[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",5974512,"mediaKeyId","5834034-101b9ca41d362fa47df4415cd4b16c6b","parentId",5834034,"title","PSC approves Whitewater Solar project with conditions after contested review","audioSeconds",9889,"startMs",122000,"endMs",10011000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5834034-101b9ca41d362fa47df4415cd4b16c6b&start=122&end=10011","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5834034-101b9ca41d362fa47df4415cd4b16c6b/thumbnail_122000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5974512/Wisconsin/PSC-approves-Whitewater-Solar-project-with-conditions-after-contested-review","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5974512-118e9e9b57cc12620cd5c1e017008ee3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770400850&Signature=cYYT~4jPwXFuPvyYxHghzpA7XTMd-PW-dO18xbK~s5Avmze-Sq1K4aL4dHN-m668QfjiTsXDCo9Tpf7-hubk1Zh00yjhqWD92H-3rYwjgh6UYc8IDhWUxKf30nJKaBMb0EXeZo9ArCr4mXjNXe~YFsz1GKebokGfgP5NVhdrB0ap1fH4K4eDeVfT4gcl-VwFIg1iXRo71i4~Ml0zk-hwS2ci4MgiC1SxdkTz0YzRUyedYi2oi1NvQHJqIowwc0c-Tx4ccCpUonOQBbfoVWz4UDX00jiUR9lO1HcCFBmeg9kTgY2XFjDbsQaPW3yx1z38uNPG-0YDNdmNrJ0IWABYwA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Public Service Commission, WI","date","2025-09-25T00:00:00Z","article","Whitewater Solar LLC’s application for a 180-megawatt photovoltaic generation facility won approval from the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin on Sept. 25, 2025, after commissioners applied standard statewide conditions and several project-specific requirements. The company’s project area spans roughly 2,400 acres across the city of Whitewater and parts of Jefferson and Walworth counties; about 10–15 acres are expected to be fenced for arrays, a substation and an operations building.

The commission framed the decision around the statutory CPCN requirements in Wisconsin Statute 196.491 and related laws, and commissioners stressed that the record — which included public comments, interventions and additional filings after mid‑process layout changes — supported issuing the certificate with conditions. “I will vote for the approval of this application, but with conditions that we can get into as we work our way through the decision matrix,” Commissioner Tricia Nieto said during the discussion.

Why this matters: the project is a merchant generator that will sell output into the wholesale market rather than directly serving retail customers. As a merchant plant it is exempt from the needs-analysis typically required of regulated utilities, but the commission must still determine whether the project meets public-interest siting and environmental criteria and whether it will have undue adverse impacts. The commission found no persuasive record evidence that the project would harm competition in the wholesale market or unreasonably interfere with local land-use plans.

Key findings and conditions
- Statute and process: Commissioners reviewed requirements under Wis. Stat. §196.491 (including subsections on siting, environmental impacts and brownfields), the state Energy Priorities Law and the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA). Staff prepared an environmental assessment and a supplemental assessment after the applicant revised layouts mid‑proceeding.
- Project scope: the developer proposes 180 MW AC capacity, interconnection at an adjacent We Energies substation via a short 138 kV line, and an anticipated in‑service date of 2028. The developer indicated an anticipated project life of about 30 years with potential future extensions.
- Public participation and record changes: the record included a large number of public comments, nonparticipating landowner interventions and technical filings; the commission and the administrative law judge ordered an open house and a roundtable after the developer submitted significant layout revisions during the proceeding.
- Environmental and land‑use review: commissioners found no evidence the project would have an undue adverse impact on ecological balance, historic sites, public health or recreational uses, and concluded the design and proposed siting met Wis. Stat. §196.491(d)(3) siting criteria. The commission also determined no practicable brownfield sites were suitable for a project of this size and proximity to transmission.
- Project‑specific conditions: in addition to standard conditions the commission custom‑tailored several requirements, including vegetation establishment reporting (70% uniform vegetation density thresholds), a winter stabilization plan, wetland and waterway protections, fencing bottom apertures to allow small wildlife passage, and a requirement that the developer file executed joint development agreements (JDAs) upon signing. Commissioner Nieto said she would also propose three additional project-specific conditions addressing executed JDAs, a detailed complaint/inquiry process and relocation of a staging or laydown yard.
- Complaint process and community engagement: commissioners emphasized the need for clearer, project-specific complaint and outreach procedures and asked the applicant to file those procedures with the commission prior to construction. “The complaint point of contact should have sufficient knowledge and authority to resolve complaints,” the commissioners directed.

