Opinion ID: 1713897
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Plant Siting Law

Text: ś 135. In addition to challenging the PSC's general application of the EPL, Clean Wisconsin and Calpine argue that the PSC improperly applied the Plant Siting Law to the CPCN application in this case, raising issues concerning various segments of that statute. We discuss each issue raised in turn. However, before addressing each issue concerning the Plant Siting Law, we must determine what level of deference is appropriate. As this court has previously recognized, [t]he `great weight' standard has been called the general rule in Wisconsin. Hutson, 263 Wis. 2d 612, ś 32. Our case law has established that we should accord an agency's interpretation of the law great weight deference when the `legal question is intertwined with factual determinations or with value or policy determinations' and the agency involved `has primary responsibility for determination of fact and policy.' Id. (quoting Sauk County, 165 Wis. 2d at 413 (in turn quoting West Bend Educ. Ass'n, 121 Wis. 2d at 12)). ś 136. We conclude that great weight deference is appropriate here. First, there is no dispute that the legislature has specifically charged the PSC with the interpretation of chapter 196. The legislature has given the PSC jurisdiction to supervise and regulate every public utility in this state and to do all things necessary and convenient to its jurisdiction. Wis. Stat. § 196.02(1). ś 137. Next, the PSC is the only agency charged with administering § 196.491(3)(d), which has been in existence for 30 years. Further, there can be no doubt the decision to issue a CPCN for a specific plant at a specific location calls for the PSC to utilize its expertise and make a variety of factual findings. ś 138. Finally, and most importantly, the PSC's interpretation and application of § 196.491(3)(d) inherently calls for a variety of policy determinations. Even a cursory review of the Plant Siting Law reveals that the PSC is charged with making a number of legislative-type policy determinations when determining if a CPCN should be issued. For instance, the PSC must determine whether: [t]he proposed facility satisfies the reasonable needs of the public for an adequate supply of electric energy; [t]he design and location or route is in the public interest considering alternative sources of supply, alternative locations or routes, individual hardships, engineering, economic, safety, reliability and environmental factors; [t]he proposed facility will not have undue adverse impact on other environmental values; [t]he proposed facility will not unreasonably interfere with the orderly land use and development plans for the area involved; and [t]he proposed facility will not have a material adverse impact in competition in the relevant wholesale electric service market. Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)2.-4., 6.-7. (emphasis added). ś 139. All of these determinations are legislative-type determinations that require the PSC to make factual findings and apply its technical knowledge and expertise. The final decisions as to where and when a proposed power plant should be constructed, how large the plant should be, how it should be constructed, and what fuel it should use are quintessentially legislative policy choices that have been delegated to the PSC. ś 140. Because we conclude great weight deference is appropriate, our analysis of the parties' claims regarding the Plant Siting Law will focus on whether the PSC's determination had a rational basis, Hutson, 263 Wis. 2d 612, ś 32, and was consistent with the statutory language, Bosco, 273 Wis. 2d 586, ś 19.
ś 141. Under Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)2.-3., the PSC can approve an application for a CPCN filed by a public utility only if the proposed facility satisfies the reasonable needs of the public for an adequate supply of electric energy and the design and location or route is in the public interest considering alternative sources of supply, alternative locations or routes, individual hardships, engineering, economic, safety, reliability and environmental factors. [36] Part of the calculus that goes into making these determinations is estimating the future energy needs of the state and forecasting the economic impact of proposed plans. ś 142. Accounting for the myriad of economic factors that affect demand and energy prices is an incredibly complex task. All parties rely on the EGEAS computer-modeling program to provide estimates of what the optimal construction plans would be, given changes in the many variables affecting the state's future energy situation. WEPCO ran models on EGEAS and presented those findings in its application for the CPCN. ś 143. The PSC also used EGEAS modeling to choose the best energy option under the requirements of the EPL and the Plant Siting Law. In the Final Decision, the PSC stated: Almost every EGEAS run shows the need for new baseload generation over the next decade, and [t]hese EGEAS runs demonstrate that the energy priority resources, alone or in combination, cannot replace the need for new baseload, coal-fired units to serve WEPCO. The PSC used this modeling as well as other factors to conclude that natural-gas-fired units would not be cost effective and technically feasible for baseload capacity in this case. Given the need for more baseload plants and the lack of higher priority alternatives, the PSC approved the CPCN application for the coal-fired units. ś 144. Clean Wisconsin and Calpine argue that the PSC improperly applied § 196.491(3)(d)2.-3. to the present case. Clean Wisconsin argues that the PSC failed to make required findings of fact and the EGEAS modeling failed to consider pertinent variables. Calpine joins in arguing that even with the various problems in EGEAS, Calpine's natural-gas-fired plant was the lowest cost option, and therefore was required to be selected. Calpine also argues that its natural-gas alternative could be operated as a baseload facility and that there was no basis for the PSC's determination that no gas-fired, baseload facilities were presented as either a cost-effective or technically feasible alternative in this record.
ś 145. Clean Wisconsin argues that the Final Decision did not contain findings of fact and that the findings section merely recited the statutory criteria and labeled them `Findings,' such that it is impossible to review the PSC's decision. See Stas v. Milwaukee County Civil Serv. Comm'n, 75 Wis. 2d 465, 475, 249 N.W.2d 764 (1977). This argument is not persuasive. There is no requirement that the agency provide an elaborate opinion. Wis. Envtl. Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 98 Wis. 2d 682, 701, 298 N.W.2d 205 (Ct. App. 1990) (WED IV). All that is required is that the findings of fact and conclusions of law are specific enough to inform the parties and the courts on appeal of the basis of the decision. Id. Here the findings of fact and conclusions of law explain the basis of the decision, and the Final Decision includes a 50-page analysis of the issues in the case. Therefore, we are easily able to determine whether the PSC acted appropriately.
ś 146. Clean Wisconsin argues that the EGEAS modeling was defective because: 1) it failed to include known costs related to the ERGS project; 2) it was not utilized to evaluate higher priority fuel sources; and 3) its modeling utilized biased modeling variables. The thrust of its argument is that the EGEAS modeling system is only as good as the data input for its projection, such that flawed inputs would necessarily result in flawed results. We now discuss these three issues.