By Lynn Binnie
Whitewater Banner volunteer staff
whitewaterbanner@gmail.com
The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin [PSC] voted unanimously on September 25 to approve the application of Whitewater Solar, LLC for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct Solar Electric Generation Facilities located within the City of Whitewater and Township [Town] of Cold Spring, Jefferson County, and the Townships [Towns] of Whitewater and LaGrange, Walworth County, Wisconsin. The agenda for the meeting, which was held at the Hill Farms State Office Building in Madison, was only posted the previous day, and it is only known that three residents of the affected area were in attendance. Their opinions were not expressed, as there was no opportunity for public comment.
Following the hearing, Yvette Loiselle, a scientist and one of the twenty intervenors whose properties are adjacent to the proposed project, told The Whitewater Banner that she is certain that the group will redouble their year-long efforts to oppose the massive “solar farm.” She stated that in her opinion the “bigger fight” than the impact on non-participating property owners is for the more than two thousand acres of prime farmland that would be lost. Loiselle expects that contacts will be made with the town boards of Cold Spring, LaGrange and Whitewater, asking them to take a position on the application, and specifically encouraging them to join as parties in the attempts to overturn the decision. She is urging residents to contact their town supervisors, the PSC, and their legislators with their views. According to Loiselle, the group’s response is expected to start with filing for a second hearing with the PSC. The grounds for this request would include that the Supplemental Environmental Assessment that the commission was required to produce due to revisions in the project plan was not completed prior to the hearing that took place with the intervenors.
Loiselle further told The Banner, “This project will have an impact on our community for the next forty years. Our natural community, tourist community, farming community, and rural homeowners are all standing to be negatively impacted by this project. It’s critical that we spread the word and get as many community members activated as possible. We will be holding a meeting in the coming weeks to share what position the local towns have taken, and our next steps as a community to fight this 2800-acre utility. In the final decision matrix, the PSC disenfranchised and marginalized the arguments of the local Whitewater intervenors. Your local intervenors stepped up and pushed back at this injustice and filed motions to the judge. The PSC reinstated our comments but filed a response to our motions basically ridiculing and marginalizing our work. Our voices have been reduced to ‘unsubstantiated rhetoric,’ and they do not acknowledge the impact this will have on our local tourism area or local landowners who will be forced to bear the burden of this project without any compensation while a handful of local landowners become wealthy from this. We and four generations of local citizens get to pay the tab for that enrichment.”
The Public Service Commission consists of three full-time members, all of whom were appointed by Governor Tony Evers: Chairperson Summer Strand, Kristy Nieto, and Marcus Hawkins. Since Strand was participating virtually, Nieto chaired the nearly two-and-a-half-hour agenda item and took the lead in providing background and raising the issues that the commission needed to decide. Nieto clarified that the requested status of Whitewater Solar is that of a Wholesale Merchant Plant. It is not unusual for such an entity to ultimately be purchased by a regulated utility such as WE Energies (which owns the power substation in the city to which the project would be connected), but if such a sale is proposed, another proceeding which would consider additional factors such as need and cost would be required.
Nieto indicated that there had been “broad public participation” regarding the application by both participating and non-participating parties. Both intervenors and PSC staff had put in a great deal of effort, resulting in a “huge record.” Nieto expressed appreciation for everyone who had participated in the process. “Our job,” she stated, “is to sift through the evidence as to which arguments as persuasive. We reviewed every argument. Ultimately our job is to focus on what are the laws that apply and the facts in the case” per the regulatory purview under state law. A decision matrix that PSC staff had developed would be used in the discussion to make legal determinations. (Some of the interventors had objected to the initial version of the decision matrix. The PSC made some changes in the matrix, while stating “Intervenors in this proceeding were afforded a full opportunity to be heard through their prefiled testimony, party hearing participation, and legal briefs. The proceeding complied with Wis. Stat.
Ch. 227, Wis. Admin. Code ch. 2, and due process. Throughout, Commission staff and the Administrative Law Judge went to great lengths to accommodate the landowner intervenors, who did not retain legal counsel and demonstrated unfamiliarity with public utility regulation and Commission procedure and practice.”)
Nieto added that “The laws attempt to balance various individual and private interests versus the public interest in order to ensure reliable energy,” considering safety and environmental as well as human environmental concerns. “If we find that it’s permissible, we will vote for approval with conditions,” she concluded. Hawkins added that there are still many requirements on a “merchant” application, with a host of permits being required. “It doesn’t make an easy lane for approval,” he contended.
