HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.11.25 Attachment_PSC Approval 06-30-2025PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN
Application of the City of Oshkosh, as a Water Public Utility, for
Authority to Construct a Water Filtration Plant Replacement, in the City
of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, Wisconsin
4480-CW-113
FINAL DECISION
Introduction
The proposed project, the Water Filtration Plant (WFP), Clearwells Replacement Project,
has a lengthy procedural history. The City of Oshkosh, as a public water utility (applicant), has
filed applications for authority under Wis. Stat. § 196.49 and Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 184 to
construct the project in three different years and in three different dockets.
The applicant filed an application for the first iteration of the project on October 10, 2017
in docket 4480-CW-107. Under that original design, the applicant proposed project had a firm
pump station capacity of 16 million gallons per day (MGD) and the ability to expand to a
maximum firm capacity to 24 MGD, with the installation of new clear wells, pumps and
associated equipment. However, the applicant withdrew the application due to concerns about
the lack of updated water demand studies to support the adequate sizing of the pumping
equipment.
The applicant filed an application for the second iteration of the project on October 21,
2021, in docket 4480-CW-110. After the Commission issued a Notice of Investigation on
February 3, 2022, the applicant notified Commission staff that it conducted additional technical
evaluations to determine whether the lifespan of the existing clear wells could be extended to
avoid the need for constructing the proposed clear wells. The applicant requested to withdraw its
PSC REF#:552301
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
W
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
n
RE
C
E
I
V
E
D
:
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
5
4
:
0
5
:
0
1
P
M
Docket 4480-CW-113
2
the application on with the intent to re-apply at a later date, and the Commission closed the
docket on April 27, 2022.1
The applicant filed an application for the third iteration of the project on October 22,
2024, in the present docket. The proposed project now includes a reduced firm pump station
capacity of 13.7 MGD with the installation of two new clear wells, pumps, and associated
equipment. In addition, the proposed project includes the utilization of at-grade rectangular cast-
in-place concrete reservoirs for the proposed clear wells. The estimated total cost of the project
is $45,459,600. (PSC REF#: 539455.) The applicant came to this final design after extensive
participation from the public, City Planning Officials, the City Common Council, and an Ad Hoc
Aesthetics Committee organized especially to review options for the project. The Aesthetics Ad
Hoc Committee held 17 public meetings from May through August 2023. At those meetings, the
committee provided the public with information on the financial resources for the development
of the project, educational materials, supplemental technical evaluations, and frequently asked
questions posted on the applicant’s website.
The applicant determined that the proposed project’s additional cost is necessary because
the construction of the at-grade rectangular cast-in-place concrete reservoirs will be more
protective of public health, by raising the water storage above the 100-year flood plain elevation
and because it will result in a better visual impact in a location highly valued by the community.
(PSC REF#: 521951, pages 2-14 of 54.) The applicant selected the final project design to
address public concerns about adverse visual impacts of taller circular prestressed concrete
1 Docket 4480-CW-110, Order Signed and Served April 27, 2022 (PSC REF#: 435947).
Docket 4480-CW-113
3
reservoirs proposed in other alternatives, due to their shape and proximity to the City of
Oshkosh’s lakefront. (PSC REF#: 521919, page 23 of 36.)
The Commission found the application in this docket to be complete on January 7, 2025.
The Commission issued a Notice of Investigation on January 16, 2025. No hearing was required
nor held. No major concerns were brought to the attention of Commission staff. On April 5,
2025, the Commission Chairperson extended the time for the Commission to take final action on
the application pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 196.49(5r)(c)3.
The application is GRANTED, subject to conditions.
Findings of Fact
1. The applicant is a public utility as defined under Wis. Stat. § 196.01(5)(a) and
provides water service to approximately 24,197 customers in Winnebago County.
2. The proposed project consists of constructing a WFP replacement, at an estimated
total cost of $45,459,600.
3. The type of project proposed and the estimated cost of the project require
Commission review and approval under Wis. Stat. § 196.49 and Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 184.
