010, Senator Jon Erpenbach, a member of the Senate 
Committee, "share[d] some perspective as to why" the proposed 
rules were being returned to the Public Service Commission.  The 
letter summarizes the concerns raised by various parties at the 
Senate Committee hearing, including the concerns raised by the 
Wisconsin 
Realtors 
Association 
and 
the 
Wisconsin 
Towns 
Association.  The letter then states:  "I think the above 
                                                 
14 See Wis. Stat. § 227.19 (governing legislative review of 
proposed administrative rules). 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
12 
 
outline gives the [Public Service] Commission a number of 
particular issues to re-examine within the rule[s]." 
¶30 Senator Erpenbach's letter is silent about the failure 
to file a housing impact report and says nothing about the 
effect of the proposed wind energy rules on property values or 
on housing generally. 
¶31 In response to the legislature's concerns, the Public 
Service Commission modified the proposed rules.  The rules were 
resubmitted to the legislature on December 9, 2010. 
¶32 On February 28, 2011, after the legislature's review 
period expired, the Public Service Commission promulgated its 
wind energy rules by publication in the Wisconsin Administrative 
Register.  The rules, codified as Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128, 
were to take effect the next day. 
¶33 On the first day the rules became effective (March 1, 
2011), the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules 
suspended application of the rules pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 227.26(2)(d).15 
¶34 Suspension of a rule is temporary unless the rule is 
repealed.16  Wisconsin Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 was not repealed.  
Accordingly, Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 took effect on March 
                                                 
15 Wisconsin 
Stat. 
§ 227.26(2)(d), 
titled 
"Temporary 
suspension of rules," provides that the Joint Committee for 
Review of Administrative Rules "may suspend any rule by a 
majority vote of a quorum of the committee. . . ." 
16 See Wis. Stat. § 227.26(2)(i) (governing the repeal of a 
suspended rule). 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
13 
 
16, 2012.  Nearly three years had elapsed since the legislature 
had 
initially 
directed 
the 
Public 
Service 
Commission 
to 
promulgate rules governing wind energy systems. 
¶35 On June 6, 2012, WRA filed a lawsuit in the circuit 
court (the subject of this review), seeking a declaration under 
Wis. Stat. § 227.40(4)(a) that Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 is 
invalid because it was promulgated without complying with 
statutory rule-making procedures 
¶36 Both WRA and the Public Service Commission filed 
motions for summary judgment.  The circuit court heard the 
motions on April 29, 2013.  At the conclusion of the hearing, 
the circuit court granted the Public Service Commission's motion 
for summary judgment, stating: 
I'm satisfied, when you look at the exact wording of 
the rule of 227.015 [sic], "If a proposed rule 
directly or substantially affects the development, 
construction costs, or availability of housing in the 
State," and it goes on, I'm satisfied that these wind 
siting rules——wind turbine siting rules do not and 
that there was no requirement to have a report. 
¶37 In an unpublished decision, the court of appeals 
affirmed the circuit court's summary judgment ruling.  The court 
of appeals reasoned as follows: 
Wisconsin Stat. § 227.115(2) requires a housing impact 
report 
only 
when 
a 
proposed 
rule 
"directly 
or 
substantially affects the development, construction, 
cost, 
or 
availability 
of 
housing 
in 
this 
state[.]" . . .  Although neither the [Public Service] 
Commission nor the wind siting council explicitly 
addressed § 227.115(2), both entities clearly found 
that wind energy systems do not substantially affect 
property values.  Based on that finding, the [Public 
Service] Commission could reasonably conclude its 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
14 
 
proposed 
rules . . . would 
not 
directly 
or 
substantially affect the development, construction, 
cost, or availability of housing in Wisconsin. 
. . . .   
We must . . . presume that [Wis. Admin. Code ch.] PSC 
128 was duly promulgated and that the [Public Service 
Commission] complied with Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2).  In 
other words, we must presume no housing impact report 
was required . . . .17 
II 
¶38 We review the summary judgment in favor of the Public 
Service Commission using the same standards and methods applied 
by the circuit court.18  Under Wis. Stat. § 802.08(2), a moving 
party is entitled to summary judgment if there are no genuine 
issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to 
judgment as a matter of law. 
¶39 In the instant case, the parties do not dispute the 
facts.  The instant case raises only a question of law, namely 
whether the wind energy rules were promulgated by the Public 
Service Commission without compliance with statutory rule-making 
procedures.19  More specifically, the question is whether under 
                                                 
17 Wis. Realtors Ass'n v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, No. 2013AP1407, 
unpublished slip op., ¶¶12-13 (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2014). 
18 Pawlowski v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 WI 105, ¶15, 
322 Wis. 2d 21, 777 N.W.2d 67. 
19 See Wis. Stat. § 227.40(4)(a) (providing that the court 
shall declare an administrative rule invalid if it finds that 
(1) the rule violates constitutional provisions; (2) the rule 
exceeds the statutory authority of the agency; or (3) the rule 
was promulgated without compliance with statutory rule-making 
procedures). 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
15 
 
Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2), the Department of Commerce was required 
as a matter of law to prepare a housing impact report before 
Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 was submitted to the Legislative 
Council 
staff 
for 
review. 
 
As 
WRA 
acknowledges, 
the 
interpretation and application of statutes ordinarily present 
questions of law this court decides independently of the circuit 
court and the court of appeals, but benefitting from their 
analyses.20 
III 
¶40 Before addressing whether a housing impact report was 
required as a matter of law for Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128, we 
set forth the statutory framework within which this dispute 
arises. 
¶41 The instant case involves the 2009-10 version of the 
Wisconsin Statutes.  We caution that the statutory landscape of 
agency rule-making has since changed.  See 2011 Wis. Act 21.  
One commentator has summarized these changes as follows: 
2011 
Wisconsin 
Act 
21 
significantly 
changes 
how 
administrative rules are promulgated.  Among other 
things, 
it 
narrows 
state 
agencies' 
rule-making 
authority, gives the governor new powers to approve or 
prevent the adoption of rules, expands the economic-
impact-analysis 
requirement 
to 
all 
agencies, 
and 
                                                 
20 Brown v. LIRC, 2003 WI 142, ¶11, 267 Wis. 2d 31, 671 
N.W.2d 279. 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
16 
 
expands venue in declaratory judgment actions to all 
counties.21 
¶42 None of the changes enacted in 2011 are at issue in 
the instant case.  Thus, we turn to the 2009-10 statutes that 
govern the present dispute. 
¶43 We previously set forth the statutory provision that 
directs the Public Service Commission to promulgate rules 
specifying the restrictions a political subdivision may impose 
on the installation or use of a wind energy system.  See Wis. 
Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b), set forth in full at ¶15, above.  The 
Public Service Commission adopted Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128, 
the wind energy rules at issue, pursuant to this statutory 
authority. 
¶44 The promulgation of a rule by the Public Service 
Commission and judicial review of a rule promulgated by the 
Public Service Commission are both governed by Chapter 227 of 
the Wisconsin Statutes (titled "Administrative Procedure and 
Review").  Several statutory provisions within this chapter are 
relevant to the instant case.  We set them forth in turn. 
¶45 Wisconsin 
Stat. 
§ 227.40(1) 
provides 
that 
the 
exclusive method for judicial review of the validity of an 
                                                 
