Public Service Commission approves Maple Grove Solar CPCN with conditions

Commissioner Maria Nieto, Commissioner, Public Service Commission, led the Commission’s discussion and moved to approve Maple Grove Solar’s application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) for a utility-scale solar facility in Barron County, and the Commission approved the CPCN with conditions on Jan. 16, 2025.

The project, filed Feb. 13, 2023 by Maple Grove Solar (an independent power producer described in the record as wholly owned by IBV Energy Partners), seeks authority to construct a solar photovoltaic generation facility with a nameplate capacity of up to 259.6 megawatts AC, to interconnect up to 228 megawatts AC to the grid, a 50-megawatt DC lithium-ion battery energy storage system, and a roughly 1.7-mile 161 kV generation tie line to the Barron substation. The Commission reviewed the application under Wisconsin Statute section 196.491(3) and Wisconsin Administrative Code chapter PSC 111 and classified the project as a Type 2 action under PSC 4.10(2).

Why it matters: Commissioners said the project will add utility-scale renewable generation in Wisconsin and advance state clean-energy goals. Commissioner Nieto told colleagues the Commission’s environmental assessment and supplemental assessment evaluated community, private-property and environmental impacts and that intervenors Renew and Clean Wisconsin supported the project. She said the project represents a significant investment in the state’s clean-energy transition and that, with conditions, it meets the statutory criteria under the energy priorities law.

Public engagement and record: The Commission record includes 32 public comments during the environmental-assessment scoping period and roughly 15 speakers at two local public hearings; an open comment period produced a similar number of written comments, according to the hearing record cited by commissioners. The applicant told the Commission it had executed four “good neighbor” agreements and was developing a joint development agreement with county and local units of government.

Conditions the Commission discussed and added: Commissioners voted to grant the CPCN with a package of standard and project-specific order points. Key conditions discussed and reflected in the final action included:

- Visual-screening condition: the order will explicitly require the applicant to work with interested nonparticipating adjacent landowners to create visual buffers and screening “to the extent reasonable and economically feasible” so as not to impede solar operations or access to sunlight. Commissioners said making this an explicit order point helps staff track compliance and informs the public without digging into the record.

- Follow-through on commitments: the Commission added a condition that the applicant must follow through on other commitments it made in the application record for this docket, including continuing work on the joint development agreement and outstanding good-neighbor negotiations.

- Tree-clearing dates: commissioners modified a vegetation-clearing avoidance period in the order. The record and rebuttal testimony support a seasonal avoidance window; the Commission adopted March 15 through Aug. 15 (with standard flexibility language in limited circumstances) rather than the earlier-drafted April 1–Aug. 15 wording given in the draft matrix.

- Fencing specification: the order adopts the applicant’s requested fencing modification with the agreed-upon clearance—6 inches off the ground—rather than alternate fence options discussed in the record.

- Vegetation management and mowing: the Commission approved language requiring the applicant to meet and confer with DNR and PSC staff about vegetation-management and mowing restrictions; commissioners described this as an intent to encourage a negotiated approach rather than impose unduly prescriptive measures from the bench.

- Wetland and waterway BMPs: the Commission accepted the applicant’s proposed modification using “where possible” language for wetland and waterway best-management practices.

- Winter stabilization plan: commissioners were divided on requiring a site-specific winter stabilization plan. One commissioner expressed concern that the record did not include strong site-specific justification for adding a separate winter-stabilization plan, calling it potentially duplicative of other stormwater and BMP commitments; other commissioners supported including the plan as part of the project filing. The final motion approved the CPCN consistent with the discussion without detail in the transcript about reconciling that disagreement beyond the recorded vote to approve the CPCN with the conditions discussed.

Points of disagreement and limits of the record: Commissioners acknowledged overlap between standard order conditions and the project-specific conditions in the decision matrix and discussed the need to continue refining standard language for future cases. One commissioner said she would follow up with staff on communications about utility-aid payments and how those payments flow from the Department of Revenue to local governments after construction.

Vote and next steps: A motion to approve Maple Grove Solar’s CPCN consistent with the Commission’s discussion was seconded and approved; the transcript records the result as “All in favor. Aye,” and the Commission concluded the item and the meeting. The Commission’s order contains the conditions discussed and will be posted with the docket; additional implementation steps noted in the record include the applicant’s continuing work on good-neighbor agreements and the joint development agreement.

Provenance: The transcript discussion of docket 5-CE-154 begins when the chair introduces agenda item 20 and Commissioner Nieto opens the substantive presentation; the recorded vote and concluding motion appear later in the transcript when the Commission moves to a formal motion to approve the CPCN.