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

Heading: Transmission Line Agreements

Text: 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]