21 Ronald Sklansky, Changing the Rules on Rulemaking, Wis. 
Lawyer, 
Aug. 
2011, 
at 
10, 
available 
at 
http://www.wisbar.org/newspublications/wisconsinlawyer/pages/wis
consin-lawyer.aspx?Volume=84&Issue=8. 
For a challenge to 2011 Wis. Act 21, see Coyne v. Walker, 
2015 WI App 21, 361 Wis. 2d 225, ___ N.W.2d ___ (petition for 
review filed Mar. 20, 2015). 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
17 
 
agency rule is a declaratory judgment action challenging the 
rule filed in the circuit court.  The text of Wis. Stat. 
§ 227.40(1) is as follows: "[T]he exclusive means of judicial 
review of the validity of a rule shall be an action for 
declaratory judgment as to the validity of such rule brought in 
the circuit court . . . ."22 
¶46 WRA sought declaratory relief in the instant case 
pursuant to this statutory provision. 
¶47 When a declaratory judgment action challenging a rule 
is 
filed, 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 227.40(4)(a) 
governs 
the 
limited 
circumstances under which a court grants relief.  Under Wis. 
Stat. § 227.40(4)(a), a court shall declare a challenged rule 
invalid if it finds that (1) the rule violates constitutional 
provisions; (2) the rule exceeds the statutory authority of the 
agency; or (3) the rule was promulgated without compliance with 
statutory rule-making procedures. 
¶48 Wisconsin Stat. § 227.40(4)(a) states in full as 
follows:  "In any proceeding pursuant to this section for 
judicial review of a rule, the court shall declare the rule 
invalid if it finds that it violates constitutional provisions 
or exceeds the statutory authority of the agency or was 
                                                 
22 See also Wis. Stat. § 227.01(13) (defining "rule" for 
purposes of Wis. Stat. ch. 227 as "a regulation, standard, 
statement of policy or general order of general application 
which has the effect of law and which is issued by an agency to 
implement, interpret or make specific legislation enforced or 
administered by the agency or to govern the organization or 
procedure of the agency"). 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
18 
 
promulgated 
without 
compliance 
with 
statutory 
rule-making 
procedures." 
¶49 WRA does not assert that Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 
violates constitutional provisions or exceeds the statutory 
authority of the Public Service Commission.23  Instead, WRA 
describes its challenge to Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 as a 
"facial challenge to the rule[s]," arguing only that the rules 
were promulgated without compliance with statutory rule-making 
procedures. 
¶50 Thus, we continue by setting forth the statutory rule-
making procedures that are relevant to the instant case. 
¶51 Wisconsin 
Stat. 
§ 227.20(1) 
requires 
an 
agency 
promulgating a rule to file a certified copy of the rule it is 
promulgating with the Legislative Reference Bureau.24  The 
statute provides:  "An agency shall file a certified copy of 
each rule it promulgates with the legislative reference bureau.  
                                                 
23 The Public Service Commission clearly had statutory 
authority to promulgate Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128.  Several 
provisions within Wis. Stat. ch. 196 (titled "Regulation of 
Public Utilities") authorize the Public Service Commission to 
promulgate rules governing public utilities.  The provision 
relevant here, which we discussed previously, is Wis. Stat. 
§ 196.378(4g)(b) (directing the Public Service Commission to 
promulgate rules governing wind energy systems). 
24 The Legislative Reference Bureau is a nonpartisan bureau 
established by the legislature to provide "reference services" 
to the legislature, other government officials, and the public.  
See Wis. Stat. § 13.92. 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
19 
 
No 
rule 
is 
valid 
until 
the 
certified 
copy 
has 
been 
filed. . . ."25 
¶52 The Public Service Commission filed a certified copy 
of the rules at issue with the Legislative Reference Bureau. 
¶53 Filing a certified copy of a rule with the Legislative 
Reference 
Bureau 
gives 
rise 
to 
a 
legislatively 
enacted 
presumption that the process by which the rules were promulgated 
was proper.  More specifically, Wis. Stat. § 227.20(3) creates a 
presumption that a rule filed with the Legislative Reference 
Bureau was "duly promulgated" and that "all of the rule-making 
procedures required by [Chapter 227] were complied with." 
¶54 The full text of Wis. Stat. § 227.20(3) is as follows: 
(3) Filing a certified copy of a rule with the 
legislative 
reference 
bureau 
creates 
a 
presumption of all of the following: 
(a) That the rule was duly promulgated by the 
agency. 
(b) That the rule was filed and made available 
for public inspection on the date and time 
endorsed on it. 
(c) That 
all 
of 
the 
rule-making 
procedures 
required by this chapter were complied with. 
(d) That the text of the certified copy of the 
rule is the text as promulgated by the 
agency. 
¶55 Chapter 227 of the Wisconsin Statutes does not discuss 
this presumption further. 
                                                 
25 Wis. Stat. § 227.20(1). 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
20 
 
¶56 Finally, we return to the statute with which we began: 
Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2), which governs housing impact reports.  
The full text of Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2) is as follows: 
(2) Report on rules affecting housing.  If a proposed 
rule 
directly 
or 
substantially 
affects 
the 
development, construction, cost, or availability of 
housing 
in 
this 
state, 
the 
department 
[of 
administration] shall prepare a report on the proposed 
rule before it is submitted to the legislative council 
staff under s. 227.15.  The department may request any 
information 
from 
other 
state 
agencies, 
local 
governments or individuals or organizations that is 
reasonably necessary for the department to prepare the 
report.  The department shall prepare the report 
within 30 days after the rule is submitted to the 
department. 
¶57 These statutes provide the foundation for our analysis 
of the legal issue presented. 
IV 
¶58 As 
previously 
explained, 
the 
issue 
presented 
is 
whether 
the 
wind 
energy 
rules 
were 
promulgated 
without 
compliance with statutory rule-making procedures, that is, 
whether the rules were promulgated without a housing impact 
report in violation of the law. 
¶59 We decide this issue as follows. 
¶60 First, 
we 
explain 
that 
because 
there 
is 
a 
legislatively enacted presumption that the wind energy rules 
were duly promulgated and that all statutory rule-making 
procedures were complied with, and because WRA is the party 
challenging the validity of the rules, WRA bears the burden of 
proof.  WRA must prove that a housing impact report was required 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
21 
 
