Opinion ID: 1713897
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Completeness of CPCN Application

Text: ś 48. As discussed supra, the initial step in the CPCN process is filing an application with the PSC: An application in the form and containing the information required by commission rules for such certificate shall be filed with the commission not less than 6 months prior to the commencement of construction of a facility. Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)1. In turn, Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53 sets forth the required contents of CPCN applications for large electric generating facilities. Of particular importance to the present case, the regulation requires, in part: (e) At 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. (f) Siteâ related information for each proposed power plant site, including all of the following: 1. The regulatory approvals required for construction and operation of the facility. 2. The construction schedule and timeline, showing construction activities and permitting expectations from the beginning of construction to the inâ service date. . . . . 4. Any required transmission line construction, agreements for use of the transmission system to deliver plant power, transmission losses, and effects on system reliability. If a certificate of authority under s. 196.49, Stats., is required to construct the transmission line, the location of termini, length in miles, and voltage for each transmission line. 5. Other auxiliary facilities, including fuel storage and water storage. . . . . Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(e)-(f). ś 49. After an application is filed, the PSC has 30 days to determine whether the application is complete. Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)2. [24] If the PSC determines an application is incomplete, it must notify an applicant and provide reasons for its determination. Id. However, an applicant may refile an application previously determined to be incomplete, and there is no limit as to how many times an application may be refiled. Id. If the PSC fails to make a completeness determination within 30 days after the application is filed, the application is rendered complete by operation of law. Id. Once an application is determined to be complete, the PSC must hold a public hearing on the application. Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(b). Following the public hearing, the PSC must determine whether the proposed facility meets the statutory requirements set forth in Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)2.-7. before the CPCN may be issued. Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d). ś 50. As noted supra, after determining that WEC's application was incomplete on a number of occasions, the PSC issued a letter on November 15, 2002, advising WEC that the PSC had determined its application to be complete in light of its latest supplement. The letter stated: The Commission has reviewed [WEC's] supplement to the application to construct the facilities described above as required by Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)2 and Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53. The DNR also reviewed appropriate application materials for completeness purposes. Based on this review, the Commission determines that the application is complete .... However, the letter also indicated that the PSC expected WEC to provide further environmental information concerning items that were identified as being deficient in the PSC's previous review. ś 51. Clean Wisconsin challenged the PSC's determination that WEC's application was complete by filing a petition to review the PSC's interim completeness determination on the ground that the WEC application did not meet the alternative sites requirement of Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(e). Specifically, Clean Wisconsin argued that WEC's application was not complete because WEC's alternative sites for the proposed plants were all located on the grounds of WEC's existing Oak Creek Generating Plant. Clean Wisconsin argued that in order to comply with the regulation, WEC's application must contain at least one site that is at a location other than the existing Oak Creek facility. ś 52. In an order dated April 18, 2003, the PSC declined to reopen its determination that WEC's CPCN application was complete. Following the PSC's final decision and order issuing the CPCN to WEC, Clean Wisconsin renewed its argument concerning the PSC's completeness determination in the circuit court. In addition to arguing that the application was incomplete because it failed to satisfy the alternative site requirement, Clean Wisconsin asserted that the application was incomplete because it did not contain required regulatory approvals under Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(f)1. and did not contain sufficient information concerning transmission line facilities as required by Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(f)4. ś 53. The circuit court agreed, concluding that WEC's application did not meet the alternative site requirement in § PSC 111.53(1)(e) because all of the listed alternatives were different configurations of the same plant located on the same 1000 acre parcel of land. The circuit court also ruled that it was error for the PSC to deem the application complete because § PSC 111.53(1)(f)1. requires a CPCN application to contain all regulatory permits that are necessary before the facility can be built and WEC's application did not contain the required approvals from the DNR. Finally, the circuit court ruled that the PSC erred in determining that the application was complete because § PSC 111.53(1)(f)4. requires a CPCN application to contain agreements for transmission lines that will be utilized, and WEC's application did not contain any such agreements. ś 54. Clean Wisconsin again argues before this court that it was legal error for the PSC to determine that WEC's application was complete. It again argues that WEC's application failed to satisfy the alternative site requirement and that it failed to contain the necessary transmission line agreements. Further, it contends that the PSC erred in determining that the application was complete because its completeness letter indicated that the application was incomplete. However, Clean Wisconsin does not argue before this court that WEC was required to include all necessary regulatory permits in its CPCN application. ś 55. The PSC argues that it correctly determined that WEC's application met the alternative site requirement and that its conclusion that the requirement was satisfied is entitled to