Opinion ID: 2812919
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Housing costs, as defined in s. 560.9801(3)(a)

Text: 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 10 No. 2013AP1407.pdr 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 11 No. 2013AP1407.pdr 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. 12 No. 2013AP1407.pdr 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 13 No. 2013AP1407.pdr 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. 14 No. 2013AP1407.pdr 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 rulemaking. 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, 15 No. 2013AP1407.pdr 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).