4. No person requested a hearing in this investigation.
5. The applicant reported total operating revenues of $19,423,019 in 2024.
6. Based on the applicant’s PSC Annual Report, between 2020 and 2024, water sales
increased by 2 percent, and average gallons per Residential customer declined by 4 percent.
7. The proposed project is necessary to provide adequate and reliable service for
present and future customers.
Docket 4480-CW-113
4
8. Completion of the proposed project would not substantially impair the efficiency
of the service provided by the applicant.
9. Completion of the proposed project would not provide facilities unreasonably in
excess of the applicant’s probable future requirements.
10. The additional cost-of-service of the proposed project would be proportionate to
the increase in value or available quantity of service.
11. No significant environmental consequences are associated with the proposed
project.
12. No significant risk of flooding is associated with the proposed project.
13. Authorization of the proposed project is in the public interest.
14. Members of the public expressed vocal, sustained support for the proposed project
at multiple public meetings throughout the planning process.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Commission has authority under Wis. Stat. §§ 1.11, 44.40, 196.02, 196.025,
196.395, and 196.49, and Wis. Admin. Code chs. PSC 4 and 184 to issue a Final Decision and
Certificate authorizing the applicant to construct the proposed facilities at an estimated total cost
of $45,459,600.
2. The Commission has authority under Wis. Stat. § 15.02(4) to delegate to the
Administrator of the Division of Water Utility Regulation and Analysis those functions vested
by law as enumerated above. It has delegated the authority to the Administrator of the Division
of Water Utility Regulation and Analysis to issue a Final Decision and Certificate for the
proposed project.
Docket 4480-CW-113
5
3. The estimated gross cost of this project exceeds the minimum threshold of
applicant projects requiring Commission review and approval under Wis. Stat. § 196.49 and Wis.
Admin. Code ch. 184.
4. The Commission may impose any term, condition, or requirement necessary to
protect the public interest pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 196.02, 196.395, and 196.49.
5. The application is a Type III action under Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.10(3) and
requires neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment.
Opinion
Project Description and Purpose
The applicant provides water service to its customers in the City of Oshkosh in
Winnebago County. The applicant’s existing water system consists of four water intakes, four
ground reservoirs, four elevated storage tanks, 300 miles of water main, and the Oshkosh WFP.
The applicant proposes to construct a new WFP to replace the existing WFP, and to correct
multiple significant deficiencies identified in this facility by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural resources (DNR) related to Wis. Admin. Code chs. DNR 809, 810, and 811.
The proposed project includes the following activities:
1. Demolition and/or retirement of the following components of the system:
•The three existing buried South, Center, and North Clear wells with
volume capacities of 0.75 million gallons (MG), 0.58 MG and 1.1 MG,
respectively.
•The High Lift Pump Station (HLPS) with six pumps for a total pumping
capacity of 18,600 gallons per minute (gpm).
Docket 4480-CW-113
6
•The Low Lift Pump Station (LLPS) with four pumps for a total capacity of
2,800 gpm.
•Two fueled 1,000 kilo Watt (kW) power emergency generators and a
2,000 amperes (amp) generator switchgear.
2. Construction and/or installation of the following components:
•Two new 1.00 MG rectangular cast in place concrete reservoirs water
storage tanks.
•A new HLPS with three pumps for a total pumping capacity of
14,750 gpm.
•Renovation of the existing LLPS with the installation of new variable
frequency drives (VFD) and a total pumping capacity of 2,800 gpm.
•Two 1,000 kW emergency generators and respective 3,000-amp
switchgear.
•An Intermediate Pump Station (IPS) with three pumps for a total pumping
capacity of 14,750 gpm.
•Chemical feed piping changes to address the significant deficiencies
identified by DNR.
•Buried yard process piping connections to improve flexibility for
operations and maintenance.
The proposed project will be located on the site of the existing Oshkosh WFP at 425
Lake Shore Dr. The applicant estimated that the proposed project will cost $45,459,600. (PSC
REF#: 539455.)
