WI Stat § 1.12 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 1 - Sovereignty and jurisdiction of the state.|1.12 - State energy policy.

1.12  State energy policy. (1) Definitions. In this section:(a) “Local governmental unit" has the meaning given in s. 19.42 (7u).(b) “State agency" means an office, department, agency, institution of higher education, the legislature, a legislative service agency, the courts, a judicial branch agency, an association, society, or other body in state government that is created or authorized to be created by the constitution or by law, for which appropriations are made by law, excluding the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. (2)  Conservation policy. A state agency or local governmental unit shall investigate and consider the maximum conservation of energy resources as an important factor when making any major decision that would significantly affect energy usage. (3)  Goals. (a)  Energy efficiency. It is the goal of the state to reduce the ratio of energy consumption to economic activity in the state.(b)  Renewable energy resources. It is the goal of the state that, to the extent that it is cost-effective and technically feasible, all new installed capacity for electric generation in the state be based on renewable energy resources, including hydroelectric, wood, wind, solar, refuse, agricultural and biomass energy resources.(c)  Afforestation. It is the goal of the state to ensure a future supply of wood fuel and reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide by increasing the forested areas of the state. (4)  Priorities. In meeting energy demands, the policy of the state is that, to the extent cost-effective and technically feasible, options be considered based on the following priorities, in the order listed:(a) Energy conservation and efficiency.(b) Noncombustible renewable energy resources.(c) Combustible renewable energy resources.(cm) Advanced nuclear energy using a reactor design or amended reactor design approved after December 31, 2010, by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (d) Nonrenewable combustible energy resources, in the order listed:1. Natural gas.2. Oil or coal with a sulphur content of less than 1 percent.3. All other carbon-based fuels. (5)  Meeting energy demands.  (a) In designing all new and replacement energy projects, a state agency or local governmental unit shall rely to the greatest extent feasible on energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy resources, if the energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy resources are cost-effective and technically feasible and do not have unacceptable environmental impacts.(b) To the greatest extent cost-effective and technically feasible, a state agency or local governmental unit shall design all new and replacement energy projects following the priorities listed in sub. (4). (6)  Siting of electric transmission facilities. In the siting of new electric transmission facilities, including high-voltage transmission lines, as defined in s. 196.491 (1) (f), it is the policy of this state that, to the greatest extent feasible that is consistent with economic and engineering considerations, reliability of the electric system, and protection of the environment, the following corridors should be utilized in the following order of priority:(a) Existing utility corridors.(b) Highway and railroad corridors.(c) Recreational trails, to the extent that the facilities may be constructed below ground and that the facilities do not significantly impact environmentally sensitive areas.(d) New corridors.History:  1977 c. 29; 1993 a. 414; 2003 a. 89; 2005 a. 74; 2011 a. 7; 2013 a. 20; 2015 a. 344.NOTE:  1993 Wis. Act 414, which creates subs. (1) and (3) to (5), contains extensive explanatory notes.When the Public Service Commission (PSC) makes a determination under the plant siting law, s. 196.491, it applies sub. (4) in the context of determining whether to approve the requested plant siting. The question the PSC should ask is: Given the requirements of the plant siting law, what is the highest priority energy option that is also cost effective and technically feasible? Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. PSC, 2005 WI 93, 282 Wis. 2d 250, 700 N.W.2d 768, 04-3179.