Legal Activities

Bent Tree Wind Farm

On August 28, 2009, CUB and the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group filed a lawsuit against the PSC for ignoring state law in approving a wind power project to be built in Minnesota, owned by Wisconsin Power & Light, and paid for by Wisconsin Power & Light (WPL) Wisconsin customers.

Because the project would be built in another state, on November 6, 2008, the PSC issued an order following a 2-1 vote saying that it would review WPL's application as one seeking a "certificate of authority" or CA, rather than under the more stringent requirements for obtaining a CPCN.  Commissioner Lauren Azar disagreed and voted against reviewing the project under the CA process; she issued a dissenting opinion in which she asserted that Wisconsin law requires utilities to receive a CPCN, regardless of where the project is located.  Earlier, in comments filed in July 2008, both WIEG and CUB urged the PSC to use the CPCN process as required by state law. 

On July 31, 2009, the PSC issued an order granting WPL a CA for its Bent Tree Wind Farm, even though both WIEG and CUB had submitted legal briefs in May 2009, again pointing out that state law requires utilities to receive a CPCN before constructing a project like Bent Tree.

In general, a certificate granted under the CPCN process means that the PSC has determined that the project is needed to provide Wisconsin customers with electricity, and that the cost and environmental impacts of the project are reasonable when compared to alternatives.

In filing the lawsuit, WIEG and CUB contend that the PSC ignored Wisconsin law, which states that a utility cannot build a power plant of 100 megawatts or more unless the utility has received a CPCN. 

This case is of statewide importance because significantly less review by the PSC is required in granting a CA, and customer groups like CUB and WIEG may have no opportunity to provide testimony and legal opinions regarding a proposed project's appropriateness for providing Wisconsin consumers with electricity at reasonable prices.

As of April 2010, this case remains before the Dane County Circuit Court.