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

Heading: Issuance of the CPCN

Text: ś 98. The PSC is required to comply with the Energy Priorities Law (EPL), Wis. Stat. § 1.12, when approving CPCNs for large electric generating facilities. See Wis. Stat. § 196.025(1). The EPL states Wisconsin's energy policy and gives agencies and governmental units a list of energy source options and the priority in which they should be considered when making decisions. Clean Wisconsin and Calpine raise numerous arguments that the PSC violated the EPL by approving the CPCN for ERGS. ś 99. The relevant part of the EPL states: (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. (d) Nonrenewable combustible energy resources, in the order listed: 1. Natural gas. 2. Oil or coal with a sulphur content of less than 1%. 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). ś 100. Wisconsin Stat. § 196.025(1) specifically charges the PSC with the duty to implement these priorities: To the extent cost-effective, technically feasible and environmentally sound, the [PSC] shall implement the priorities under s. 1.12 (4) in making all energy-related decisions and orders, including advance plan, rate setting and rule-making orders. ś 101. ERGS would use high-sulfur coal as its fuel, which is the lowest-priority fuel under the EPL. Calpine has proposed an alternative facility to be fueled by natural gas, which is the highest priority nonrenewable combustible energy option. ś 102. Before discussing the parties' arguments concerning the PSC's interpretation and application of the EPL, we set forth the relevant portions of the PSC's Final Decision and summarize the reasoning given for the PSC's conclusions regarding the EPL, as it is the reasoning in the PSC's decision that frames the parties' arguments on appeal. ś 103. We begin by noting that the PSC clearly recognized that the EPL was applicable to its decision: Another important legal and policy issue this Commission must decide is whether or not there is enough energy conservation, renewable resources, or a cleaner burning fuel to cancel or delay the construction approvals sought for the SCPC units in this proceeding. State law provides guidance to the Commission in carrying out the state's energy policy. Our obligations are set forth in Wis. Stat. § 1.12. ś 104. The PSC then discussed the opposition to ERGS and the argument that the EPL mandates selection of the natural-gas alternative presented by Calpine. The PSC stated it had discretion in applying the EPL and that it was required to consider its obligations under the Plant Siting Law when applying the EPL: This [EPL], however, is not a mandate to state agencies that must be mechanically applied to achieve a specific outcome. In the Prefatory Note to 1993 Wis. Act 414, which enacted this law, the Legislature declares that it does not want to create inflexible mandates or deprive decision makers of the discretion needed to respond appropriately to the circumstances surrounding energy-related decisions. The Legislature explains that this law uses a combination of directives and encouragement, while reserving substantial discretionary authority to the decision maker. Such discretion must be applied in this case, to harmonize the directives of the [EPL] with those of the Power Plant Siting Law. The statutory framework for analyzing whether approving a CPCN project would be in the public interest involves a number of factors, beyond those specified in the [EPL]. The Commission must consider the extent to which a proposal may cause individual hardships, as well as concerns about its engineering, economics, safety, reliability, environmental impacts, interference with local land use plans, and impact upon wholesale competition. The Commission is required to balance all of these competing elements, which frequently lead in different directions; no single primary factor is the measure of a CPCN project. Thus, the Commission is responsible for harmonizing the [EPL] and the Power Plant Siting Law, in order to determine what is in the public interest. ś 105. The PSC then began its analysis under the EPL by addressing the first listed priority, energy conservation and efficiency: The applicants' and Commission staff's estimates of achievable energy efficiency do not demonstrate that energy efficiency could reliably or cost-effectively serve to substitute, or postpone, the SCPC units. However, the PSC concluded that a moderate level of intervention in the energy efficiency market would produce at least 55 MW of cost-effective and technically feasible energy efficiency in WEPCO's service territory by 2008. Therefore, the PSC ordered WEPCO to submit a plan to the PSC for capturing at least 55 MW through energy efficiency programs. ś 106. The PSC next discussed renewable resources and identified wind power and biomass energy as the resources most likely to be cost-effective. It noted that WEPCO had issued two requests for proposals considering 200 MW of wind power and 25 MW of biomass power, but concluded that these renewable resources are not cost-effective, technically feasible alternatives. ś 107. The PSC then considered natural-gas power, stating: No gas-fired, baseload facilities were presented as either a cost-effective or technically feasible alternative in this record. [32] The PSC explained that it was critical that WEPCO address the need for new baseload facilities immediately: A critical part of the Commission's ultimate preference for coal-fired generation over gas-fired generation rests heavily on the discretion accorded to the Commission under the [EPL] and the Power Plant Siting Law. More significantly, the crux of this case is really about the appropriate timing to construct new baseload generation. A fundamental policy choice presented in this case is whether the Commission believes that WEPCO needs to take steps now to address needs for new baseload facilities over the next decade. The Commission believes