Court Opinion

ID: 9671866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:44:05.619284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:12.514320
License: Public Domain

LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J.
¶ 286. (concurring). It is not our function to determine this state's energy policy or to decide whether the construction of the power plants here is in the public interest. Majority op., ¶ 35. These are legislative determinations assigned to the PSC. Id.; see also Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)3. (2001-02). We cannot substitute our judgment for that of an administrative agency determining a legislative matter within its province. Majority op., ¶ 35; see City of Beloit v. Town of Beloit, 37 Wis. 2d 637, 647, 155 N.W.2d 633 (1968).
¶ 287. While I am troubled by the environmental analysis conducted by the Public Service Commission (PSC), particularly with the little information that is set forth in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), for me, this is a standard of review case. Our review of an EIS is narrow, and the PSC's determination that an EIS is adequate is to be accorded great weight deference. Majority op., ¶ 190; see Citizens' Util. Bd. v. PSC, 211 Wis. 2d 537, 550, 565 N.W.2d 554 (Ct. App. 1997). It is not our role to determine the adequacy of the EIS, but we instead evaluate whether the PSC's determination that the EIS was adequate was reason*427able. Majority op., ¶ 190; see Citizens' Util. Bd., 211 Wis. 2d at 553-54. We will sustain the PSC's determination of adequacy unless we are persuaded that there is no rational basis for that determination. Majority op., ¶ 190; see Citizens' Util. Bd., 211 Wis. 2d at 553. Because I agree with the majority that the PSC's determination that the EIS was adequate is reasonable, I join the majority's decision and mandate.
¶ 288. Nevertheless, I write separately because, but for the standard of review, I would conclude that the EIS is premised upon what I construe to be a faulty conclusion which leads to a systemic analytical flaw in the EIS. But for the standard of review, I would conclude that that flaw undermines the adequacy of the EIS regarding the long-term environmental consequences of building the coal-fired power plants.
¶ 289. Under our narrow standard of review, we have concluded that the EIS thoroughly analyzed the consequences of the power plants' once-through cooling system. Majority op., ¶ 198. Our conclusion is based in large part upon the fact that the EIS examined a one-year monitoring study in 1975-76 of the then Oak Creek Power Plant's (OCPP's) once-through cooling system's effects on Lake Michigan. Id. The EIS noted that, notwithstanding the loss of millions of aquatic life forms,1 the 1970s monitoring report concluded that the *428impacts of entrainment and impingement as a result of once-through cooling were "inconsequential" to aquatic life in Lake Michigan. Id. This conclusion in part led to the determination in the EIS that the operation of the power plants did not significantly affect fish populations, and that the individual and aggregate impacts of power plant cooling water discharges on the Lake Michigan ecosystem were insignificant. Id., ¶ 199.2
¶ 290. In my view, the problem with the determinations reached by the EIS is that they are based upon the faulty conclusion that the impacts of entrainment and impingement were "inconsequential" to aquatic life in Lake Michigan. "Inconsequential" has been defined as "irrelevant" and "inconsequent." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1144 (3d ed. 1986). The definition of "inconsequent" includes "of no consequence: lacking worth, significance, or importance." Id. "Inconsequential" has been further defined as "lacking importance." The American Heritage Dictionary, 314 (3d ed. 1992).
¶ 291. When we allude in the opinion to the fact that "different minds can disagree on what constitutes 'inconsequential effects,'" majority op., ¶ 200,1 happen to be one of those different minds. I fail to see how the "wholesale destruction of millions of fish and other aquatic life"3 is of no consequence, irrelevant, and lacking importance. Of course there are consequences to losing tens of millions of aquatic life forms comprised *429of fish, crustaceans and shellfish during a one-year time span. We simply have no way of knowing what those consequences are over time precisely because the EIS assumes that there will be no long-term impacts because the short-term impacts on aquatic life are inconsequential. Given this conclusion, the "hard look" taken by the PSC at the environmental consequences of the OCPP was necessarily limited in its focus as there was no need to look at these "inconsequential" consequences over time.
¶ 292. The dissent may be correct that Lake Michigan's ecosystem has changed significantly in the last 30 years. Bradley, J., dissenting, ¶ 316. The dissent is correct that the proposed cooling system is substantially different and much more ambitious than the one examined in 1976. Id. at ¶ 317. Yet, the EIS does not take into account the long-term cumulative effects that a larger plant will have on that different ecosystem because the EIS accepts the conclusion that any environmental effects are inconsequential. If there are no consequences to the proposed action, then there is simply no need to take a "hard look" at those nonexistent consequences over any extended period of time.
¶ 293. I do not take issue with our opinion. It is not our role to determine the adequacy of the EIS. Because I cannot conclude that there was no rational basis for the PSC's determination, I cannot substitute my judgment for that of the PSC. The PSC has been authorized to make that determination. The PSC has teams of environmental experts available to it to assist in making that determination. This decision properly rests with the PSC. Having said that, I still conclude that because that determination rests on a house of *430cards, I simply do not agree that the EIS was adequate. I am therefore troubled by the result that I am legally compelled to join.
¶ 294. As I stated during the oral argument in this matter, everything about this case screams of its extreme importance for the state and people of Wisconsin, in terms of its energy needs and the environment. It is far more important that we "get it right and do it correctly," as opposed to just getting this done. The people of Wisconsin, the state's energy needs, and our environment will be best served should the PSC decide to take one more good hard look at long-term environmental consequences while evaluating those consequences (good, bad, or unknown) over time instead of assuming that there are no consequences. That being said, I reluctantly join the decision and mandate of the court, as our standard of review requires.
¶ 295. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully concur.

 Results of the 1976 OCPP study did notice localized influences on fish distribution, including slight changes in the areal distribution of resident fishes.

 Bradley, J., dissenting, ¶¶ 310-11.