great weight deference. The PSC further asserts that the application contained all the necessary information pertaining to regulatory permits and transmission line agreements and that requiring a CPCN application to contain the actual regulatory permits required for construction of the facility and the actual transmission line agreements would be inconsistent with its own rules and related statutes. Additionally, the PSC argues that its request for additional information in its November 15, 2002, completeness letter did not undermine its ultimate conclusion that the application was complete. WEC makes substantially the same arguments as the PSC. Furthermore, Dairyland Power Cooperative (Dairyland), [25] in addition to making the same arguments as the PSC and WEC, asserts that § 196.491 gives the PSC the power to conclusively determine whether a CPCN application is complete and that the PSC's determination that the CPCN application was complete is not reviewable. ś 56. We begin by addressing Dairyland's argument that the PSC's determination that a CPCN application is complete is not reviewable. According to Dairyland, a determination by the PSC that a CPCN application is complete is unreviewable because § 196.491 does not require the PSC to provide reasons for determining that an application is complete and deems an application complete as a matter of law if the PSC takes no action. Further, Dairyland argues that § 196.491(3)(d), governing the final issuance of a CPCN, makes no reference to the completeness of a CPCN application as a prerequisite to the issuance of the CPCN. Finally, Dairyland argues that § 196.491(3)(a)1. allows the PSC to determine what information is necessary for an application to be complete and provides no standards for reviewing the PSC's completeness determination. ś 57. We reject Dairyland's argument for three reasons. First, as noted by Clean Wisconsin, Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(j) explicitly provides that [a]ny person whose substantial rights may be adversely affected . . . by a certificate of public convenience and necessity may petition for judicial review, under ch. 227, of any decision of the commission regarding the certificate.  (Emphasis added.) As discussed, the filing of the CPCN application and the PSC's determination that the application is complete are the first two steps in the process leading up to the ultimate issuance of the CPCN. As the CPCN application cannot move forward to the public hearing stage without the PSC first determining that it is complete, the PSC's determination that an application is complete clearly qualifies as a decision of the commission regarding the certificate. Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(j). ś 58. Second, although the PSC's decision that a CPCN application is complete is not itself a final decision, case law establishes that it is nonetheless subject to judicial review. In Friends of the Earth, 78 Wis. 2d at 410, this court held that a PSC interim order regarding ratemaking was reviewable in connection with the final order in the case, even though the interim order was not immediately subject to judicial review. See also Cities & Villages of Algoma v. PSC, 91 Wis. 2d 252, 265, 283 N.W.2d 261 (Ct. App. 1978)([J]udicial review of the PSC's action on the interim order may be had upon judicial review of the final order so as to protect the interests of the ratepayer.). We see no reason why this reasoning is not applicable here, particularly in light of the aforementioned language in Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(j). ś 59. Finally, we reject Dairyland's assertion that the relevant statutes provide no standards by which the PSC's completeness determination may be reviewed. Section 196.491(3)(a)1. requires that every CPCN application be in the form required by the PSC and contain the information required by commission rules for such certificate[.] In turn, Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1) sets forth the information that a CPCN application must contain before it is considered to be complete. ś 60. It is this rule that provides the standards by which a court reviews a PSC determination that a CPCN application is complete. Thus, while § 196.491(3)(a)1. does not itself provide such standards, it specifically states that an application must contain the information required by PSC rules. The PSC has promulgated a list of items in § PSC 111.53(1) that an application must contain before it is considered complete; therefore, the PSC is not free to ignore those requirements in making its completeness determination. ś 61. Having determined that the PSC's decision regarding the completeness of a CPCN application is indeed subject to judicial review, we now address what level of deference is appropriate when reviewing a PSC determination that a CPCN application is complete. As noted previously, [t]his court has frequently held that great weight should be given to the administrative agency's interpretation and application of its own rules, unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation so interpreted. This is especially so in an area calling for special expertise. Vonasek, 65 Wis. 2d at 7 (citation omitted). No one disputes that the PSC has special expertise in determining whether a CPCN application is complete. ś 62. The PSC's determination that a CPCN application is complete represents its conclusion that the requirements of [Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)] have been met on the facts before it with respect to the application under consideration. It is thus an application or interpretation of law . . . entitled to great weight deference from a reviewing court. Citizens' Util. Bd. v. PSC, 211 Wis. 2d 537, 552, 565 N.W.2d 554 (Ct. App. 1997). ś 63. Clean Wisconsin challenges the PSC's completeness determination on the ground that the application failed to contain information required by various provisions of § PSC 111.53(1) and that the PSC erroneously interpreted these requirements. Whether the PSC's interpretations of the various provisions of § PSC 111.53(1) at issue are entitled to great weight deference will be discussed below. As we conclude that the PSC's interpretation of each relevant provision is given great weight deference, its application of those provisions and ultimate conclusion that the application was complete will be upheld if it is reasonable. Harnischfeger, 196 Wis. 2d at 661; Citizens' Util. Bd., 211 Wis. 2d at 552. As we conclude that great weight deference is appropriate, it is Clean Wisconsin's burden to demonstrate that there is no rational basis for the PSC's completeness determination. Id. at 553.
