Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Public Service Commission approves Alma–Blair 345 kV line CPCN with modified fee and mitigation conditions
Loading...
Summary
The Public Service Commission granted Dairyland Power Cooperative a CPCN for the Alma–Blair 345 kV transmission line, selecting a southern route and directing staff and the applicant to revise the environmental-fee cost basis; final approval of the revised fee basis was delegated to a DERA division administrator.
The Public Service Commission voted Feb. 5, 2026, to grant Dairyland Power Cooperative a certificate of public convenience and necessity to build the Wisconsin segment of the Alma–Blair 345 kilovolt transmission line, subject to conditions the commission modified during the meeting.
Commissioner Hawkins, who led the discussion, said the record — including MISO regional planning and applicant and staff modeling — showed the project meets Wisconsin’s reasonable needs for reliable electric service, reduces congestion at the Minnesota–Wisconsin border and produces net economic benefits for Wisconsin customers. Hawkins recommended approval while flagging a significant concern about how the applicant allocated costs between 345 kV infrastructure and lower-voltage facilities when calculating statutorily required environmental impact fees.
The commission accepted the applicant’s southern preferred route for the Wisconsin segment — described on the record as about 34 miles with 205 structures, including 7.4 miles of buried distribution facilities and an estimated project cost of $189,000,000 — finding it minimizes impacts compared with the northern alternate (about 45 miles, 273 structures, estimated $276,000,000).
On environmental-fee issues (Issue 10d), Hawkins presented a handout showing the applicant’s filing treated roughly $9,300,000 of a $188,000,000 project as 345 kV costs. Hawkins said that allocation produced a one‑time environmental impact fee calculated by the applicant at $466,000 and an annual fee of about $28,000, figures he said were inconsistent with typical allocations and would substantially reduce payments to affected counties and municipalities. Hawkins estimated the one‑time fee could be north of $8,000,000 and the annual fee north of $500,000 under a more typical breakdown.
The commission voted not to accept the applicant’s proposed cost basis (10d, alt 2). For Issue 10e the commission approved a modified condition directing the applicant to work with commission staff to determine an appropriate cost basis and to provide sufficient information to determine distribution of one‑time and annual fees within 30 days of the final decision. The commission delegated approval of the revised cost basis to the DERA division administrator to meet statutory timelines.
The commission also approved project‑specific conditions addressing oak‑wilt clearing restrictions, adoption of DNR guidelines for heterobasidion root disease, and requiring the applicant to work with staff to issue an RFP for an independent environmental monitor/independent agricultural monitor (IEM/IAM) during construction. Commissioners discussed the balance between strict protective conditions and flexibility allowed by administrative code.
After completing issue‑by‑issue deliberations and adopting the modified conditions, Commissioner Nieto moved to approve the project consistent with the day's discussion (docket 1515CE103). The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote (unanimous 'Aye'). Chair Strand noted the commission and legal staff would finalize edits and that DERA staff would complete delegated tasks under the approved timetable.
Next steps: the applicant will work with commission staff to revise the cost breakdown for fee calculations and supply distribution details within 30 days; the DERA division administrator will have delegated authority to approve the revised cost basis. The certificate and order will include the adopted conditions and the southern route authorization.