as a matter of law for the promulgation of Wis. Admin. Code ch. 
PSC 128. 
¶61 Second, we conclude that WRA has not fulfilled its 
burden of proving that as a matter of law, Wis. Admin. Code ch. 
PSC 128 was promulgated without compliance with statutory rule-
making procedures. 
¶62 Third, and finally, we explain that this court's 
respect for the doctrine of separation of powers and the role of 
the legislature counsels against our invalidating a chapter of 
agency rules that survived the statutorily prescribed process of 
legislative review. 
¶63 For these reasons, we uphold Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 
128 against WRA's challenge and declare on the basis of the 
record before us that the rules at issue were not promulgated 
without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures. 
A 
¶64 Because WRA contests what showing it must make in the 
instant case, we begin by explaining that WRA has the burden to 
prove that a housing impact report was required as a matter of 
law for Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128. 
¶65 The Public Service Commission stresses that it filed a 
certified copy of Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 with the 
Legislative Reference Bureau and therefore has the benefit of 
the statutory presumption that it complied with all statutory 
rule-making procedures. 
¶66 The text of Wis. Stat. § 227.20(3) directs us to 
presume that the rule was duly promulgated by the agency and 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
22 
 
that all statutory rule-making procedures have been followed, 
including those pertaining to the preparation of a housing 
impact report.  The statute apparently creates a rebuttable 
presumption, similar in operation to the generally recognized 
rebuttable presumption of the constitutionality of a statute; a 
court is to presume that the agency that promulgated the rule 
followed the statute regarding housing reports, but a party 
challenging the rule may rebut that presumption.  The statute 
also requires courts to respect the legislature's role in 
reviewing and approving agency rules by presuming the validity 
of rules that have survived the legislature's scrutiny. 
¶67 In any event, as the party challenging the validity of 
the wind energy rules, WRA has the burden of proving the 
invalidity of the rules.26  Thus, even without the statutory 
presumption, WRA has the burden to prove that a housing impact 
report was required as a matter of law for Wis. Admin. Code ch. 
PSC 128. 
B 
¶68 WRA attempts to meet its burden of proof by setting 
forth unconvincing interpretations of Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2) 
                                                 
26 "The burdens of pleading and proof with regard to most 
facts have been and should be assigned to the plaintiff who 
generally seeks to change the present state of affairs and who 
therefore naturally should be expected to bear the risk of 
failure of proof or persuasion."  2 Kenneth S. Brown, McCormick 
on Evidence § 337, at 648 (7th ed. 2013).  See also Loeb v. 
Board of Regents, 29 Wis. 2d 159, 164, 138 N.W.2d 227 (1965); 
Currie v. DILHR, 210 Wis. 2d 380, 387, 565 N.W.2d 253 (Ct. App. 
1997). 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
23 
 
(governing 
housing 
impact 
reports) 
and 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 196.378(4g)(b) (directing the legislature to promulgate wind 
energy rules). 
¶69 WRA first contends that a housing impact report is 
required under Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2) whenever a proposed rule 
relates to housing and that rules promulgated pursuant to Wis. 
Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b) necessarily relate to housing.  WRA 
further argues that under Wis. Stat. § 227.115(5), the Public 
Service Commission was required to, but did not, make an 
explicit determination of whether a housing impact report was 
required. 
¶70 We examine these arguments in turn.  
¶71 WRA asserts that in the context of Wis. Stat. 
§ 227.115(2), which requires the preparation of a housing impact 
report for proposed rules that directly or substantially affect 
the development, construction, cost, or availability of housing 
in this state, "the word 'affect' should be interpreted to mean 
'concern' or 'deal with.'"27 
¶72 WRA does not attempt to define the meaning of the 
other words in the statute.  WRA does not explain what the 
phrase "directly or substantially" means, what it means to 
affect the "cost" of housing, or what it means to affect housing 
"in this state." 
                                                 
27 WRA's brief at 36. 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
24 
 
¶73 WRA implies, however, that the housing impact report 
requirement is far-reaching and that Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2) 
mandates the preparation of a housing impact report for all 
proposed rules that may in any way affect any kind of housing in 
the state. 
¶74 With this expansive interpretation of Wis. Stat. 
§ 227.115(2) in mind, WRA next contends that any and all rules 
promulgated pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b), which 
directs the Public Service Commission to promulgate wind energy 
rules, require a housing impact report.28  WRA reasons that rules 
promulgated 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 196.378(4g)(b) 
will 
necessarily "concern" or "deal with" housing because such rules 
are intended to provide reasonable protection from the health 
effects of wind turbines, because "improper [wind turbine] 
setback[s] could unreasonably affect the health of those living 
near wind turbines,"29 and because such unreasonable health 
effects could in turn affect property values.30 
¶75 WRA also reasons that rules promulgated pursuant to 
Wis. Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b) will necessarily "concern" or "deal 
with" housing because such rules limit the ability of local 
                                                 
28 "On its face, Wis. Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b) directed the 
PSC to create a rule that the Legislature expected would 'affect 
housing' in this state."  WRA's brief at 18. 
29 WRA's brief at 15. 
30 "Logically, if living in houses located too close to wind 
turbines would be unhealthy, that knowledge would affect the 
desirability and value of such homes."  WRA's brief at 38. 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
25 
 
governmental units to regulate the installation and use of wind 
turbines in their communities for the purpose of protecting 
housing.  Thus, in WRA's view, the content of the rules 
established 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 196.378(4g)(b) 
is 
irrelevant; a housing impact report is required no matter what 
the rules provide. 
¶76 Based on WRA's interpretation of these two statutes, 
WRA concludes that all wind energy rules have the potential to 
affect property values and, consequently, that a housing impact 
report was required for the specific wind energy rules at issue. 
¶77 WRA's reasoning is not convincing. 
¶78 First, WRA seems to view Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2) as 
requiring a housing impact report whenever a proposed rule in 
any way relates to housing.  This reading of the statute ignores 
the statutory text.  The statute uses the phrase "directly or 
substantially," which demonstrates that not just any effect will 
trigger the housing impact report requirement.  WRA reads this 
phrase out of the statute. 
¶79 The court of appeals explained that "a housing impact 
report is not required simply because the subject matter of a 
proposed 
rule 
relates 
to 
housing, 
or 
because 
the 
rule 
tangentially affects housing in some way."31  We agree.  The 
ordinary meaning of the phrase "directly or substantially 
affects" is not "affects in any way" or "relates to in some 
                                                 
31 Wis. Realtors Ass'n v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, No. 2013AP1407, 
unpublished slip op., ¶14 (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2014). 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
26 
 
way," as WRA seems to believe.  Wisconsin Stat. § 227.115(2) 
requires something more. 
¶80 The 
drafting 
history 
of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 227.115(2) 
supports our interpretation of the housing impact report 
requirement.  During the drafting process, the words "directly 
or indirectly" were replaced with the words "directly or 
substantially."  See 1995 A.B. 384, Assembly Substitute Am. 1.  
We agree with the court of appeals that this modification of the 
bill's language suggests that the legislature did not intend for 
a housing impact report to be prepared every time a proposed 
rule has some indirect or incidental effect on housing. 
¶81 WRA's interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b), 
which directs the Public Service Commission to promulgate wind 
energy rules, is equally implausible.  Nothing in Wis. Stat. 
§ 196.378(4g)(b) states explicitly or implicitly that rules 
governing wind energy systems will necessarily directly or 
substantially affect the development, construction, cost, or 
availability of housing in this state, such that a housing 
impact report will be required. 
¶82 Wisconsin Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b) instructs the Public 
Service Commission to develop rules that "provide reasonable 
protection from any health effects . . . associated with wind 
energy systems."  (Emphasis added.)  There is no mention in Wis. 
Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b) of protecting housing generally or of 
protecting property values specifically.  See Wis. Stat. 
§ 196.378(4g)(b), set forth in full at ¶15, above. 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
27 
 