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]
ś 78. In addition to requiring information about alternative sites for the proposed facility, § PSC 111.53(1)(f) requires an applicant to submit [s]ite related information for each proposed power plant site, including . . . 1. The regulatory approvals required for construction and operation of the facility. WEC attached to its CPCN application a table listing various potential permits and approvals required for construction of ERGS. The table included 17 different permits from ten different agencies, described the permits required, and set forth the applicable governing statutes. ś 79. The circuit court ruled that WEC's application was incomplete because it concluded that § PSC 111.53(1)(f)1. requires an applicant to file the regulatory permits and approvals themselves, not merely list and describe the permits needed before construction begins. Specifically, the circuit court concluded that WEC's application was incomplete because it failed to include necessary DNR permits. This issue was not raised before the PSC, and none of the parties supporting the circuit court's decision defend its ruling on this issue before this court. Although we review the PSC's decision and not that of the circuit court and no party adverse to the PSC's decision has pursued this issue on appeal, we nonetheless address this issue because WEC, the PSC, and Dairyland devoted significant portions of their briefs to this issue, the issue is one of great public importance, and an analysis of this issue will affect our discussion of whether WEC was required to file transmission line agreements with its CPCN application. ś 80. The PSC has interpreted § PSC 111.53(1)(f)1. as requiring a CPCN applicant to submit only information concerning the required permits and not the actual permits. Wisconsin Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(f) requires an applicant to submit [s]ite-related information for each proposed power plant site, including. . . . [t]he regulatory approvals required for construction and operation of the facility. (Emphasis added.) We conclude that the PSC's interpretation of this regulation is not inconsistent with the text of the regulation or plainly erroneous for several reasons. ś 81. First, if one considers the regulatory permits themselves to be information, and that the regulation requires the actual permits to be filed, other portions of the regulation will be rendered absurd. Among the other information an applicant must supply under § PSC 111.53(1)(f) is [o]ther auxiliary facilities, Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(f)5., natural resources at each site, Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(f)6., and [a]esthetics[,] Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(f)8. Wis. Citizens Concerned for Cranes and Doves v. DNR, 2004 WI 40, ś 6, 270 Wis. 2d 318, 677 N.W.2d 612 (statutes and regulations must be read in the context in which they appear). If all the items listed in § PSC 111.53(1)(f) were themselves required to be submitted as information, an applicant would be required to file natural resources, auxiliary facilities, and aesthetics themselves with the application. Such a reading of the regulation is absurd. Trott, 242 Wis. 2d 397, ś 14 (regulations should be interpreted to avoid unreasonable or absurd results). ś 82. Second, the PSC's interpretation of § PSC 111.53(1)(f)1. is consistent with Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(f)2., which requires the applicant to file [t]he construction schedule and timeline, showing construction activities and permitting expectations from the beginning of construction to the in-service date. (Emphasis added.) If the permits themselves need to be filed under § PSC 111.53(1)(f)1., then the language concerning the permitting expectations of the applicant in § PSC 111.53(1)(f)2. is rendered superfluous or is in conflict with § PSC 111.53(1)(f)1. Basinas v. State, 104 Wis. 2d 539, 546, 312 N.W.2d 483 (1981)(regulations should be interpreted to avoid conflict among different provisions and so as to avoid rendering provisions superfluous). ś 83. Additionally, the PSC's interpretation of § PSC 111.53(1)(f)1. is consistent with the statutes