Docket 4480-CW-113
7
Project Need
The applicant owns four water inlets directly connected to Lake Winnebago: one 60
inches in diameter, one 36 inches in diameter, and two 24 inches in diameter. On a daily basis,
the applicant only operates the 60-inch water inlet. The applicant only uses the other three water
inlets in cases of emergency.
The 60-inch water inlet is connected to the existing South, Central, and North clear wells
with a total volume capacity of 2.43 MG. The clear wells are connected to the existing HLPS,
which has six pumps and a total pumping capacity of 18,600 gpm. The applicant installed the
six pumps between 1985 and 2009. The existing HLPS provides water for all the applicant’s
24,197 customers.
The applicant operates the HLPS on a daily basis for its current potable supply. The
applicant operates the HLPS according to water demand. The applicant treats the water obtained
from Lake Winnebago in the Oshkosh WFP that has a 16 million gallons per day (MGD)
capacity, with aluminum sulfate and polymer on the rapid mix tanks to promote flocculation.
The water passes through the flocculation basins to form flocs, the sedimentation tanks to
separate the solids from the water, and finally passes through the granular activated carbon
(GAC), anthracite, and sand filter to filter organic and inorganic impurities, respectively. After
that, the applicant uses ozonation for disinfection and then, the water passes through a second
GAC filter to remove organics dissolved in the water. After the last filtration, the applicant treats
the water with chlorine for disinfection, fluoride for dental protection, and chloramine to
promote extended disinfection through the water distribution system. The treated water feeds the
Docket 4480-CW-113
8
1.50 MG North Elevated Tank, the 0.75 MG Marion Road Elevated Tank, the 0.75 MG
Southwest Elevated Tank, and the 1.25 MG Washburn Elevated Tank.
The 2022 DNR Sanitary Survey Report and prior year sanitary surveys identified
multiple significant deficiencies throughout the applicant’s water system. (PSC REF#: 521936,
pages 2-4.) The findings relate to Wis. Admin. Code chs. DNR 809, 810, and 811, specifically
associated with “Safe Drinking Water,” the “Requirements for the Operation and Maintenance of
Public Water Systems,” and the “Requirements for the Operation and Design of Community
Water Systems,” respectively. One of the most significant deficiencies the DNR identified was
the inadequate location of the floor level of the existing clear wells and the existing HLPS.
Currently, these two components of the water system are placed below the 100-year flood plain
elevation and the ground water table, which does not comply with Wis. Admin. Code
§ DNR 811.63(4). This location exposes the water contained in the clear wells to potential soil
and groundwater contamination. The DNR identified several significant deficiencies and
specific deficiencies that describe the applicant’s noncompliance, including:
•Wis. Admin. Code § DNR 809 regarding “Safe Drinking Water.”
•Wis. Admin. Code § DNR 810 regarding “Requirements for the Operation and
Maintenance of Public Water System.”
•Wis. Admin. Code § DNR 811 regarding “Requirements for the Operation and Design
of Community Water Systems.”
Therefore, the applicant proposes to partially demolish and/or retire the existing Oshkosh
WFP and construct a new WFP at the same site that includes the replacement of the buried
existing clear wells, the total renovation of the HLPS, the construction of a new IPS, and the
Docket 4480-CW-113
9
partial update of the existing LLPS to correct the multiple deficiencies of the applicant’s existing
water system and meet the respective DNR code requirements.
According to the applicant’s PSC Annual Reports submitted to the Commission, which
require a comparison of water entering the distribution system to water sold, the applicant has
experienced high levels of non-revenue water since at least 2020. According to its 2024 PSC
Annual Report, the applicant pumped, treated, and distributed 488,971,000 gallons of water for
which it received no revenue. Based on 2024 PSC Annual Report operating and maintenance
expenses data, this non-revenue water is valued at over $2,000,165. When depreciation expenses
are considered, the value of this water is over $2,893,215. The Commission finds it reasonable
to require the applicant to use the most recent version of the Free AWWA Water Spreadsheet
Tool to conduct a detailed water audit that disaggregates real losses from apparent losses. The
water audit will help the applicant identify and evaluate measures for reducing non-revenue
water and develop a plan that incorporates cost-effective measures.
