Issue

Also in this issue: Update on the Scope of Arrest Record Protections     |     PSC Investigating Construction Cost Overruns on Electric, Gas, and Water Projects     |     One-Time Beer Sale Didn’t Preserve Bar and Restaurant’s Nonconforming Use Status

Municipal Interventions in PSCW CPCN Proceedings for Utility Infrastructure

Richard Heinemann | 10.15.25

Over the next 10 years, the demand for electricity to power AI data centers is expected to surge to unprecedented levels — by some estimates, from around 4 gigawatts in 2024 to more than 120 gigawatts by 2035. These new data centers will require massive investments in transmission lines and substations, as well as new generation sources and natural gas pipelines. The impact of these investments is already being felt in Wisconsin, with dozens of Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) applications for new plants and transmission facilities over the past two years alone, and many more to come.

All of these facilities require permitting from a variety of federal, state and local authorities. Local governments are of course familiar with their jurisdiction over water use, conditional use, right of way, floodplain, shoreland, driveway and other local permitting activities. This article will focus on the role municipalities can play in the PSCW proceedings in which developers and utilities seek the authority (known as a certificate of public convenience and necessity, or ​“CPCN”) to construct larger scale utility facilities. These proceedings provide local governments with the opportunity to minimize the potential impact of these utility facilities on their communities. 

Wisconsin Statute § 196.491 sets the standards for how the PSCW makes CPCN determinations, which apply to applications to build electric generating facilities with a capacity of 100 megawatts or more, as well as high-voltage transmission lines.

Smaller projects (e.g., generation facilities under 100 MW or certain transmission upgrades), also require PSCW approval (known as a Certificate of Authority, or ​“CA”) when public utility applicants propose projects over a certain cost threshold. Under Wis. Stat. § 196.49, utilities seeking such approvals must demonstrate to the PSCW that the project will not substantially impair the efficiency of the utility’s service; will not provide facilities unreasonably in excess of probable future requirements; and will not add to the cost of service without proportionate benefit. 

CA proceedings do not provide local governments much of an opportunity to participate meaningfully since these standards are driven by an analysis of utility service needs and require more limited environmental review. In contrast to CPCN proceedings, however, siting and permitting issues for these projects are handled at the local level by boards and zoning authorities, whose decisions cannot be superseded by the PSCW, which is not the case under the CPCN statute. So local governments can mitigate the potential impacts of these smaller utility infrastructure projects directly through their permitting authority (see, e.g., PSCW Docket No. 4740-CE-106, in which City of Plymouth obtained a CA to construct a substation in the Town of Mitchell).

To obtain a CPCN, utilities or developers generally must demonstrate that the proposed facility (i) satisfies the reasonable needs of the public; (ii) will not have adverse environmental impacts; (iii) will not unreasonably interfere with land use and development; and (iv) is in the public interest, taking into account alternative sources of supply; economic development; public health and safety; environmental protection; and energy supply diversification.

Depending on the scope of the project and the nature of its potential impact on the local community, there are many ways a local government can weigh in to address these issues as part of a CPCN proceeding.

The first thing to do is file a motion to intervene. In a CPCN proceeding, the applicant includes the names and addresses of local officials in the communities directly impacted by the project, so these officials should be notified when a CPCN application is filed. They should also receive a formal Notice of Proceeding, which describes the date and procedures for intervening.

Local officials of course can opt to file public comments as part of a CPCN proceeding, and many often do, even before a formal application is filed, since utility applicants usually reach out to local communities well in advance of a formal application filing in order to obtain feedback from local residents and officials. Such public comments can be useful and are included in the formal record reviewed by the PSCW when it deliberates over its decision to grant, deny or modify a CPCN application.

However formal intervention is a more effective way for a local government to become involved because intervenors are granted full party status in the proceeding and therefore have the ability to file testimony, engage expert witnesses, undertake discovery and participate in the technical hearings to cross-examine witnesses, among other things. 

In some instances, they can also negotiate an agreement with the applicant to address specific areas of concern. In the Paris Solar proceeding (PSC Docket No. 9801-CE-100), in which the PSCW granted a CPCN in 2020 for a 200 MW solar facility in the Town of Paris, the Town was able to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding that addressed a number of local concerns, including coordinated planning during the construction phase of the project; mitigation of drainage issues; road use; vegetation management; stormwater management and erosion control; replacement of lost property tax revenue; decommissioning, and many other important issues.

The Town of Paris subsequently succeeded in another CPCN proceeding (Docket 6630-CE-316, 2025) to persuade the PSCW to require the utility to build a proposed 128 MW natural gas-fired generation plant on an alternative site located closer to existing utility infrastructure and further away from residential property and wetlands. The Town was able to submit evidence that its preferred alternative site location was more consistent with the Town’s land use plan and less impactful on the environment — and the Commission agreed, notwithstanding that the alternate site would delay the project due to additional air permitting requirements.

In an ongoing high-voltage transmission line proceeding (Docket 5‑CE-157) , the Village of Merrillan is currently seeking similar relief, citing concerns in its Motion to Intervene about the transmission company’s preferred route for a proposed 345 kV transmission line that bisects the Village and potentially threatens to disrupt local infrastructure and utility operations, property values and community character.

If the issues facing your community are substantial – such as the siting of a transmission line through the center of town or a substation near a residential area or an environmentally sensitive area – engaging an attorney with experience in PSCW proceedings to assist in the intervention (beginning with filing the Motion to Intervene) may be well worth the effort.