governing the issuance of a CPCN. Bosco, 272 Wis. 2d 586, ś 19 (valid agency interpretation of its regulations cannot be contrary to statute governing agency). Specifically, the PSC's interpretation of § PSC 111.53(1)(f)1. â requiring only information about regulatory permits to be filed â comports with the statute setting forth the process and timeline for obtaining regulatory permits from the DNR, whereas an interpretation of § PSC 111.53(1)(f)1. that requires the actual permits to be filed before a CPCN application is complete would conflict with the statute. [29] ś 84. Wisconsin Stat. § 196.491(3), governing the procedure for issuing a CPCN, also describes the process and timeline for obtaining necessary regulatory permits from the DNR. Sixty days before a person files a CPCN application, he must file an engineering plan with the DNR describing the proposed facility. Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.a. Thirty days after the engineering plan is filed (30 days prior to the filing of the CPCN application), the DNR must provide the applicant with a list of the necessary permits. Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.a. The applicant then has 20 days from the time the DNR provides a list of the necessary permits (up until 10 days prior to filing the CPCN application) to apply for the permits. Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.b. ś 85. The DNR must determine whether the permit application is complete within 30 days after the person applies for the permits (20 days after the CPCN application is filed and 10 days before the PSC must determine if the CPCN is complete) Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.b. If the permit application is incomplete, the applicant may supplement the application, again triggering the 30-day time period. Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.b. After the DNR permit application is determined to be complete, the DNR then has another 120 days (140 days after the CPCN application is filed and 110 days after the PSC must determine whether the CPCN application is complete) to determine whether to issue the permits. Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.b. ś 86. Therefore, interpreting § PSC 111.53(1)(f)1. to require a CPCN applicant to file the actual regulatory approvals before the CPCN application can be deemed to be complete would clearly conflict with Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(a)3.a.-b. Under the statute, the earliest the DNR can issue the required regulatory permits is 140 days after the CPCN application is filed and 110 days after the PSC is required to make its completeness determination. Thus, the statute expressly contemplates that a CPCN applicant will not have the required DNR permits in hand at the time the PSC must render its completeness determination. ś 87. Furthermore, § PSC 111.53(1)(f) requires site-related information for each proposed power plant site. If it is not sufficient for a CPCN applicant to merely file information concerning the required permits, then the applicant would need to obtain a set of permits for each proposed power plant site. This, in turn, would require, at a minimum, two sets of permit applications to be filed with the DNR. In addition, the DNR would be required to issue permits for at least one site that will not ultimately be the site at which the power plant is built. Such a result would be absurd and in conflict with the purpose of § 196.491, which is to provide a streamlined certificate application process. RURAL, 239 Wis. 2d 660, ś 31. ś 88. As the PSC's interpretation of § PSC 111.53(1)(f)1. is not inconsistent with the text of the regulation and is consistent with the statutes governing the issuance of the CPCN and regulatory approvals, we accord it great weight deference. WEC filed a detailed table listing: 1) the permits that would be required for ERGS; 2) the activity for which each permit was needed; 3) the agency responsible for issuing each permit; and 4) the statute or code provision pursuant to which each permit would be issued. We cannot conclude that the PSC's determination that the application contained the information required under § PSC 111.53(1)(f)1. was without a rational basis.