that the applicants should take those steps now to ensure these facilities are in service in 2009 and 2010. ś 108. The PSC's decision that coal-fired baseload generation was appropriate was, in part, based on Electric Generation Expansion Analysis System (EGEAS) computer modeling projections [33] that demonstrated energy priority alternatives [could not] replace the need for new baseload, coal-fired units to serve WEPCO. The PSC further stated that the factors in the Plant Siting Law supported its conclusion: There are qualitative factors set forth in Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d) that also support the Commission's conclusion that new coal-fired generation is in the public interest and that ERGS is the most cost-effective and technically feasible way to address WEPCO's baseload needs. The Commission's decision to approve SCPC 1 and 2 balances its obligations under the [EPL] and the Power Plant Siting Law. It also reflects the Commission's policy judgment that while natural gas-fired generating facilities may be better suited for peak and intermediate load generation, coal-fired generation provides the most practical means to serve WEPCO's needs for baseload capacity. The evidence in this proceeding demonstrates the advantages of using cleaner burning coal technologies like SCPC as a baseload resource over gas-fired generation. The need for new baseload generation is the critical factor that distinguishes this decision from the Port Washington order. The Port Washington order addressed WEPCO's need for new intermediate capacity. The Commission has not approved construction of any new baseload, coal-fired generation in Wisconsin since 1980. The evidence presented reflects the fact that WEPCO's existing fleet of baseload plants is aging. WEPCO's aging baseload resources may be asked to maintain or even increase their historical production as older facilities are retired over the next decade and transmission constraints within WUMS continue to limit the ability of Wisconsin load-serving entities to import electricity. In fact, in Phase I of PTF the Commission approved the retirement of 320 MW of existing baseload, coal-fired generation at Port Washington. The record in this docket demonstrates that WEPCO needs more baseload capacity. ś 109. The PSC then examined environmental factors and stated that as part of the proposed plan, WEPCO would install technology to reduce emissions on the existing plants at the site. Finally, it noted that the policy preferences set forth in the EPL are actualized in the overall pattern of decisions made by each agency, and that since its enactment, the PSC had authorized more than 6,900 MW of natural-gas fueled plants. The PSC emphasized that [t]he total mix of energy sources that the Commission has approved over this time period shows a pattern of decisions for baseload, intermediate and peaking generating facilities that complies with the state's energy policy. ś 110. The dispute regarding the EPL centers on the PSC's focus on the need for baseload capacity and its conclusion that the natural gas option was not cost-effective and technically feasible for this project. The PSC concluded that in interpreting and applying the EPL, it was required to consider its obligations under the Plant Siting Law and type of project being proposed. Clean Wisconsin and Calpine argue that the PSC's interpretation of the EPL was erroneous because the concept of baseload capacity is not part of the EPL and because the factors in the Plant Siting Law have no bearing on the requirements of the EPL. ś 111. As discussed supra, this court applies varying degrees of deference to an agency's interpretation of statutes. Calpine and Clean Wisconsin argue that this court should give no deference to the PSC's interpretation of the EPL, asserting that it satisfies none of the four requirements for granting great weight deference discussed supra. They assert that the PSC's application of the statute has never been used in a CPCN determination concerning a high sulfur, coal-fueled facility and that the baseload concept is contrary to the plain language of the EPL. In contrast, the PSC contends that great weight deference is appropriate, citing its substantial experience in processing certificate applications. ś 112. We agree with the PSC and conclude that great weight deference is appropriate. The PSC satisfies the first requirement for great weight deference because it is clearly charged by the legislature with applying the EPL in its CPCN determinations. Second, the PSC has frequently and consistently interpreted the EPL in light of its obligations under the Plant Siting Law and the particular requirements of the project being proposed. ś 113. For example, in Application of Madison Gas & Elec. Co., No. 05-CE-121 (Wis. PSC Oct. 9, 2003), the PSC examined a proposal to build a natural-gas-powered facility on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The purpose of the project was to provide electric power for Madison Gas and Electric Company and to provide steam and chilled water to the university. In its application of the EPL, the PSC discussed wind power, a higher priority energy than natural gas. The Final Decision stated: Although there are additional wind resources available, the Commission finds that wind resources are neither technically feasible nor cost-effective options to displace the need for a project the size and scope presented in this application.  