Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, Inc. v. Public Service Commission
819 N.W.2d 240
Wis.2012Background
- Cert from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals to decide whether CA or CPCN governs WPL Bent Tree wind project review.
- PSC concluded CA law applies to the out-of-state facility; CPCN applies only to in-state facilities.
- WIEG argued CPCN should apply due to 100 MW threshold and ratepayer protections.
- PSC Interim Order (Nov. 6, 2008) held CA applies and CPCN would overstep Wisconsin's jurisdiction.
- Dissent by Commissioner Azar disagreed, arguing CPCN should apply for greater ratepayer protections.
- Final decision: July 30, 2009 PSC granted Certificate of Authority under CA; Wisconsin court upheld; question certified to Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CA or CPCN governs the Bent Tree project | WIEG: CPCN must apply due to 100 MW threshold | PSC: CA applies; CPCN inappropriate for out-of-state facility | CA governs; CPCN applies only to in-state facilities |
| Whether the PSC's choice of the CA statute is entitled to deference | Dissent argues CPCN better protects ratepayers; PSC misapplied deference | PSC's interpretation reasonable and entitled to due weight | PSC decision to apply CA with CPCN interpretation given due weight deference |
| Whether CPCN can be applied to out-of-state facilities | Applying CPCN to out-of-state would regulate beyond Wisconsin borders | CPCN could be applied; language supports broader reach | CPCN applies exclusively to in-state facilities; out-of-state application unreasonable |
| Whether severing CPCN provisions would save CPCN for out-of-state use | Sever invalid provisions per 990.001(11) | Severance would frustrate CPCN’s purpose | Severance rejected; CPCN cannot be saved for out-of-state use |
| Whether the CPCN’s site-specific factors are necessary when facility is out-of-state | Out-of-state site factors would be applicable | Site-specific CPCN factors cannot be meaningfully applied out of state | CPCN’s site-specific focus not reasonably applied to out-of-state facility; supports exclusive in-state interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalal v. Cir. Ct. for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (2004 WI 58) (statutory plain meaning and contextual interpretation guided by purpose)
- State v. Mueller, 44 Wis. 2d 387 (1969) (limits extraterritorial regulation of out-of-state actions; exceptions exist)
- Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Doyle, 295 Wis. 2d 1 (2006 WI 107) (LRB analysis and legislative history aiding interpretation)
- Clean Wis., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wis., 282 Wis. 2d 250 (2005 WI 93) (plant siting vs. ratepayer protection framing of CPCN)