ś 89. Wisconsin Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(f) requires a person filing a CPCN application to provide [s]ite-related information for each proposed power plant site, including. . . . 4. Any required transmission line construction, agreements for use of the transmission system to deliver plant power, transmission losses, and effects on system reliability. Although this issue was not raised before the PSC, it was raised in the circuit court, and the circuit court determined that WEC's CPCN application was incomplete because it failed to include the actual transmission line agreements. Clean Wisconsin renews its argument concerning the transmission line agreements before this court. There is no dispute that WEC's application did not contain such agreements. ś 90. For the reasons discussed supra, in regard to the need to obtain regulatory permits, the PSC's interpretation of § PSC 111.53(1)(f), as requiring only information concerning the listed items is entitled to great weight deference. As previously discussed, actually requiring an applicant to file the items listed in § PSC 111.53(1)(f) would be absurd. ś 91. This is particularly true with regard to § PSC 111.53(1)(f)4. If, as Clean Wisconsin contends, a CPCN applicant is required to obtain and file the actual agreements for use of the transmission system to deliver plant power, then the applicant must also necessarily file [a]ny required transmission line construction[.] Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(f)4. This interpretation simply makes no sense. Under the PSC's interpretation, an applicant must file information about or concerning [a]ny required transmission line construction[] and information about or concerning agreements for use of the transmission system to deliver plant power[.] Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53(1)(f)4. ś 92. Furthermore, as previously noted, § PSC 111.53(1)(f) requires an applicant to file information regarding the listed items for each proposed power plant site. If Clean Wisconsin's interpretation of § PSC 111.53(1)(f)4. were correct, then an applicant would be required to obtain transmission line agreements for (at a minimum) two separate proposed sites, one of which will not be built upon. Clean Wisconsin fails to explain how a utility is to obtain agreements for the construction of transmission lines for a power plant whose CPCN application has yet to be approved or a plant whose site is uncertain. ś 93. Therefore, we accord the PSC's interpretation of § PSC 111.53(1)(f)4. great weight deference. WEC filed over 100 pages of information relating to transmission lines, including a document entitled Generation Interconnection Study Report â prepared by the American Transmission Company (ATC) [30] â and a document entitled Power of the Future (PTF) Facilities Study: Transmission Assessment of Proposed Generator Additions. These documents contain very detailed assessments of the effects of ERGS on existing transmission, required transmission improvements, upgrades, and modifications; detailed breakdowns of the estimated costs for the improvements; and detailed technical schematics for the transmission upgrades. The PSC determined that these filings were sufficient to satisfy § PSC 111.53(1)(f)4. We cannot conclude that this determination was without a rational basis. [31]
ś 94. Clean Wisconsin's final argument with regard to the PSC's completeness determination is that the PSC erred in determining that WEC's CPCN application was complete because it specifically acknowledged that it was not complete in regard to certain wetland information. The language in the PSC's November 15, 2002, letter to which Clean Wisconsin refers, states: While the application is determined to be complete at this time, our determination is, in part, based on [WEC's] commitment to supply additional information related to items 6, 7, and 18 of the Commission's October 7, 2002, incompleteness letter. Substantial amounts of information relative to items 6 and 7 have been provided and will allow our review of the wetland delineations to begin. Based on the information contained in Supplement 4 and conversations with [WEC's] staff, it is my understanding that the remaining information relative to items 6 and 7, consisting of final wetland reports from the Southeast Regional Planning Commission, will be available approximately in two weeks. In addition, the information relative to subsurface drilling, sampling and testing survey, the wave/environmental climate state survey and the aquatic/benthic environmental lake bottom characterization survey in item 18 will be available on the time line set out as answer 5-SUP-021 of Supplement 4. While I fully expect to receive the remaining information on the established time frames, failure by [WEC] to submit the information in a timely manner will likely delay the CPCN process as this information is necessary in order to complete our review of the proposed project and issue a joint PSCW/DNR Environmental Impact Statement. Prior to receipt and review of the necessary information, it would be extremely difficult to schedule hearings. . . . Please be aware that application information that is considered adequate now may require further development later in the Commission's review process. . . . ś 95. Contrary to Clean Wisconsin's suggestion, this letter does not state that WEC's application is being determined to be complete even though the wetland information is incomplete. The letter clearly states that WEC filed information sufficient to allow [the PSC's] review of the wetland delineations to begin. The letter also discusses the timeline for when additional information is to be received. Further, it specifically states application information that is considered adequate now may require further development later in the Commission's review process. ś 96. In other words, the PSC's completeness letter acknowledged that WEC's application contained sufficient information for the PSC to begin its review. The PSC stated that WEC may be required to file additional information in the future. Nothing in the letter suggests that WEC's application was lacking information necessary for the PSC to determine that the application was complete. We see nothing unreasonable in the PSC determining an application to be complete yet requesting further information to assist in its review of the CPCN application. Given that the PSC's completeness letter acknowledges that WEC had filed sufficient information for it to begin its review of the CPCN application, Clean Wisconsin has failed to persuade us that the PSC's determination of completeness is unreasonable. Id. ś 97. We next examine the parties' arguments concerning whether the PSC erroneously issued the CPCN for the two ERGS.