Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database
Collection

Sierra Club v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

Sierra Club v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 

2022CV000525 Wis. Cir. Ct.2 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
06/05/2023
Decision
Decision and Order
Court affirmed the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin’s issue of a certificate of authority that authorized Wisconsin Electric Power Company and Wisconsin Gas LLC to build and operate two liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) peaking facilities.
03/10/2022
Petition
Petition for judicial review filed.
Sierra Club petitioned for review of a Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) decision approving a certificate of authority for two liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage facilities. Sierra Club asserted that the PSC made errors of law, fact, procedure, and discretion when it determined that the application for the certificate of authority met the standards of the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA) and WEPA regulations, Wisconsin’s Energy Priorities Law, and the certificate of authority statute. In particular, Sierra Club contended that the PSC erred in its findings regarding the need for the project, including because the applicants’ analysis assumed “exponential growth” in natural gas use for at least 10 years and no reduction in gas use at any point. Sierra Club alleged that these projections were inconsistent with federal and State policy commitments to reduce climate pollution. Sierra Club also alleged that the PSC’s environmental assessment did not acknowledge or discuss the facilities’ greenhouse gas impacts or the conflicts with federal and State climate change policy.

Sierra Club v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 

2023AP997Wis. Ct. App.2 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
05/22/2024
Decision
Affirmed lower court decision.
The court of appeals of Wisconsin affirmed the lower court decision, finding no evidence supporting Sierra Club’s claim that the final decision was improperly made by the Public Service Commission staff rather than the commissioners. It reasoned that the commissioners reviewed the full record, made determinations at an open meeting, and authorized staff only to draft the final order consistent with their discussions. The Court also rejected Sierra’s argument that the Commission applied an unpromulgated five-percent reserve margin as a rule, clarifying that this was a factual matter for a planning targets used for a specific case, not a binding general policy requiring rulemaking. On factual disputes, like the need for the project based on demand forecasts and the consideration of existing infrastructure, the Court deferred to the Commission’s technical judgment and concluded its findings were supported by substantial evidence. Finally, the Court held that the Commission appropriately applied the Energy Priorities Law, such that their finding of no cost-effective, technically feasible alternatives superior to the proposed LNG facilities was supported by the record.
06/07/2023
Appeal
Notice of Appeal filed.
Sierra Club appealed lower court decision, arguing that the Commission's final decision is unlawful because it was made by commission staff, there are errors in the forecasted load projections and capacity gains relied upon to make the determination that these facilities were needed. Sierra Club further argued that the five-percent reserve margin applied by the Commission was an unpromulgated rule and that the Commission had improperly shifted the burden of proof on compliance to Sierra Club.