¶83 A review of Wis. Stat. § 13.099(2) supports our 
conclusion that rules promulgated pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 196.378(4g)(b) do not necessarily require a housing impact 
report. 
¶84 Wisconsin Stat. § 13.099(2) requires a housing impact 
report for any bill introduced in the legislature that "directly 
or substantially affects the development, construction, cost or 
availability of housing in this state . . . ."  Thus, Wis. Stat. 
§ 13.099(2) creates a housing impact report requirement for 
bills similar to the housing impact report requirement for 
proposed rules. 
¶85 When the legislature introduced the bill that was 
subsequently enacted as Wis. Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b), it did not 
request a housing impact report and no housing impact report was 
prepared.  The strong, unrebutted implication is that the 
legislature did not consider introduction of the bill that 
became Wis. Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b) (or the wind energy rules 
that 
would 
be 
promulgated 
thereunder) 
as 
"directly 
or 
substantially affect[ing] the development, construction, cost or 
availability of housing in this state." 
¶86 There is, in sum, no foundation for WRA's assertion 
that 
the 
legislature 
"expected" 
the 
wind 
energy 
rules 
promulgated 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 196.378(4g)(b) 
to 
necessarily require a housing impact report under Wis. Stat. 
§ 227.115(2).  WRA's interpretations of Wis. Stat. §§ 227.115(2) 
and 196.378(4g)(b) are not cogent. 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
28 
 
¶87 We turn next to WRA's argument that the wind energy 
rules were necessarily promulgated without compliance with 
statutory rule-making procedures because the Public Service 
Commission was required to, but did not, make an explicit 
determination of whether a housing impact report was required. 
¶88 According to WRA, the record shows that during the 
time 
the 
Public 
Service 
Commission 
was 
engaged 
in 
the 
promulgation of Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128, neither the Public 
Service Commission itself nor the Wind Siting Council ever 
discussed or voted upon whether a housing impact report was 
necessary.  WRA apparently believes that an explicit, on-the-
record determination by the Public Service Commission regarding 
whether a housing impact report is needed was required before 
the wind energy rules could be promulgated. 
¶89 WRA 
does 
not, 
however, 
point 
to 
any 
statutory 
provision mandating such an explicit determination by the Public 
Service Commission or any other entity, and we find none.  We 
decline to read a procedural requirement into the statutes that 
the legislature opted not to impose.32 
¶90 The 
absence 
of 
an 
explicit, 
on-the-record 
determination regarding whether a housing impact report is 
required is therefore not dispositive and it does not persuade 
                                                 
32 "We should not read into the statute language that the 
legislature did not put in."  State v. Matasek, 2014 WI 27, ¶20, 
353 Wis. 2d 601, 846 N.W.2d 811 (quoting Brauneis v. LIRC, 2000 
WI 69, ¶27, 236 Wis. 2d 27, 612 N.W.2d 635). 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
29 
 
us 
that 
the 
wind 
energy 
rules 
were 
promulgated 
without 
compliance with statutory rule-making procedures. 
¶91 In 
sum, 
WRA's 
interpretations 
of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§§ 227.115(2) and 196.378(4g)(b) are unconvincing, and we are 
not persuaded that the Public Service Commission was required to 
make an on-the-record determination regarding the necessity of a 
housing impact report.  WRA has not fulfilled its burden of 
proving that a housing impact report was required as a matter of 
law for Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128. 
C 
¶92 We turn to one final consideration that weighs against 
our granting WRA relief in the present case. 
¶93 Although WRA recognizes that Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 
128 was promulgated after an active and lengthy legislative 
review process, WRA nevertheless asks this court to declare that 
the failure to submit a housing impact report renders Wis. 
Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 invalid. 
¶94 According 
to 
WRA, 
the 
Public 
Service 
Commission 
"usurped the Legislature's power when it decided that it had 
adequately protected the public [through Wis. Admin. Code ch. 
PSC 128] and that no second opinion [in the form of a housing 
impact report] [wa]s therefore required."33 
¶95 Like WRA, we are concerned about usurpation of the 
legislative function.  We conclude, however, that if we granted 
                                                 
33 WRA's brief at 15. 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
30 
 
WRA its requested relief in the instant case, we would be 
usurping the legislative function by striking down rules that 
survived the legislature's scrutiny. 
¶96 The separation of powers doctrine informs us in this 
matter.  "The Wisconsin constitution creates three separate co-
ordinate branches of government, no branch subordinate to the 
other, no branch to arrogate to itself control over the other 
except as is provided by the constitution, and no branch to 
exercise the power committed by the constitution to another."34 
¶97 Chapter 227 of the Wisconsin Statutes governs agency 
rule-making and legislative review of agency rules, among other 
things.  These statutes comprise a system devised by the 
legislature itself to govern the legislature's role in and 
oversight of agency rule-making.  Chapter 227 provides for 
expansive 
legislative 
review 
of 
rules 
both 
before 
their 
promulgation35 and after their promulgation.36 
¶98 Pursuant to these statutes, the legislature has the 
opportunity to request modifications to proposed rules,37 to 
                                                 
34 State v. Holmes, 106 Wis. 2d 31, 42, 315 N.W.2d 703 
(1982). 
35 See Wis. Stat. § 227.19 ("Legislative Review Prior to 
Promulgation"). 
36 See Wis. Stat. § 227.26 ("Legislative Review After 
Promulgation; Joint Committee for Review of Administrative 
Rules"). 
37 See Wis. Stat. § 227.19(4)(b); Wis. Stat. § 227.19(4)(d); 
Wis. Stat. § 227.19(5)(b). 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
31 
 
prevent the promulgation of proposed rules,38 to temporarily 
suspend rules that have been promulgated,39 and to repeal 
promulgated rules altogether.40 
¶99 In light of the statutes' providing for expansive 
legislative review of rules and limited judicial review of 
rules, it is incumbent upon the court to exercise both deference 
and restraint in the present case. 
¶100 The legislature did not merely passively permit the 
promulgation of Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128.  On the contrary, 
the legislature held a hearing on Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 
prior to its promulgation and then sent the rules back to the 
Public Service Commission for further consideration. 
¶101 WRA had an opportunity to register its objections to 
the rules before the legislature.  The rules were modified in 
response to the legislature's concerns, which encompassed WRA's 
concerns. 
¶102 Even after its promulgation, Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 
128 
was 
temporarily 
suspended 
for 
yet 
another 
round 
of 
legislative review. 
¶103 In sum, the legislature had ample opportunity to 
express reservations about the proposed wind energy rules, to 
request changes to the proposed rules, to prevent promulgation 
                                                 