What the commission decided and next steps
The Commission approved the CPCN for Whitewater Solar LLC with the standard statewide conditions for large generation projects and the additional project-specific requirements described above. Commissioners noted the developer’s commitments in the record will bind successors and future owners of the facility. The order requires the developer to provide additional filings (e.g., final JDAs when executed, MISO/other interconnection study results if applicable, and construction-phase plans) and directs staff to monitor compliance during construction.

Local context and implementation risks
The project is proposed in largely agricultural areas; participating landowners signed voluntary leases. Commissioners noted that the project will remove only a small fraction of agricultural acreage from production for the project life and that, where applicable, lands could return to agriculture after decommissioning. The commission rated implementation risk as medium given the need for routine state and federal permits and the possibility of future ownership transfers (a future sale to a public utility would require a separate buy‑sell review).

Reported statements
Chairperson Strand urged participants to maintain respectful rhetoric in filings and hearings, calling staff “true public servants” and warning against personal attacks in the record. Commissioner Nieto thanked parties for their participation and said she would vote to approve the project with conditions. Commissioner Hawkins emphasized that merchant projects still face substantial permitting and regulatory requirements despite being exempt from some utility need analyses.

What remains to watch
The order requires continued community outreach, filing of executed JDAs and the complaint process prior to construction, and several construction-phase submittals to commission staff. If the project is sold later to a regulated utility, a separate buy‑sell docket will be required and would revisit need and cost matters.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","PSC Commission Meeting 9/25/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Whitewater Solar LLC’s application for a 180-megawatt photovoltaic generation facility won approval from the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin on Sept. 25, 2025, with standard and project-specific conditions attached.","taxTitle","Public Service Commission, State Agencies, Executive, Wisconsin","taxId",28457,"location","Wisconsin","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5974501,"PSC grants CPCN to Badger Hollow Wind with conditions, citing robust record and PSC 128 compliance",0,13795000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5834034-101b9ca41d362fa47df4415cd4b16c6b&start=13795&end=13795","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5834034-101b9ca41d362fa47df4415cd4b16c6b/thumbnail_13795000.jpg","/articles/5974501/Wisconsin/PSC-grants-CPCN-to-Badger-Hollow-Wind-with-conditions-citing-robust-record-and-PSC-128-compliance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5974501-087227c4642d24d2cb879a4ec65ecc2a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770400850&Signature=Zc86DawfaZFeRX~20pVynzZZZc2pcJiePKt0~JKnN104qui2FR4IAgpAZDXAW5Ab~ZfWgDZXKQkKrpsd423dXehujRNdKA-m5tOoxcE3K9ju-ITKCjqR4fVAa557OxOoqBLOoJ73YvqhGeN6Y3Wu420c9CBIVGddIYTIPCMB1UKied0EfFU~L3noHdXJdQ2OSi6lW286O-L6lelMr~-vh5p4yhOy9PapDD6bcBxa3zq0MSz-vBkKGBi4UIjTnm7LLiZUNXfuCpjJP7fd0jfTiyHzYn0HV0MqDW1trfggxVgsz6iiJ0Gp1YkFgrKYuTO8PTJSIGhkL-97tm4UncqvXA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin voted Sept. 25, 2025, to grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity to Badger Hollow Wind LLC for a wind energy facility of up to 118 megawatts, subject to standard commission conditions and multiple project‑specific requirements.

Commissioner Ted Hawkins, who led the discussion, said the record was robust and that the application met statutory and rule‑based siting criteria. “I will be voting in support of granting the CPCN,” he said during the meeting, summarizing the staff analyses, intervenor testimony and environmental assessments that informed the decision.