Alternatives
The applicant evaluated five alternatives. The first alternative, which was ultimately
selected, involved using at-grade cast-in-place concrete rectangular reservoirs to replace the
existing buried clear wells, and associated pump stations, as described above. The applicant
selected this alternative because the proposed clear wells’ location, HLPS, improvements in
LLPS, and the new IPS address the multiple deficiencies identified by the DNR sanitary survey.
In addition, although the alternative will result in highly visible structures, the applicant
determined, through community involvement, that it results in the least visual impact to the
surrounding neighborhood and Lake Winnebago lakefront.
Docket 4480-CW-113
10
The applicant selected the proposed alternative with significant input from the
community. Specifically, the City of Oshkosh Common Council created the WFP Clear Wells
Replacement Project Ad Hoc Aesthetics Committee, which included six community members, to
address local concerns regarding the project’s visual impact on Oshkosh’s nearby Lake
Winnebago lakefront. The applicant selected the proposed alternative after a long process that
involved additional committee meetings conducted from May through August 2023. The
committee was charged with providing input on the exterior architectural finishes for the water
storage reservoirs and pump station and with providing recommendations for landscaping on the
right-of-way adjacent to the WFP along Lake Shore Drive, Washington Avenue, Merritt Avenue
and the area between Lake Shore Drive and Lake Winnebago referred to as the “Park Area.”
After robust discussion and public engagement, the selected alternative was considered
the most protective of public health, because it involves conventional, lower-risk construction
methods, and it is less susceptible to contamination from groundwater than the existing buried
reservoirs. In addition, the proposed facilities will be more accessible, easier to maintain and
repair, and will provide additional space to add ultraviolet (UV) disinfection equipment if needed
in the future. The project also satisfies the public’s considerable interest, and subsequent input,
in ensuring the nearby lakefront retains its existing aesthetics as much as is possible. The
applicant estimated the project will cost $45,459,600. (PSC REF#: 539455.)
Finally, while a portion of the selected alternative adds to the cost of service, and may not
at first glance appear proportionate to the additional value of service itself, the municipality and
its constituents have established a clear consensus that aesthetic concerns warrant the Certificate
as set forth in this Final Decision. Given the selected alternative’s location in a highly visible
Docket 4480-CW-113
11
area with close proximity to the lakeshore, the City of Oshkosh Common Council took the step
of forming a committee dedicated solely to ensuring the project met the community’s aesthetic
standards. The WFP Clear Wells Replacement Ad Hoc Aesthetics Committee held 17 public
meetings from May through August 2023 to address these concerns. Over the course of those 17
public meetings, the Oshkosh Common Council, through the above committee, found that the
selected alternative was the most convenient for the municipality, as it provides the necessary
value of service while also satisfying the public’s vocal concerns about highly visible project
structures detracting from the city’s iconic lakeshore area. The significant public input
demonstrating overwhelming support for the selected alternative, combined with the value of
service provided by the technical aspects of the project, satisfies the public convenience standard
for a Certificate, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 196.49(3)(b). Additionally, as the Commission has
broad discretion to supervise and regulate public utilities and to do all things necessary and
convenient to its jurisdiction, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 196.02, it need not conclude that there is
no excess cost whatsoever in a project, or that every single component must be directly
proportionate to its value of service and pay no consideration to aesthetics. Wis. Stat.
§ 196.49(3)(b) requires that a project must not “[p]rovide facilities unreasonably in excess of the
probable future requirements.” The Commission must simply conclude that the project is in the
public interest and that it provides facilities that are not unreasonable. For the above-stated
reasons, the project satisfies both of the above criteria, given the public’s vocal and sustained
support for the selected alternative, which maintains the city’s current, desired lakefront
aesthetic, while providing the necessary technical upgrades to its water system.