Id. at 13 (emphasis added). ś 114. Likewise, in Application of Wis. Elec. Power Co., No. 05-CE-117 (Wis. PSC Dec. 20, 2002) [hereinafter Port Washington Order ], where the PSC made its determination regarding Part I of the proposal that is the subject of this litigation, the PSC applied the cost effective and technically feasible standards in the context of the Plant Siting Law requirements concerning the proposed natural-gas-fired plants. In its application of the EPL, the PSC discussed energy efficiency and renewable resources but concluded that both were neither technically feasible nor cost effective options to displace the need for a project the size and scope presented in these applications. Id. at 16. ś 115. In Application of Wis. Pub. Serv. Corp., No. 6690-CE-187 (Wis. PSC Oct. 7, 2004) [hereinafter Weston Order ], a decision following this case, the PSC applied the EPL to a situation very similar to the present case. That decision concerned a 515 MW coal baseload unit proposed by the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation. There, the PSC ordered the corporation to submit a plan to capture 32 MW of energy efficiency, but came to the same conclusion as the Final Decision in the present case that natural gas was not a cost-effective or technically feasible alternative to coal for a baseload plant. Id. at 16-17. ś 116. Contrary to the assertion of Calpine and Clean Wisconsin, it is irrelevant that the present case is the first time the PSC has applied its interpretation of the EPL to a high-sulfur coal facility. The correct test for great weight deference is whether the agency has prior experience in interpreting the statutory section at issue, not whether it has previously applied that interpretation to the precise facts presented on appeal. Honthaners Rests., 240 Wis. 2d 234, ś 12. Therefore, we conclude that the PSC's interpretation of the EPL meets the second requirement for great weight deference. ś 117. Next, we conclude that the third requirement for great weight deference is met because the PSC's interpretation of the EPL requires it to interpret the phrases cost effective and technically feasible, which in turn calls for the PSC to rely on its expertise of highly technical subjects such as economic forecasting and industrial technology. The PSC must use its expertise to determine what is cost effective in any given situation or what is technically feasible. ś 118. Finally, by interpreting the provisions of the EPL in light of the requirements under the Plant Siting Law, the PSC has provided an interpretation of the EPL that will promote uniformity in the application of the EPL as it relates to CPCN determinations. As such, we conclude that the fourth requirement for great weight deference is satisfied. ś 119. Clean Wisconsin and Calpine also argue that we cannot give great weight deference to the PSC's interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 1.12(4) because the PSC cannot interpret the statute for all the other agencies that must also apply this provision. We reject this argument because the PSC's interpretation of the EPL pertains only to CPCN determinations under the Plant Siting Law. Other agencies are free to apply the EPL in the contexts of other determinations that they are authorized to make. Accordingly, we give great weight deference to the PSC's interpretation of the EPL and will not substitute our interpretation of the statute unless the PSC's interpretation is irrational. ś 120. Clean Wisconsin and Calpine argue that the PSC's interpretation of the EPL cannot be upheld because it is contrary to the plain text of the EPL. Additionally, Calpine asserts that the determination that gas-powered plants could not support baseload needs is an invalid, unpromulgated rule that the PSC adopted in this case, bypassing the proper procedures for creating rules set out in Wis. Stat. § 227.10(1). ś 121. We conclude that the PSC's interpretation of cost effective and technically feasible must be harmonized with the Plant Siting Law because the EPL is to be applied as the PSC makes energy-related decisions under both statutes. Without consideration of the various statutes an agency is charged with administering, there is no context in which to gauge whether an option is cost effective or technically feasible. ś 122. The EPL itself states that the priorities are to be applied [i]n meeting energy demands. Wis. Stat. § 1.12. Wisconsin Stat. § 196.025(1) states the priorities of § 1.12(4) are to be applied in making all energy-related decisions and orders. When the PSC makes a determination on a CPCN under the Plant Siting Law, it applies the EPL in the context of determining whether to approve the requested plant siting. The question the PSC should ask is thus: Given the requirements of the Plant Siting Law, what is the highest priority energy option that is also cost effective and technically feasible? [34] Therefore, the PSC's interpretation of the EPL is not contrary to the text of the statute. ś 123. We also reject Calpine's argument that the use of baseload terminology and the determination that natural gas was not cost effective and technically feasible amounted to an invalid, unpromulgated rule. The term baseload is a way of defining the type of project at issue. The determination that natural gas was not an appropriate alternative was the PSC's conclusion after it analyzed the various alternatives through EGEAS computer modeling and other techniques. The term baseload is not a regulation, standard, statement of policy, or general order, as rule is defined under Wis. Stat. § 227.01. ś 124. The discussion of the need for baseload facilities in the present case is part of the PSC's explanation of the size and scope of the project it has before it. If the PSC determines under the Plant Siting Law that a project of this size and scope (i.e. a baseload plant) is in the public interest and is necessary to satisf[y] the reasonable needs of the public for an adequate supply of electric energy, then it must apply the EPL and choose the highest priority energy option that is both cost effective and technically feasible in the context of that need. ś 125. In sum, we cannot conclude that the PSC's interpretation of the EPL is contrary to the text or the statute or is in any way irrational. As such, we turn now and discuss the challenges Clean Wisconsin and Calpine raise to the PSC's general application of the EPL in this case. ś 126. Clean Wisconsin and Calpine