38 Wis. Stat. § 227.19(5)(e); Wis. Stat. § 227.19(5)(f). 
39 Wis. Stat. § 227.26(2)(d). 
40 Wis. Stat. § 227.26(2)(f); Wis. Stat. § 227.26(2)(i). 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
32 
 
of the proposed rules, and to suspend and even repeal the rules 
after they were promulgated.  
¶104 The fact is, after a lengthy and active period of 
review, the legislature allowed the rules set forth in Wis. 
Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 to go into effect. 
¶105 The Public Service Commission's wind energy rules 
survived the legislative review process and now have "the force 
and effect of law in Wisconsin."41 
¶106 In the instant case, the court's role is limited.  We 
may determine only whether the rules were promulgated without 
compliance with statutory rule-making procedures.  WRA has 
failed to meet its burden of proving non-compliance. 
¶107 Nonetheless, our opinion in the instant case should 
not be read to imply that WRA's frustration with the process by 
which Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 was promulgated is entirely 
unwarranted. 
¶108 WRA stated at oral argument that it greatly values 
Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2).  In WRA's view, the second opinion a 
housing impact report provides to the legislature constitutes a 
necessary check in the process of promulgating a rule that 
affects housing. 
¶109 WRA 
also 
stated 
at 
oral 
argument 
that 
to 
its 
knowledge, no housing impact report has ever been requested or 
                                                 
41 See State ex rel. Staples v. DHSS, 115 Wis. 2d 363, 367, 
340 N.W.2d 194 (1983). 
No. 
2013AP1407   
 
33 
 
produced under Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2).42  Thus, WRA believes a 
critical step in the process of promulgating a rule that affects 
housing has been routinely ignored and has been circumvented in 
the instant case. 
¶110 WRA's concerns, while understandable, do not persuade 
us to grant it relief. 
¶111 We conclude that WRA has not demonstrated that a 
housing impact report was required as a matter of law for Wis. 
Admin. Code ch. PSC 128.  The texts of the governing statutes 
and the wind energy rules do not demonstrate as a matter of law 
that the rules directly or substantially affect the development, 
construction, cost, or availability of housing in this state. 
¶112 We further conclude that invalidating Wis. Admin. Code 
ch. PSC 128 under the circumstances presented in the instant 
case would infringe on the role of the legislature, which we 
decline to do. 
¶113 Accordingly, WRA's challenge to Wis. Admin. Code ch. 
PSC 128 fails. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed. 
 
 
                                                 
42 We, too, have been unable to confirm that any housing 
impact report has ever been prepared pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 227.115(2). 
No.  2013AP1407.pdr 
 
1 
 
¶114 PATIENCE 
DRAKE 
ROGGENSACK, 
C.J. 
(dissenting).   Wisconsin 
Realtors 
Association, 
Wisconsin 
Builders 
Association, 
Wisconsin 
Towns 
Association, 
Jon 
E. 
Morehouse, 
Sr. 
and 
Ervin 
E. 
Selk 
(hereinafter 
Wisconsin 
Realtors) 
challenge 
the 
Public 
Service 
Commission's 
(the 
Commission) promulgation of Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 because 
the Commission did not follow the required rule-making procedure 
set out in Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2) (2009-10).1  I conclude that 
the Commission was obligated, as a matter of law, to obtain a 
§ 227.115(2) housing report because ch. PSC 128 directly affects 
housing.  The Commission failed to obtain a § 227.115(2) housing 
report; therefore, ch. PSC 128 is invalid.  Wis. Stat. 
§ 227.40(4)(a).  Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the 
majority opinion.   
I.  BACKGROUND 
¶115 This case reaches us on competing motions for summary 
judgment in regard to whether Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 was 
lawfully promulgated.  Chapter PSC 128 regulates wind energy 
systems.  In relation to housing, it establishes the following:  
maximum setbacks of wind turbines from dwellings; permissible 
wind turbine noise levels, as measured at nearby dwellings; the 
number of hours per year during which dwellings can be subjected 
to shadow flicker cast by wind turbines.   
¶116 The legislature was concerned that wind turbines may 
affect both the health of Wisconsin citizens and housing.  Wis. 
                                                 
1 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2009-10 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No.  2013AP1407.pdr 
 
2 
 
Stat. § 196.378(4g)(e); Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2).  However, the 
legislature did not want each local unit of government imposing 
its own regulations, which could unnecessarily impede the 
development of wind energy in Wisconsin.  Accordingly, the 
legislature directed the Commission to promulgate rules that 
would reasonably protect people in their homes from health 
effects and reduced property values that could result from 
nearby wind turbines, while at the same time creating a uniform 
system of regulations for wind energy systems throughout the 
state.  § 196.378(4g)(b).   
¶117 In promulgating Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128, the 
Commission was required to obtain a comprehensive housing report 
from the Department of Commerce2 if its proposed rule "directly 
or substantially affects the development, construction, cost, or 
availability 
of 
housing 
in 
this 
state." 
 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 227.115(2).  The required housing report was to be prepared 
"before [the proposed rule] is submitted to the legislative 
council staff under s. 227.15."  Id.   
¶118 The record and arguments of the parties reveal that 
the Commission never requested or obtained the required housing 
report from the Department.  Apparently, the Commission never 
considered its obligations under Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2) because 
§ 227.115 is not listed in the Commission's "Plain Language 
                                                 
2 At the time Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 was created, the 
Department of Commerce was to have prepared the housing report.  
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 227.115(1)(a). 
 
The 
current 
version 
of 
§ 227.115(1)(a) (2013-14) requires that the report be prepared 
by the Department of Administration. 
No.  2013AP1407.pdr 
 
3 
 
Analysis" that it submitted to the Legislature and in which the 
Commission mentioned other statutes.   
II.  DISCUSSION 
¶119 The majority opinion employs three methods by which it 
permits the Commission to ignore the command of the legislature.  
First, it misunderstands Wisconsin Realtors' argument, and 
therefore, never addresses it.  Second, without deciding what 
Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2) means, the majority opinion chooses not 
to apply § 227.115(2) to Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128.3  In so 
doing, it ignores the policy choice of the legislature, which 
requires a housing report if a Commission rule directly or 
substantially affects housing.  Third, the majority opinion 
employs Wis. Stat. § 227.20(3) to create a presumption that the 
Commission followed all applicable rule-making procedures based 
on the Commission's filing of a certified copy of ch. PSC 128 
with the Legislative Reference Bureau.4   
A.  Standard of Review 
¶120 We review summary judgment granted to the Commission 
by the circuit court and affirmed by the court of appeals.  We 
review independently, as a matter of law, whether summary 
judgment was properly granted.  Grygiel v. Monches Fish & Game 
Club, Inc., 2010 WI 93, ¶12, 328 Wis. 2d 436, 787 N.W.2d 6.  Our 
review centers on interpretation and application of statutes.  
Statutory interpretation and application present questions of 
                                                 
3 Majority op., ¶7. 
4 Id., ¶¶66-67. 
No.  2013AP1407.pdr 
 
4 
 
law for our independent review; however, we benefit from the 
reasoning of other courts' decisions.  Richards v. Badger Mut. 
Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶14, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581.  
This 
controversy 
also 
involves 
the 
interpretation 
and 
application 
of 
administrative 
rules. 
 
