[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Get weekly updates

when your community is targeted


RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

State Supreme Court: Regulators properly approved wind farm 

Credit:  Written by Todd Richmond | Associated Press | www.greenbaypressgazette.com 11 July 2012 ~~

Wisconsin regulators properly approved a Madison-based utility’s plan to build a wind farm in southern Minnesota, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a decision that dramatically lightens the regulatory burden for utilities’ out-of-state projects.

The Citizens Utility Board and the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group contended the Public Service Commission approved Wisconsin Power & Light’s plan to build a massive, 200-megawatt wind farm north of Albert Lea under the wrong statutes.

The groups said the PSC issued a so-called certificate of authority rather than a certificate of public convenience and necessity, which would have required a far more stringent review. For example, the CPCN route requires a public hearing as well as PSC determinations that the project is in the public interest, won’t cause undue harm to the environment and would satisfy the public’s need for an adequate energy supply. The certificate of authority doesn’t include any of those requirements.

The consumer groups argued the CPCN process must apply when a project produces more than 100 megawatts and would have offered ratepayers more protection.

Dane County Circuit Judge John C. Albert ruled the PSC properly applied the certificate of authority. The Supreme Court voted 5-2 to uphold Albert’s ruling, saying the PSC’s decision was reasonable.

The CPCN process includes provisions that allow projects to pre-empt local ordinances and require the PSC to review site-specific impacts, notify county clerks and libraries near the project of applications and hold any contested case hearings in that area, Roggensack noted. Those conditions could infringe on another state’s sovereignty or create absurd burdens on Wisconsin agencies, she wrote.

A CPCN’s primary purpose is to require a more thorough review, not provide greater ratepayer protections, she said. The court must give the PSC’s decision due weight because the commission took comments from stakeholders and weighed them against its experience with utilities’ project applications, she added.

“Any unreasonable or absurd results are avoided by the PSC’s construction of the CPCN law as applying exclusively to facilities in this state,” Roggensack wrote.

The court’s liberal-leaning minority, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, dissented. Bradley wrote a PSC administrator has the ability to approve a project under the certificate of authority, muting ratepayers.

“When Wisconsin ratepayers will fund the costs of large facilities, whether in-state or out-of-state, it is sensible to require a hearing and scrutiny by the commission that is empowered by statute to regulate Wisconsin energy,” Bradley wrote.

The PSC approved the $446.7 million Bent Tree farm in 2009. When the project was approved, WP&L hoped to recover $91.7 million electric and natural gas rate increase. That breaks down to about $9 more per month for electricity and $2.40 more per month for gas for a typical residential customer.

CUB Executive Director Charlie Higley said he was disappointed with the court’s decision.

“Ratepayers lose their voice,” he said.

Steve Schultz, a spokesman for Alliant Energy, WP&L’s parent company, didn’t immediately respond to a telephone message seeking comment on the decision. PSC spokesman Matt Pagel said the commission was pleased with the ruling.

Source:  Written by Todd Richmond | Associated Press | www.greenbaypressgazette.com 11 July 2012

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)


e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share

News Watch Home

Get the Facts
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky