Opinion ID: 1713897
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: The Failure To Evaluate Reasonable Alternatives

Text: ś 322. In contrast to the proposed once-through cooling system, two available alternative cooling technologies, cooling towers and dry cooling, would reduce water intake by 90 percent or more. [7] The former operates by continuously circulating a limited amount of water, drawing in more only as necessary to replace the water that evaporates in the cooling process. The latter, meanwhile, uses even less water, operating on the same principle as an automobile radiator. [8] ś 323. Analysis of alternatives is the heart of the environmental impact statement. Milwaukee Brewers, 130 Wis. 2d at 73. Accordingly, the minimum content of an adequate EIS includes an evaluation of the reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. ś 324. Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.30(3)(c) requires in relevant part: (c) An evaluation of the reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and significant environmental consequences of the alternatives, including those alternatives that could avoid some or all of the proposed action's adverse environmental effects and the alternative of taking no action. (Emphasis added.) ś 325. Likewise, WEPA mandates that the EIS contain a detailed statement of [a]lternatives to the proposed action. Wis. Stat. § 1.11(2)(c)3. ś 326. Additionally, the water intake structure must satisfy the requirements of the Clean Water Act, which requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. 33 U.S.C.A. § 1326(b) (emphasis added). ś 327. While an agency is not required to evaluate the environmental consequences of alternatives it has in good faith rejected as too remote, speculative, or . . . impractical or ineffective, All Indian Pueblo Council v. United States, 975 F.2d 1437, 1444 (10th Cir. 1992), [t]he existence of a viable but unexamined alternative renders an environmental impact statement inadequate. Resources Ltd., Inc. v. Robertson, 35 F.3d 1300, 1307 (9th Cir. 1994). ś 328. Here, the EIS failed to evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed once-through cooling system that would greatly reduce harm to aquatic life in Lake Michigan. Instead, the EIS merely states that measures should be taken to mitigate the harm that would be caused, and that additional studies of entrainment and impingement should be conducted after the system has been built. ś 329. As one aquatic life expert indicated, this approach amounts to closing the barn door after the horse has left. After all, once an open-cycle cooling system is allowed, there is very little that can be done to significantly reduce its harm to the aquatic environment. The expert explained, It is my opinion that there are few options to protect lake life from an offshore intake of the size proposed and that these options are further restricted if implementation is attempted after design and completion of construction. [9] ś 330. When asked by several entities [10] why the EIS failed to discuss any alternatives to environmentally-destructive once-through cooling system, the EIS writers both acknowledged and defended this complete failure. They explained: Once-through cooling water and closed-cycle cooling are commonly used cooling alternatives. WEPCO has proposed to use once-through cooling water for the ERGS. The Clean Water Act does not prohibit the use of once-through cooling water, nor does it compel anyone to use closed-cycle cooling. DNR does not have the authority to require closed-cycle cooling for this project. ś 331. There are two problems with this explanation. First, it is illogical. The conclusion that one need not address the common alternative of closed-cycle cooling because the DNR does not have the authority to require it is a non sequitur. Second, and more importantly, it is against the clear language of the PSC's own rule and WEPA. ś 332. Absent from the EIS is the required evaluation of: alternatives, including those alternatives that could avoid some or all of the proposed action's adverse environmental effects .... Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.30(3)(c). ś 333. Likewise, missing from the EIS is a detailed statement of [a]lternatives to the proposed action. Wis. Stat. § 1.11(2)(c)3. ś 334. The majority proceeds to whitewash this inadequacy by construing the EIS's writers' response as concluding that cooling towers are not a reasonable alternative due to the DNR's inability to require them. Majority op., ś 205. It then explains, [g]iven that the PSC is best situated to determine what constitutes a reasonable alternative, we cannot conclude that the PSC's determination that this analysis is reasonable lacks a rational basis. Id. ś 335. Contrary to the assertions of the majority, there is nothing unreasonable about closed-cycle cooling. This would not require the authors of the EIS to engage in remote and speculative analysis. Id. Indeed, many other power plants have also been using cooling towers for decades, including the last coal-fired plant that Wisconsin Energy Corporation built, Pleasant Prairie. Tellingly, the EIS writers themselves described closed-cycle cooling as a commonly used ... alternative[]. [11] ś 336. As such, the EIS needed to evaluate these alternatives, along with their significant environmental consequences. Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.30(3)(c). This analysis, of course, need not be extraordinarily detailed. However, more than nothing was required. Utahns For Better Transp. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 305 F.3d 1152, 1166 n. 6 (10th Cir. 2002), modified on other grounds, 319 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2003). ś 337. Instead of evaluating these alternatives, however, the PSC asserts that the proposed water intake structure is the best technology available. Again, citing to the 1975-76 monitoring study conducted in conjunction with permits related to the original power plant, the PSC states: The report concluded .... []The impact on the environment must be considered to be minimal. In an April 15, 1977 letter to Wisconsin Electric Power Company, the Department [of Natural Resources] concurred with this conclusion. The Department has not evaluated this conclusion since 1977. ś 338. I agree with the State of Illinois that the PSC has declined to conduct even the most basic inquiry into alternatives to the environmentally-destructive cooling system proposed by the applicant.... The relevance of the 1975-76 study to the proposed project is tenuous at best. It certainly cannot be viewed as a thorough analysis of what represents the best technology available for the proposed site, as required by the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C.A. § 1326(b). ś 339. In the end, the EIS provides but a fleeting consideration of the environmental impact of the proposed water intake system, and no consideration whatsoever of the reasonable alternatives. Therefore, the PSC's decision to accept the EIS was contrary to the requirements of its own administrative rules and WEPA. Accordingly, I conclude that no deference is due. ś 340. I recognize that this project is important for southeast Wisconsin and the state as a whole. Yet it is also critically important to the citizens of this state that the process approving the project adheres to the requirements of law. Because the PSC decision to accept the EIS was in error, this court should reverse the agency's decision and remand to the PSC for the mandated evaluations.