These 
too 
present 
questions of law for our independent review.  Brown v. Brown, 
177 Wis. 2d 512, 516, 503 N.W.2d 280 (Ct. App. 1993). 
B.  Rule Promulgation 
1.  "Directly affects" 
¶121 All parties agree that if Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 
directly affects housing, the Commission was required to obtain 
a housing report from the Department before it filed the rule 
with the Legislative Reference Bureau.  The parties' dispute 
centers on the meaning of "directly affects" in Wis. Stat. 
§ 227.115(2).  This issue is clouded in the majority opinion 
because it never bothers to interpret § 227.115(2) and tell the 
reader what "directly affects" means.  It is also clouded by the 
majority opinion's repeated mischaracterization of Wisconsin 
Realtors' argument.5  
¶122 Determination of the meaning of "directly affects" is 
informed by the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b) because 
§ 196.378(4g)(b) is the enabling legislation for Wis. Admin. 
                                                 
5 For example, the majority asserts, that Wisconsin Realtors 
"contends that a housing impact report is required under Wis. 
Stat. § 227.115(2) whenever a proposed rule relates to housing."  
Majority op., ¶69.  That is not an accurate representation of 
Wisconsin Realtors' contention.  Rather, Wisconsin Realtors 
contends that a housing report is required when a Commission's 
rule directly or substantially affects housing.  
No.  2013AP1407.pdr 
 
5 
 
Code ch. PSC 128.  Therefore, the Commission was required to 
follow the legislative directives of § 196.378(4g)(b) when it 
promulgated ch. PSC 128.  Wis. Hosp. Ass'n v. Natural Res. Bd., 
156 Wis. 2d 688, 706, 457 N.W.2d 879 (Ct. App. 1990) (explaining 
that on review "court[s] should identify the elements of the 
enabling statute and match the rule against those elements").  
The meaning of Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2) also informs the 
controversy before us because of the proximity of wind turbines 
to housing. 
¶123 I interpret Wis. Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b) and Wis. Stat. 
§ 227.115(2) to ascertain their meaning.  Kalal v. Circuit Court 
for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶43, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 
110.  Scope, context and purpose are relevant to a plain meaning 
analysis.  Id., ¶48.  I also note that "[a]n administrative 
agency has only those powers which are expressly conferred or 
can be fairly implied from the statutes under which it 
operates."  Oneida Cnty. v. Converse, 180 Wis. 2d 120, 125, 508 
N.W.2d 416 (1993).   
¶124 Wisconsin Stat. § 227.115(2) addresses rules that 
affect 
housing 
such 
that, 
together 
with 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 196.378(4g)(b), 
they 
establish 
 
requirements 
for 
the 
Commission's promulgation of Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128.  
Furthermore, because these statutes bear on the same subject 
matter, here, the promulgation of administrative rules that 
regulate wind turbines, they are construed in that context so 
that they are consistent with one another.  McDonough v. DWD, 
227 Wis. 2d 271, 279, 595 N.W.2d 686 (1999).  Accordingly, the 
No.  2013AP1407.pdr 
 
6 
 
Commission was required to have exercised its rule-making 
authority within the framework established by these statutes. 
¶125 I begin with the words chosen by the legislature in 
its enabling legislation.  Wisconsin Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b) 
provides in relevant part: 
The commission shall . . . promulgate rules that 
specify the restrictions a political subdivision may 
impose on the installation or use of a wind energy 
system consistent with the conditions specified in s. 
66.0401(1m)(a) to (c).  The subject matter of these 
rules shall include setback requirements that provide 
reasonable 
protection 
from 
any 
health 
effects, 
including 
health 
effects 
from 
noise 
and 
shadow 
flicker, associated with wind energy systems.  The 
subject matter of these rules . . . may include . . . 
set-back distances, maximum audible sound levels, 
shadow flicker, proper means of measuring noise, 
interference with radio, telephone, or television 
signals, or other matters.  A political subdivision 
may not place a restriction on the installation or use 
of a wind energy system that is more restrictive than 
these rules. 
¶126 The legislative grant of authority to the Commission 
in Wis. Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b) described the legislature's 
purpose and topics that the Commission was required to address 
when promulgating Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128.  Section 
196.378(4g)(b) plainly states that the rules enacted "shall 
include setback requirements that provide reasonable protection 
from any health effects, including health effects from noise and 
shadow flicker."  Section 196.378(4g)(b) also granted the 
Commission discretionary authority in other areas.   
¶127 There are good reasons for the legislature's mandate 
that 
the 
Commission 
enact 
setback 
requirements 
for 
wind 
turbines.  It is well known that wind turbines may be harmful to 
No.  2013AP1407.pdr 
 
7 
 
the health of those who live close to them and are sensitive to 
the noise and shadow flicker they produce.  See Roy D. Jeffery, 
et al., Adverse Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines, 59 
Canadian Family Physician 473 (2013); Jerry Punch & Richard 
James, Negative Health Effects of Noise from Industrial Wind 
Turbines: 
 
Some 
Background, 
http://www.hearinghealthmatters.org/hearingviews/2014/wind-
turbine-health-problems-noise (last visited March 26, 2015).   
¶128 Directly connected to legislatively focused health 
concerns, Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 128.13 establishes siting 
criteria for wind turbines in regard to setback distance and 
height requirements; Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 128.14 addresses 
noise criteria;6 Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 128.15 addresses shadow 
flicker.7  Accordingly, the Commission's application of Wis. 
Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b) is driven by wind turbines' effects on 
the health of people who live or work in proximity to wind 
turbines.   
                                                 
6 Wisconsin Admin. Code § PSC 128.14 provides in relevant 
part:  "[A]n owner shall operate the wind energy system so that 
the noise attributable to the wind energy system does not exceed 
50 dBA during daytime hours and 45 dBA during nighttime hours."  
§ PSC 128.14(3)(a).  The determination of noise level is made at 
"the outside wall nearest to the closest wind turbine."  § PSC 
128.14(4). 
7 Wisconsin Admin. Code § PSC 128.15(1)(b) and (2) provides 
in relevant part:  "An owner shall design the proposed wind 
energy system to minimize shadow flicker at a residence or 
occupied community building . . . [so it] does not cause more 
than 30 hours per year of shadow flicker."  
No.  2013AP1407.pdr 
 
8 
 
¶129 Wisconsin Admin. Code § PSC 128.13(1)(a) provides for 
permissible setbacks, depending on the type of building that is 
nearby.  The largest setback is 1,250 feet.  The setback from 
wind turbines generally is measured as the distance from the 
wind turbine tower to the nearest point on the foundation of a 
residence or occupied community building.  § PSC 128.13(1)(b).   
¶130 The setbacks of Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 128.13 lessen 
the noise and shadow flicker impacts of wind turbines on 
residents and real estate that are as far away from the wind 
turbines as § PSC 128.13(1)(a) provides.  Stated otherwise, 
without consideration of the setbacks of § PSC 128.13, wind 
turbines 
could 
be 
placed 
in 
the 
middle 
of 
residential 
communities with houses only a few feet away so long as no local 
ordinance regulated placement.   
¶131 Because 
Wis. 
Admin. 
Code 
ch. 
PSC 
128 
prevents 
placement of wind turbines that are inconsistent with its 
provisions, ch. PSC 128 lessens the effects of wind turbines on 
the health of people who reside nearby.  Chapter PSC 128 does so 
by subjecting the housing in which people live to less noise and 
less shadow flicker.  Stated otherwise, §§ PSC 128.13, 128.14 
and 128.15 directly affect the levels of noise and shadow 
flicker that wind turbines inflict on nearby housing.   
¶132 The effect of wind turbines on the health of people 
living nearby was considered by the Wind Siting Council when ch. 
PSC 128 was enacted.  Furthermore, Wis. Stat. § 196.378(4g)(e) 
No.  2013AP1407.pdr 
 
