Sierra Club v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

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.

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.