The project was initially proposed by Ranger Power but was then assumed by DE Shaw Renewable Investments. The New York City based company indicates on its website that since 2010 it has “built a diversified portfolio across 22 states with over 11 GW [gigawatts] of generation capacity, enough to power nearly 2 million homes.” Nieto indicated that the application was unique, in that the applicants had made significant changes to the proposal, creating some challenges. She acknowledged that there had been issues around the lack of communication with affected parties, with a “higher bar” having been reached by other applicants regarding outreach. Due to confusion about changes in the application an administrative law judge had ordered an open house for the developer to provide new information about the proposal, which she said was not required but a good idea.
The discussion followed the following decision matrix. In each case, a question is posed first, followed by discussion in italics, and the decision in bold.
- Are any Energy Priority Law options cost-effective, technically feasible, and environmentally sound alternatives to building the proposed project….? It was indicated that this item was uncontested (as a no), and the commissioners agreed.
- Would the proposed project have a material adverse impact on competition in the relevant wholesale electric service market….? It was indicated that this item was uncontested (as a no), and the commissioners agreed.
- If approved, would the proposed project comply with Wis. Stat. 196.491(3)(dc)6 and not unreasonably interfere with the orderly land use and development plans for the area involved? The intervenors referenced the Jefferson County land use plan, which includes a goal of preserving agricultural land. They also maintained that they will be subject to many disturbances both during and after construction, that their peaceful rural life will be disrupted, and their property values will fall. The commissioners acknowledged that such a project usually has some impact on land use and development. They appreciated the concerns of the landowners, particularly the transfer of land from agriculture to solar. However, they also took seriously that the new use is agreed to by the participating owners , and stated that after decommissioning the land could be returned to agricultural use. Strand emphasized the importance of “unreasonable.” Hawkins said the record didn’t indicate unreasonable interference and noted that energy production is an acceptable use of “ag” land. He added that after the project went live, the overall percentage of non-ag in the counties would only be .03%. PSC voted that the project would not unreasonably interfere.
- Has Whitewater Solar, LLC considered the use of brownfield sites to the extent practicable as required by statues….? PSC concluded there are no sites that meet the criteria in the area.
- Is the design and location of the proposed project in the public interest considering the siting criteria of statues, or should the Commission modify the proposed siting areas? Intervenors, among other concerns, indicated that the siting of the project would harm the nearby Kettle Moraine State Forest and the Ice Age Trail. One commissioner acknowledged that these are precious areas to the state but couldn’t find beyond-speculative evidence that they will be harmed or in conflict of any legal requirements related to the area. While acknowledging that the developer had some shortcomings, it was felt that they have had a willingness to make some changes related to particular adjacent properties, and it was expected that collaborative work would continue with the community, particularly where arrays were now coming closer than originally plotted. PSC did not find unreasonable harm.
- What standard conditions should be attached to the proposed project, if approved? PSC found that all conditions are necessary as modified.
Project- specific Conditions:
- (a) Is the following project-specific condition pertaining to vegetation density progress reports reasonable to impose as a condition of approval? A DNR witness advocated for vegetative density management in an effort to stabilize the soil, and the applicant agreed voluntarily. PSC determined that this condition is necessary. (b) Is the project-specific winter stabilization plan condition proposed by DNR reasonable to impose as a condition of approval? DNR proposed that bare soil needs to be stabilized to reduce runoff/erosion as snow melts and the ground thaws. The applicant didn’t object. PSC determined that this condition is necessary. (c) Are the following project-specific environmental resource conditions related to wetlands and waterways reasonable to impose as a condition of approval? DNR advocated for this requirement; the applicant did not object, and it must receive several permits from DNR. PSC determined that this condition is necessary. (d) Is the following project-specific condition pertaining to DNR land, proposed by the DNR, reasonable to impose as a condition of approval? The project crosses two DNR easements; DNR advocated for redoing fence lines and solar arrays to ensure public access to public lands. The applicant has had discussion regarding changing to a single easement. PSC determined that this condition is necessary. (e) Is the following project-specific fencing condition proposed by DNR reasonable to impose as a condition of approval? DNR staff recommended that there should be bottom apertures of all arrays a minimum 8″ high by 12″ wide in order to accommodate movement in/out by small animals including turtles. PSC determined that this condition is necessary. (f) Is the following project-specific condition pertaining to