Given that is hard to use a computer without electricity, there is good news from the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The court ruled last week in Clean WI vs WI Public Service Commission (PDF) that the Wisconsin Electric Corporation can build a new coal burning electric plant on land they already own in Oak Creek. The new production facility is needed to meet the increasing demand for electricity in the southeastern part of the state. Environmentalist groups lead by Clean Wisconsin had launched an all out multiple pronged challenge to stop the government from approving the project, and the court’s 174 page decision is a complex tour through the myriad of issues raised in this struggle to balance economic growth and preservation of the local environment.
There are two points I find encouraging in this decision. First, a large portion of the ruling involves analysis of how government agencies interpret their legislative guidelines, and I think it is wonderful the justices actually looked up the meaning of words in the dictionary. In addition I am pleased they used an American dictionary rather than looking for guidance from international linguistic sources.
“As noted, the rule itself provides no indication as to when different proposals are sufficiently distinct so as to constitute "alternative sites." The pertinent dictionary definition of "alternative" is "[a]llowing or necessitating a choice between two or more things." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 55 (3d ed. 1992). Additionally, "site" is defined as "[t]he place where a structure or group of structures was, is, or is to be located." Id. at 1688. Thus, the "alternative site" provision requires a CPCN applicant to provide information regarding locations where the proposed power plants are to be located sufficient to present the PSC with a choice.”Secondly, I find it both ironic and deeply satisfying that the environmentalists are forced into arguing that flaws in computer modeling make computer projections questionable.
¶108 The PSC's decision that coal-fired baseload generation was appropriate was, in part, based on Electric Generation Expansion Analysis System (EGEAS) computer modeling projections (33) that demonstrated energy priority alternatives "[could not] replace the need for new baseload, coal-fired units to serve WEPCO."Truth in language and skepticism of computer generated data combining to insure that Wisconsin maintains enough electricity for me to keep blogging. Yeah!
¶144 Clean Wisconsin and Calpine argue that the PSC improperly applied §196.491(3)(d)2.-3. to the present case. Clean Wisconsin argues that the PSC failed to make required findings of fact and the EGEAS modeling failed to consider pertinent variables.
