Opinion ID: 1713897
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alternative Site Requirement

Text: ś 64. Wisconsin Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(e) requires a CPCN application for a large electric generating facility to contain information concerning [a]t least two proposed sites for the proposed facility, including a description of the siting process and a list of the factors considered in choosing the alternatives. Clean Wisconsin argues that WEC's application failed to satisfy this requirement because it contained only alternative configurations of the proposed plants on the same site rather than two distinct alternate proposed sites. ś 65. Clean Wisconsin argues that alternative configurations at the same site are allowed only under the circumstances described in Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(2)(b). Clean Wisconsin also argues that the PSC's test for determining whether an application proposes sufficiently different alternatives is contrary to the plain meaning of Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(e) and that even if the PSC's test is appropriate, WEC's application clearly failed to meet that test. ś 66. No one disputes that § PSC 111.53(1)(e) requires an applicant to submit information concerning proposed alternative sites. The threshold question is really how different or distinct must two proposals be to qualify as alternative sites. The text of the regulation does not answer this question. In rejecting Clean Wisconsin's initial challenge to the PSC's determination that WEC's CPCN application was complete, the PSC explained how it evaluates site alternatives: The Commission's standard for reviewing site alternatives in a CPCN application is based upon both the rule of reason and the principle that alternatives must serve the public purpose underlying the issuance of a CPCN. The Commission first reviews a CPCN application to determine that each proposed site is reasonable, i.e. is a feasible location for the project that would not directly conflict with any of the criteria for granting a CPCN expressed in Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3). In addition, the Commission's practice is to require that the sites are sufficiently distinct to offer different packages of costs and benefits, and thus present the Commission with a choice. The fact that alternative sites may be geographically close to each other does not render them unreasonable. The Commission has accepted CPCN applications for several projects where the alternative sites were close together or even adjacent to each other. ś 67. We cannot conclude that the PSC's interpretation of its own rule in this instance is inconsistent with the text of the rule. As noted, the rule itself provides no indication as to when different proposals are sufficiently distinct so as to constitute alternative sites. The pertinent dictionary definition of alternative is [a]llowing or necessitating a choice between two or more things. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 55 (3d ed. 1992). Additionally, site is defined as [t]he place where a structure or group of structures was, is, or is to be located. Id. at 1688. Thus, the alternative site provision requires a CPCN applicant to provide information regarding locations where the proposed power plants are to be located sufficient to present the PSC with a choice. ś 68. The PSC's interpretation of its rule is not inconsistent with these definitions, as it requires that the sites are sufficiently distinct to offer different packages of costs and benefits, and thus present the Commission with a choice. While Clean Wisconsin argues that WEC's proposal contained only different configurations on the same site, this argument is merely a matter of semantics and begs the ultimate question of how distinct the locations of the proposed plants must be to qualify as alternative sites. ś 69. The PSC's interpretation differentiates sites on the basis of whether they offer sufficiently distinct costs and benefits so as to allow the PSC to make an actual choice between the two. This interpretation comports with the overall statutory scheme governing the issuance of CPCNs. One of the criteria for granting a CPCN is that the proposed facility is in the public interest considering . . . alternative locations. . . . Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)3. By requiring that an applicant present information concerning sites [that] are sufficiently distinct to offer different packages of cost and benefits, and thus present the commission with a choice[,] the PSC ensures that it is able to evaluate whether the proposed facility is in the public interest considering . . . alternative locations . . . . Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)3. ś 70. As the PSC's interpretation of its own rule is not contrary to the text of the rule, we accord it great weight deference. Thus, the PSC's determination that a CPCN application has met the alternative sites requirement will not be disturbed unless it is without a rational basis. ś 71. WEC's CPCN application originally contained three proposed sites that were described in the PSC's final order approving the CPCN: The North Site is in the City of Oak Creek in Milwaukee County at the east end of Elm Road, north of the existing OCPP [Oak Creek Power Plant] units. The South Site would place the generating units on a portion of the OCPP property south of existing Units 5-8, in the town of Caledonia in Racine County. The South Site â Exp is a variation on the South Site, placing the SCPC units in the same location but with the IGCC facility on a federal/state-owned shooting range (land that WEC would need to purchase). ś 72. In its decision rejecting Clean Wisconsin's original challenge to its completeness determination, the PSC applied its interpretation of § PSC 111.53(1)(e) to WEC's application and reasoned: At least two of the three sites WEC has included in its CPCN application meet the Commission's standards. The petitioners allege that 11 or more different characteristics of these sites are functionally identical, but this situation is difficult to avoid when searching for locations to install a new coal-fired plant where generation already exists. The similarities highlight the fact that each site alternative is relying on existing infrastructure at a brownfield generating site, and the Commission has encouraged the use of such locations because they tend to make electric generation projects less expensive and less environmentally damaging. The Commission also noted two significant distinctions among the sites WEC is proposing. The primary site is located in the city of Oak Creek, Milwaukee County, while the alternative sites are found in the town of Caledonia, Racine County. In addition, construction at the primary site would require WEC to cut and fill 10 million cubic yards of earth, while at Alternative Site A it would only need to move 7.3 million cubic yards. The site alternatives WEC is proposing are different enough to meet the Commission's requirements in Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(e). ś 73. Clean Wisconsin asserts that there is no difference between the alternatives WEC proposed because their cost is the same and there are no distinct benefits that distinguish the alternatives from one another. Clean Wisconsin also notes that the information WEC provided as to its proposed alternatives was sparse in comparison to the information provided for the primary, preferred location. ś 74. The PSC noted that while there were many similarities between the proposed sites, this was unavoidable because of the type of facility that was being proposed and because the PSC prefers applicants to choose sites that are located on brownfields, so as to minimize any adverse environmental impacts of the proposed facility. [26] The PSC also stated that the proposed sites were located in different cities and counties. While Clean Wisconsin argues these facts have no relevance, the record indicates that the alternate proposed locations had different physical attributes from which the PSC could reasonably determine that the proposals offered competing packages of benefits and costs. ś 75. For instance, the proposed South Site would require a different coal conveyor system and possible adaptation of on-site haul roads. In addition, the South Site and South Site-Exp would require the relocation of a planned commercially-owned wallboard plant. The South Site-Exp would require WEC to purchase 70 acres of land from the federal government that is currently used as a shooting range. The South Site-Exp is located closer to Lake Michigan than the other proposed sites, and it would therefore allow equipment requiring cooling to be located closer to the lake. Additionally, the South Side-Exp would require less bluff removal than the other two sites and would allow certain facilities to be more accessible. Although all three sites would require a significant amount of earth removal, there is a difference of 2.7 million cubic yards of earth that would need to be removed among some of the alternate sites. ś 76. Furthermore, the fact that the proposed alternatives were located in different communities is not inconsequential. It is reasonable to assume that a project the size of the one being proposed may garner different levels of public support depending upon the community in which it is located. It is reasonable to assume that an entity proposing to build a project the size of the one at issue here might have varying degrees of difficulty obtaining necessary permits depending upon in which community the project is located and that different communities may desire different levels of mitigation payments. [27] ś 77. In sum, we cannot say that the PSC's ultimate conclusion that WEC's CPCN application satisfied the alternate site requirement was without a rational basis, particularly in light of the PSC's stated goal of reducing the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project. While an opposite conclusion on the facts before us might be equally reasonable or even more reasonable, the PSC's determination must stand under our deferential standard of review. [28]