9 
 
requires periodic review of wind turbines' effects on health.8  
Because wind turbines have the potential to affect the health of 
those who live nearby, wind turbines also will affect the market 
for those properties because some buyers will reject the 
properties because they believe that wind turbines will have a 
negative effect on their health.  See, e.g., Nina Pierpont, Wind 
Turbine Syndrome:  A Report on a Natural Experiment (2009) 
(available at http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com).  
¶133 The 
legislature 
recognized 
that 
health 
effects 
associated with wind turbines may be connected to the distance 
between wind turbines and housing when it required that setbacks 
provide "reasonable protection from any health effects."  Wis. 
Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b).  As health effects caused by wind 
turbines also affect the real estate market, the legislature 
required the Commission to obtain a housing report while it was 
in the process of promulgating Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128.  
Wisconsin Stat. § 227.115 specified the findings that the 
Department was required to make in assessing a proposed rule's 
effect on housing.  Section 227.115(3) provides: 
(a) The report of the department shall contain 
information about the effect of the proposed rule on 
housing in this state, including information on the 
effect of the proposed rule on all of the following: 
                                                 
8 The Wind Siting Council is required to "survey the peer-
reviewed scientific research regarding the health impacts of 
wind 
energy 
systems." 
 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 196.378(4g)(e); 
see 
Wisconsin Wind Siting Council, Wind Turbine Siting-Health Review 
and Wind Siting Policy Update, 3-4, 14 (2014).  The Wind Siting 
Council addressed health concerns, not housing concerns. 
No.  2013AP1407.pdr 
 
10 
 
1. The policies, strategies and recommendations 
of the state housing strategy plan. 
2. The cost of constructing, rehabilitating, 
improving or maintaining single family or multifamily 
dwellings. 
3. The purchase price of housing. 
4. The cost and availability of financing to 
purchase or develop housing. 
5. Housing costs, as defined in s. 560.9801(3)(a) 
and (b).  
(b) The report shall analyze the relative impact 
of the effects of the proposed rule on low– and 
moderate– income households.   
¶134 The legislature required the Commission to request a 
housing report from the Department if a "proposed rule directly 
or substantially affects the development, construction, cost, or 
availability of housing" in Wisconsin.  Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2).  
Section 227.115(2) requires the Commission to do so before the 
proposed rule is forwarded to the legislative council staff 
under Wis. Stat. § 227.15.   
¶135 Wisconsin Stat. § 227.115(2)'s phrase, "directly or 
substantially affects," is not defined in § 227.115, nor has it 
been interpreted in prior cases.  However, the phrase "directly 
affects" has been interpreted in other contexts.  For example, 
Sausen v. Town of Black Creek Bd. of Review, 2014 WI 9, ¶3, 352 
Wis. 2d 576, 843 N.W.2d 39, concludes that an assessor's 
classification of property "directly affects" the property's 
assessment because of the classification's relationship to 
statutory percentages of assessment.  State v. Long, 2009 WI 36, 
¶51, 317 Wis. 2d 92, 765 N.W.2d 557, explains that proof of a 
No.  2013AP1407.pdr 
 
11 
 
prior conviction "directly affects" a liberty interest because 
such proof is relevant to the term of incarceration to which a 
defendant may be subjected.  City of Appleton v. Town of 
Menasha, 142 Wis. 2d 870, 879, 419 N.W.2d 249 (1988), concludes 
that any illegal expenditure of public funds "directly affects" 
taxpayers because taxpayers suffer a pecuniary loss as a result.    
¶136 In each decision, "directly affects" has been defined 
by a nexus between an act and the interest of a person that is 
influenced by the act.  Accordingly, I conclude that the plain 
meaning of "directly affects" in Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2) 
includes an act that has a nexus to housing.  That is, in order 
for a proposed rule to "directly affect" housing, there must be 
a nexus between the proposed rule and housing.    
¶137 As I have explained, Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 has 
a nexus to housing due to the setbacks of § PSC 128.13, the 
decibel noise levels of § PSC 128.14 and the minimization of 
shadow flicker in § PSC 128.15, all of which regulate wind 
turbines' effects on nearby housing.  Stated otherwise, the 
plain meaning of "directly affects" in Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2) 
includes those proposed rules that regulate wind turbine 
setbacks, noise levels and shadow flicker. 
¶138 These obvious nexuses are the core of Wisconsin 
Realtors' contention from which it concluded that a housing 
No.  2013AP1407.pdr 
 
12 
 
report was required by Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2).9  Stated 
otherwise, it is the position of Wisconsin Realtors that 
§ 227.115(2) does not require that a rule have a negative effect 
on housing before a housing report is required by § 227.115(2).10  
Rather, the legislative threshold for requiring a housing report 
under § 227.115(2) is triggered whenever housing is "directly 
affected" by the terms of a proposed rule.  I agree with 
Wisconsin Realtors.  The statute says nothing about obtaining a 
housing report only when a rule negatively or inadequately 
affects housing. 
¶139 Furthermore, Wis. Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b) and Wis. 
Stat. § 227.115(2) must be read together because they bear on 
the 
same 
subject 
matter, 
proposed 
administrative 
rules.  
McDonough, 227 Wis. 2d at 279.  When we do so, the nexus between 
the health effects of wind turbines and housing becomes 
apparent. 
¶140 Wisconsin Admin. Code §§ PSC 128.13, 128.14 and 128.15 
directly affect noise levels and shadow flicker to which housing 
is subjected by the operation of wind turbines.  It follows then 
as a matter of course that the effect of wind turbines on 
                                                 
9 The 
majority 
opinion 
repeatedly 
misstates 
Wisconsin 
Realtors' position.  See majority op., e.g., ¶¶69-76.  In so 
doing, the majority opinion sets up straw men that it can knock 
down.  However, more importantly, this device permits the 
majority opinion to escape addressing Wisconsin Realtors' actual 
argument about why Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 directly affects 
housing.  
10 If there was ever any doubt, Wisconsin Realtors' position 
in this regard was clearly stated at oral argument under 
questioning by the court.  
No.  2013AP1407.pdr 
 