Why this matters: the project lies in a largely agricultural area spanning towns in Iowa and Grant counties and proposes up to 19 turbine sites, underground collection circuits, a collector substation and a short generator tie line. Because the facility exceeds 100 MW, it requires PSC review rather than local-only permitting; wind projects are also reviewed under the state’s wind‑siting rules (PSC 128), which govern setbacks, noise, shadow flicker and decommissioning planning.

Key findings and conditions
- Siting and environmental review: commissioners concluded the siting met Wis. Stat. §196.491 requirements (including non‑interference with orderly land use) and found no undue adverse environmental impacts after reviewing the joint environmental assessment prepared by PSC and DNR staff and additional record evidence.
- PSC 128 compliance: the commission found the project consistent with PSC 128 requirements and declined to adopt stricter rule deviations because the record did not show an “extraordinary or unusual” circumstance that would justify deviation. Commissioners noted the requirement for final engineering to demonstrate ongoing compliance with noise, shadow‑flicker and setback standards if micro‑siting adjustments are needed in the field.
- Geology, wetlands, and wildlife: intervenor concerns about karst geology and other site‑specific risks were considered; commissioners found the geotechnical borings and engineering review in the record adequate and concluded that the final geotechnical and foundation design processes — required before construction — would mitigate the geological risks characterized by intervenors.
- Lighting and aesthetics: the applicant’s use of aircraft detection lighting system (ADLS) technology and larger, more widely spaced turbines factored into the commission’s finding that aesthetic impacts were addressed and that measures to reduce nighttime blinking lights were appropriate.
- Project-specific conditions: the commission attached standard generation project order conditions and several project‑specific requirements, including DNR‑recommended wetland and waterway protections, a minor‑siting adjustment protocol that requires prior consultation with staff for shifts above a defined threshold, final spill prevention and control plans, and the requirement that the applicant submit any MISO/DPP interconnection results and signed generator interconnection agreements when available.

What the commission decided and next steps
The commission approved the CPCN with conditions that require the developer to submit additional construction‑phase filings, environmental and erosion control plans, and final geotechnical/foundation designs before construction begins. Commissioners emphasized their authority to review micro‑siting changes and required notification and additional studies (noise, shadow flicker) where shifts approach allowed thresholds.

Local context and implementation risks
The project area covers roughly 15,000 acres of predominantly agricultural land; only about 30 acres are expected to be permanently removed from agricultural production for facilities such as turbine pads and access points. Commissioners rated implementation risk as medium because final permits, interconnection studies and construction-phase approvals remain outstanding. The commission also noted that merchant developers have financial incentives to ensure safe and reliable operation, including appropriate foundation design and post‑construction maintenance.

Statements from the meeting
Commissioner Hawkins summarized the record and said it supported approval; Chairperson Strand and Commissioner Nieto concurred, and each commissioner emphasized the need for continued communication with local landowners and adherence to the technical requirements of PSC 128.

What remains to watch
The order requires the applicant to comply with construction-phase requirements and to file final engineering and interconnection documents; staff will monitor compliance. If the developer’s equipment selection or final turbine layout changes the number or spacing of turbines materially, the commission’s minor‑siting procedures will require notification, additional studies if required, and possible commission review.","The Public Service Commission approved Badger Hollow Wind LLC’s application for up to 118 MW of wind generation across Iowa and Grant counties, finding the project met statutory siting, environmental and PSC 128 standards and attaching standard and several project-specific conditions.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5974506,"PSC lays over Superior Water, Light & Power commercial EV charging pilot for more data",2356,9984000,12340000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5834034-101b9ca41d362fa47df4415cd4b16c6b&start=9984&end=12340","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5834034-101b9ca41d362fa47df4415cd4b16c6b/thumbnail_9984000.jpg","/articles/5974506/Wisconsin/PSC-lays-over-Superior-Water-Light-Power-commercial-EV-charging-pilot-for-more-data","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5974506-3f77700e1aaf9a284993e321a245b5e1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770400850&Signature=SCfagbat2bXDq6ZnpxYLzRapd7gvNhUWZNUpD7QvBspvvZve~rV4k1CrHPE3jrQ-qgYBLvieG3HNtfBs32C2iTorNQ5syXorg2SW7IRPr~qRq~8FNn-yRetUGWr-MDd0btFNHJYRxqtYVu2A3O2wthzLl77jr3fJtf12BNtkwvg~YimRf-FhruK~x6NDn5nb6Tp14y7tTKeh8QhhkI9Gjea~8DPhCbBuJtnYwK-KqZ4ANQIHb6MFJdLtW41ZXlRYXUt0KF5cucqFCrmwOBqnLKmu5v5gR17hU0ZCKhk8NZDbS8ByNL7313Lg~lKtG8yRA2DX845s5b10Z9G3pjmqbw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Superior Water, Light & Power’s (SWLP) request to implement a three‑year commercial electric-vehicle charging pilot tariff (EVC-1) was laid over by the Public Service Commission on Sept. 25, 2025, and commissioners directed staff to request additional information before taking a final vote. SWLP proposed a pilot aimed at commercial and industrial customers that would apply a demand‑cap mechanism (40% demand cap) and eliminate off‑peak demand charges to encourage charging outside of peak hours.