vegetative screening proposed by Commission staff reasonable to impose as a condition of approval? This condition would require vegetative screening to extent reasonable to alleviate visual impacts to adjacent non-participating residents to the extent possible without impacting sunlight access. Some agreements address this but have not yet been signed. PSC determined that this condition is necessary. (g) Is the following project-specific condition pertaining to historic resources proposed by the applicant reasonable to impose as a condition of approval? An alternate project area has medium to high potential for unrecorded archeological sites. This would normally have been done already but the area is currently under sod production. PSC determined that this condition is necessary. (h) Is the following project-specific condition pertaining to updates on the project’s interconnection rights proposed by Commission staff necessary for approval of the proposed project? It was indicated that this would provide a faster way to interconnect more cheaply. PSC determined that this condition is necessary. (i) Is the following project-specific condition proposed by intervenor Loiselle reasonable to impose as a condition of approval? Intervenor Loiselle proposed moving arrays preferably 1/2 mile from her property to protect from sound/glare. PSC indicated that setbacks from this property are farther back than provided in other cases. The record demonstrates that glare/sound impacts across imprint are minimal at most pursuant to threshold levels. If experienced as a disturbance, applicant has committed to mitigation measures to address. PSC determined that this condition is not necessary. (j) Are the following project-specific conditions proposed by intervenor W. Tillet reasonable to impose as a condition of approval? Intervenor requested larger setbacks. Setbacks already exceed 175′ from the home; request of 650′ would give this landowner control of two football fields of neighbor’s property. Applicant made a commitment regarding the laydown yard. PSC determined that this condition is not necessary. (k) What, if any, additional actions are appropriate for the Commission to take based upon the evidence in the record? Discussion included requests for compensation to adjacent homeowners, a bond to issue payments to specific properties losing value, coverage of costs for animal nuisance and deer collisions. PSC determined that no additional measures are necessary. (l) Are there any other project-specific conditions or modifications proposed in the record that the Commission wishes to adopt? Proposed for PSC consideration: (1) The applicant shall work with Anne and Wade Tillet to relocate the laydown yard or staging area currently adjacent to the Tillet residence to a location farther from the residences. The applicant shall notify Commission staff of the change in work agea…. (2) The applicant shall file with the Commission copies of signed JDAs [joint development agreements] upon execution. (3) The applicant shall develop a complaint process by which those affected in the project area are able to easily contact the applicant to seek resolution of a complaint. The complaint process should be provided to those living in the project area, prior to the start of construction, to address potential landowner impacts. The complaint point of contact should have sufficient knowledge and authority to resolve complaints. The applicant shall file documentation of this process with the Commission prior to the start of construction. PSC adopted all three additional conditions.
- Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA) and other environmental considerations: (a) Has the Commission complied with WEPA pursuant to Wis. Stat. 1.11 and Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC4? Staff properly analyzed, providing initial Environmental Assessment and supplemental. Staff finding was unlikely to have significant impact on human environment. PSC found staff analysis to be sufficient. (b) Will the proposed project have undue adverse impacts on other environmental values as provided under Wis. Stat. 196.491(3)(d)(4)? Staff finding was that the project won’t have adverse impact on other environmental values given the several mitigation conditions. Whitewater Fire Department had expressed concern about possible battery fires; however, no batteries are planned for the project. Applicant is working with local snowmobile club regarding impacts. Other parts of Ice Age Trail haven’t had an uptick in complaints or loss of usage. Displacing need for more fossil fuel generation improves public health. Project will decrease agricultural runoff into waterways. PSC found that the proposed project will not have adverse impacts on other environmental values.
- Should the Commission grant a CPCN [Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the proposed project? PSC voted unanimously to “approve Whitewater Solar with conditions consistent with our discussion today.”
Whitewater Solar has targeted the first quarter of 2026 for going live with the project.
Editor’s note: Previous Whitewater Banner articles on this subject may be found at the below links.
TMJ4 Story on Proposed Solar Project; New Deadline for Public Comments – July 15, 2025
Nearly 100 Attended Solar Hearing – July 10, 2025
LOCAL Hearing on Proposed Whitewater Solar Project this Wed. / Written comments due by Friday – July 7, 2025
Public Service Commission: “No significant environmental impact” expected from proposed solar farm – Comments due 4/11 – April 5, 2025
Public Service Commission Considering Approval of Massive Solar Farm East of the City – = December 21, 2024
“Whitewater Solar” Project Open House – August 14, 2024