raise numerous intertwined claims regarding the PSC's general application of the EPL. Clean Wisconsin first argues that the PSC erroneously determined that the EPL did not bind the agency to accept higher priority alternatives that are cost effective and technically feasible. It relies on language in the Final Decision that it argues demonstrates the PSC believes it could approve ERGS even if higher priority alternatives are at the same cost or lower than high-sulfur coal: S.C. Johnson asserts that it is not enough that ERGS be close in price to other higher priority options and that the applicants in the present proceeding must prove a compelling reason not to abide by the energy priorities described in [EPL]. Under this reasoning, the Commission would be obligated to select a higher priority fuel option unless the applicants have demonstrated that the proposed units at ERGS will be provided at a substantially lower cost than available higher energy priorities. This [EPL], however, is not a mandate to state agencies that must be mechanically applied to achieve a specific outcome. ś 127. Clean Wisconsin also relies on comments from the commissioners at their October 29, 2003, meeting to demonstrate that the commissioners did not feel bound by the EPL. It cites comments by Chairperson Burneatta Bridge that she did not feel constrained to choose gas in any scenario in which it is the least expensive, by Commissioner Ave Bie that the legislature did not mean for these priorities to be literal and by Commissioner Bert Garvin that the energy priorities themselves are directory and not mandatory as a matter of law. ś 128. Clean Wisconsin also argues that the Final Decision incorrectly relies on language in the prefatory note of the Act that created the EPL to defeat the plain meaning of the statute. It argues that there are no ambiguities in the EPL allowing the PSC to consider legislative history such as the prefatory comment, and that even if one does look at the comment, it gives the PSC discretion to determine only whether energy options are cost effective and technically feasible. It also contends there are no conflicts between the EPL and the Plant Siting Law. ś 129. Calpine also argues the EPL does not require that alternate proposals completely displace the need for projects like ERGS. Calpine concludes that proper application of the EPL mandates selection of their natural-gas powered alternative. ś 130. The bulk of the parties' disagreements on the PSC's application of the EPL relates to the language to the extent cost-effective and technically feasible. The PSC based its determination that natural gas is not cost effective and technically feasible on its coordinate determination that in this instance, the baseload power needs of the public could not be met by any option other than high-sulfur coal. As the Final Decision stated, the key question in this docket is not whether additional coal-fired baseload generation should be approved, but when it should be installed. ś 131. To the extent the respondents cite to language in the Final Decision and comments by the commissioners that suggest the PSC did not consider the EPL to be binding, we disagree. The PSC did apply the EPL as we described above and simply came to a conclusion favoring coal over natural gas. We also note that the commissioners clearly explained their decision-making process under the EPL and Plant Siting Law as we described above. Commissioner Garvin stated, The best cost effective and technically feasible solution will depend ... on what type of need must be met. Chairperson Bridge stated: In addition to the energy priority law, the PSC has responsibilities under the CPCN law. And as I mentioned, these include assuring reliability and assuring an adequate supply of energy. And my approach to the energy priority law is to rank the options that also meet the criteria of the CPCN law. The Final Decision and the entire transcript of the commissioners' discussion of the EPL demonstrate that the PSC did not disregard the priorities listed in Wis. Stat. § 1.12(4), but rather applied the priorities within the context of the requirements of the Plant Siting Law. ś 132. To respond to other arguments by the respondents concerning the interplay between the EPL and the Plant Siting Law, we agree that there is no conflict between the two laws. The two statutes work together to provide a framework in which the PSC is to make energy decisions. The respondents assert that the PSC used the discretion discussed in the Prefatory Note of the EPL to bypass the unambiguous statutory priorities. However, we conclude any discretion employed by the PSC in making its determination was necessary to determining whether alternatives were cost effective and technically feasible, a clear requirement of Wis. Stat. § 1.12(4). The PSC did not bypass the priorities of the EPL. ś 133. Relying on the PSC's decision in the Weston Order, Calpine also argues that the PSC has interpreted the EPL as not requiring that higher priority alternatives must completely displace the need for a lower priority source project in order to be approved. [35] This argument is misleading, however, because the higher priority alternative added to the plan in that case, as was the case here, was energy efficiency, which is not a tangible source to provide energy, but rather, a program designed to save energy. As we discussed above, the Weston Order actually applied identical reasoning to that employed in the PSC's Final Decision in the present case. ś 134. After considering the parties' arguments concerning the PSC's general application of the EPL in this case, we conclude that the PSC's determination that coal was the only available cost-effective, technically feasible energy option for the baseload needs of the public in this instance was a rational one, and we therefore decline to substitute our own judgment for that of the PSC.
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.