Why the commission paused: commissioners said the pilot concept is reasonable as a learning tool for a utility with no existing public or fleet charging in its Douglas County service territory but identified several unresolved design and consumer‑protection questions. Those include the appropriate eligible customer classes and maximum kW size for participation, the interplay between a demand-cap and the time‑of‑use demand windows, the absence of a defined program budget, and whether the tariff would create undue cross‑subsidization risk for non‑participants. Commissioner Nieto summarized the applicant’s proposal and staff’s review, then said: “there’s a pathway here to work with this proposal and work with the utility here to get to a decision today that allows the utility to move forward with an option to meet its customers’ needs,” but added that modifications and additional data would be needed.

Key program points and questions
- Program design: SWLP’s filing proposed a three‑year pilot for commercial and industrial customers with separately metered EV loads; the tariff uses a 40% demand cap (modeled on a Minnesota Power pilot) and defines on‑peak windows where demand charges would continue to apply, while off‑peak demand charges would be set at zero.
- Eligibility and size: the utility initially limited eligibility to services with demand above 25 kW and below 10,000 kW; commissioners proposed tighter starting eligibility aligned to existing rate classes (for example EC‑3/EP‑1) or a more conservative upper bound to reduce potential cross‑subsidy risk.
- Reporting and monitoring: commissioners asked for clearer reporting requirements, including itemized program spending, the utility’s cost‑to‑serve for pilot participants at representative kW ranges (excluding charger installation costs where those are customer‑funded), measured load‑shifting results and an assessment of system benefits from any off‑peak charging shift.

Next steps and rationale
Commissioners directed staff to prepare a data request based on the issues raised in the meeting so the utility can provide the needed clarifications and additional analysis. The goal is to preserve a path for SWLP to pilot charging rates while protecting nonparticipating customers and ensuring reporting adequate for later evaluation and tariff refinement. Commissioners noted the pilot could be re‑scoped (for example, to exclude public charging or to limit eligibility to fleet accounts) to reduce potential rate‑cross‑subsidization while still delivering operational lessons.

Local context
SWLP serves Douglas County in northern Wisconsin; the utility told the commission that it currently has no public or fleet charging infrastructure and viewed a pilot as a first step to understand customer needs and the local charging market. Commissioners noted the relatively small size of the utility and the smaller universe of potential pilot participants as a factor mitigating risk, but said further data is required before approving a tariff.

What the commission did not decide
No vote was taken to approve a tariff. The commission’s decision to lay the application over was procedural: commissioners asked staff to obtain the additional information identified in the public discussion and signaled the commission’s willingness to consider a modified pilot after receiving that information.","Superior Water, Light & Power's proposed three-year commercial EV charging pilot (tariff EVC-1) was not decided; commissioners directed staff to request additional data and will revisit the application after the utility provides more detailed information on eligibility, cost items, and reporting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

PSC approves Whitewater Solar project with conditions after contested review

PSC grants CPCN to Badger Hollow Wind with conditions, citing robust record and PSC 128 compliance

PSC lays over Superior Water, Light & Power commercial EV charging pilot for more data