WI – Delayed Stevenson Exhibit 22

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse,Wisconsin — posted by admin on May 21, 2012 @ 6:49 pm

In Wisconsin, the Public Service Commission granted a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, and permitted a route for which they did not even have the COST!  They had not determined the inputs to calculate the “Environmental Impact Fee” (bribe to local governments to allow the transmission, a lump sum and an annual payment (so why don’t the landowners get something similar?).


And they did not have the environmental information to make a comparison of the routes…

After the PSC meeting where they granted the CPCN, they requested additional information to fill in the gaps, long after the record had closed (does anyone else have a problem with this?), and after they made their decision… AFTER:

Order – May 10, 2012

The categories of inputs into the EIF calculations in practice are a PSC determination, but in the Order they’re using language that appears to make it a matter for the applicants to determine!  It doesn’t ask what they want to include or how they want to calculate it, instead it says, “Information on costs related to lower voltage transmission and distribution work that would be excluded from the annual high-voltage transmission impact fee and the one-time environmental impact fee calculations to be consistent with the Commission’s discussion of record.”  “Would” is the operative word… sigh…

Xcel’s Stevenson Exhibit 22 – Map and Tables 1-5

We Intervenors have until High Noon on the 24th to Comment.


  1. How can the Public Service approve this without knowing all the costs up front? How can I comment? Will it do any good?
    What will help? Give me some pointers please
    Concerned Citizen in north La Crosse County whose property is very near a proposed transmission corridor.

    Comment by Mary Jahangir — May 23, 2012 @ 7:12 am

  2. I made a comment that the PSC exceeded its statutory authority by granting the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity because they granted it before the application was complete. Wisconsin Statute 196.491 (3)(a)2 clearly states that the PSC must ascertain that the application is complete. The statute gives three exceptions to this rule. The Applications did not meet the statutory exceptions, therefore their application should have been denied. I asked the PSC to withdraw their approval, in accordance with the intent of the statute. Wish me luck.

    Comment by Mary Jahangir — May 23, 2012 @ 9:23 am

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI

Leave a comment