13 
 
housing is central to carrying out the plain meaning of 
§ 196.378(4g)(b), which required the Commission to draft rules 
that addressed wind turbines' effects on health.  Stated 
otherwise, housing is central to the Commission's compliance 
with § 196.378(4g)(b) because it is due to living in nearby 
housing that the health of Wisconsin residents is most affected 
by wind turbines.  Therefore, if the Commission's rules did not 
directly affect housing, those rules would have a limited impact 
on health, contrary to the enabling legislation for ch. PSC 128. 
¶141 Both the court of appeals and the majority opinion 
misunderstand Wisconsin Realtors' argument.  For example, the 
court of appeals said,  
To demonstrate that a housing impact report was 
required, [Wisconsin Realtors] must show that the 
setback, 
noise, 
and 
shadow 
flicker 
restrictions 
imposed by PSC 128 are so inadequate that the rules 
will directly or substantially affect the development, 
construction, cost, or availability of housing in 
Wisconsin.   
Wis. 
Realtors 
Ass'n 
v. 
Pub. 
Serv. 
Comm'n 
of 
Wis., 
No. 
2013AP1407, unpublished slip op., ¶18 (Wis. Ct. App. March 25, 
2014).   
¶142 However, no showing of inadequacy is required of 
Wisconsin Realtors under Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2) in order to 
demonstrate that Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 directly affects 
housing.  The plain meaning of the words that the legislature 
chose for Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2) does not require that the 
rules the Commission proposed be "inadequate" in order for those 
rules to directly affect housing.  All that is required is a 
No.  2013AP1407.pdr 
 
14 
 
nexus between the proposed rules and their effect on housing.  
It is beyond dispute that ch. PSC 128 has such a nexus.  
¶143 Once that threshold is met, a housing report is 
required.  It is the task of the Department, as it prepares the 
housing report, to assess whether the administrative rules were 
adequate or inadequate to protect housing.  The Department's 
assessment and report was to be done during the rule-making 
process.  Stated otherwise, the legislature gave the Department 
the task of assessing whether proposed rules are adequate to 
protect the housing of people who reside near wind turbines.11  
The legislature did not give that task to persons whose health 
and property values are impacted by the proposed rule.  That was 
a burden for government to shoulder, which the court of appeals12 
and the majority opinion13 have mistakenly placed on those 
Wisconsin residents who live near wind turbines. 
                                                 
11 See supra note 2. 
12 That the court of appeals added words to Wis. Stat. 
§ 227.115(2) and thereby constructed a standard contrary to what 
the legislature mandated is confirmed by the court's conclusion 
that 
"[w]ithout 
presenting 
evidence 
that 
the 
restrictions 
imposed by PSC 128 are insufficient, [Wisconsin Realtors] cannot 
rebut the presumption that no housing impact report was 
required."  Wis. Realtors Ass'n v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wis., 
No. 2013AP1407, unpublished slip op., ¶18 (Wis. Ct. App. 
March 25, 2014).  
13 See majority op., ¶7. 
No.  2013AP1407.pdr 
 
15 
 
2.  Presumption 
¶144 The majority opinion also concludes that if all else 
fails, Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 is saved by the presumption 
of Wis. Stat. § 227.20(3), which provides in relevant part: 
(3) Filing a certified copy of a rule with the 
legislative reference bureau creates a presumption of 
all of the following: 
. . . . 
(c) 
That 
all 
of 
the 
rule-making 
procedures 
required by this chapter were complied with. 
¶145 I take judicial notice that a certified copy of Wis. 
Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 was filed with the Legislative Reference 
Bureau.  However, because §§ PSC 128.13, 128.14 and 128.15 
directly affect housing, a Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2) housing 
report was required.  All agree that the Commission did not 
request the Department to prepare a housing report, and the 
Department provided no such report.  Because the Commission was 
required to request a housing report and did not do so, the 
presumption of Wis. Stat. § 227.20(3)(c) has been rebutted.   
¶146 Furthermore, if governmental agencies could ignore 
legislative directives simply by filing a certified copy of a 
proposed rule with the Legislative Reference Bureau, there would 
be a great temptation for busy agency employees not to bother 
with fully complying with legislative directives during rule-
making. 
 
Accordingly, 
the 
presumption 
of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 227.20(3)(c) cannot save the Commission's rules that were 
enacted with disregard for the express directives of the 
Legislature.  See Dane Cnty. v. DHSS, 79 Wis. 2d 323, 331-32, 
No.  2013AP1407.pdr 
 
16 
 
255 N.W.2d 539 (1977) (concluding that Dane County could 
challenge the manner in which the Department of Health and 
Social Services had promulgated its rule).   
C.  Remedy 
¶147 I have concluded that the plain meaning of Wis. Stat. 
§ 227.115(2) required the Commission, as a matter of law, to 
obtain a housing report from the Department when it promulgated 
Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128; that it failed to do so and that 
its failure is not saved by Wis. Stat. § 227.20(3)(c).  The 
question now becomes, what is the remedy for the Commission's 
failure.   
¶148 Wisconsin Realtors began this declaratory judgment 
action pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.40.  Therefore, I look to 
that section's provisions for guidance.  Wisconsin Stat. 
§ 227.40(4)(a) states: 
In any proceeding pursuant to this section for 
judicial review of a rule, the court shall declare the 
rule 
invalid 
if 
it 
finds 
that 
it 
violates 
constitutional provisions or exceeds the statutory 
authority of the agency or was promulgated without 
compliance with statutory rule-making procedures.  
It is under the last provision:  the rule "was promulgated 
without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures," on 
which Wisconsin Realtors' claim lies.   
¶149 Courts have reviewed other rules that have been 
promulgated without compliance with rule-making procedures and 
have held such rules invalid.  For example, in Cholvin v. DHFS, 
2008 WI App 127, ¶¶32-34, 313 Wis. 2d 749, 758 N.W.2d 118, the 
court of appeals held a directive that the Department of Health 
No.  2013AP1407.pdr 
 
17 
 
and Family Services had given to Susan Cholvin was invalid 
because the Department did not employ statutorily required rule-
making to promulgate the directive.  See also Heritage Credit 
Union v. Office of Credit Unions, 2001 WI App 213, ¶24, 247 
Wis. 2d 589, 634 N.W.2d 593 (explaining that failure to comply 
with rule-making procedures is one ground for declaring a rule 
invalid).   
¶150 The 
Commission 
did 
not 
comply 
with 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 227.115(2), and as a matter of law, it was required to do so.  
The plain meaning of Wis. Stat. § 227.40(4)(a) provides the 
remedy: 
 
"the 
court 
shall 
declare 
the 
rule 
invalid."  
Accordingly, I follow that directive and conclude that ch. PSC 
128 is invalid.   
III.  CONCLUSION 
¶151 I conclude that the Commission was obligated, as a 
matter of law, to obtain a Wis. Stat. § 227.115(2) housing 
report because Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128 directly affects 
housing.  The Commission failed to obtain a § 227.115(2) housing 
report; therefore, ch. PSC 128 is invalid.  Wis. Stat. 
§ 227.40(4)(a).  Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the 
majority opinion.   
¶152 I 
am 
authorized 
to 
state 
that 
Justice 
ANNETTE 
KINGSLAND ZIEGLER joins this dissent. 
 
 
No.  2013AP1407.pdr 
 
1