Docket 4480-CW-113
12
The second alternative considered involved using at-grade prestressed concrete circular
reservoirs to replace the existing Oshkosh WFP, associated pump stations, and clear wells. The
main differences between alternatives 1 and 2 are the type of tanks used. The construction and
maintenance cost of at-grade prestressed concrete circular reservoirs is less than the cost required
to construct and maintain the cast-in-place concrete rectangular reservoirs, and the public health
benefits of this alternative design would be similar to those offered by the selected alternative.
However, as discussed above, the applicant did not select this option due to the aesthetic
concerns the public raised. (PSC REF#: 527967 at 24 of 37.) (PSC REF#: 521951, page 2 of
54.) The applicant estimated that the second alternative would have cost $35,571,600.
The third alternative involved rehabilitation of the existing clear wells and the
construction of a new HLPS and UV disinfection system. Although this option would maintain
similar visual impacts as the existing facilities and would not require the construction of the
proposed IPS, the applicant did not select this alternative because it would require the
construction of a new water treatment system to achieve the 4-Log virus inactivation. It would
involve lower-certainty repair methods to provide significantly shorter service life with
anticipated major re-investments required in 20 or 30 years due to the age of the existing
facilities. In addition, this proposed alternative would have a higher risk of groundwater
infiltration into the clear wells between every inspection, and it would require more frequent
empty clear well inspections. The applicant estimated this alternative would have cost
$43,469,600. (PSC REF#: 527967, page 23.)
The fourth alternative involved the construction of new buried clear wells inside the
existing clear wells utilizing temporary structural bracing, and the partial replacement of HLPS.
Docket 4480-CW-113
13
This option would maintain the existing plant hydraulic grade line and use existing equipment,
including the structure of the existing clear wells, existing HLPS, and associated yard piping, as
well as maintain the existing visual profile. However, the applicant did not select this alternative
because in 2014, during previous analysis, the DNR determined this option would require
additional 4-Log UV disinfection equipment, increasing the current cost of this alternative.
Furthermore, the clear wells would require a variance from the DNR, and the construction would
require unique construction details, accurate installation regarding removing the roof slabs and
columns, installation of tie backs and anchors, and constant waterproofing of the clear wells that
would require monitoring. The applicant estimated the project would cost $32,644,600. (PSC
REF#: 527967, page 23.)
The fifth alternative involved the construction of new buried clear wells within the
existing clear wells, utilizing phase demolition to eliminate the temporary bracing, but extending
construction duration, and partially replacing the HLPS. Similar to the fourth alternative, this
option would allow the applicant to maintain the existing plant hydraulic grade line and use
existing equipment, including the clear wells and the HLPS, while also maintaining the existing
visual profile. However, the applicant did not select this alternative because in 2014, during
previous analysis, the DNR determined that this alternative would require an additional 4-Log
UV disinfection barrier and a replacement of the existing HLPS, increasing the cost of this
alternative. Furthermore, this project would require unique construction conditions, accurate
installation regarding the existing roof slabs, and constant monitoring of the waterproofing and
drainage system of the clear wells. The applicant estimated that this project would cost
$33,467,600. (PSC REF#: 527967, page 24.)
Docket 4480-CW-113
14
Environmental Review
Commission and DNR staff reviewed the proposed project for impacts to environmental
resources, including historic resources, wetlands, waterways and any sensitive habitat,
endangered resources, and community resources.
DNR staff completed an Endangered Resources Review that identified one recommended
action for one herptile species. The applicant indicated that it would follow the DNR
recommended action, such that if the species is observed during project work, the applicant
would relocate the species to the nearest suitable habitat. The proposed construction is not
anticipated to impact any threatened or endangered species under Wis. Stat. § 29.604(6r).
Commission staff reviewed the Wisconsin Historic Preservation Database (WHPD) to
determine if the proposed project would impact any archaeological or historic resources.
Commission staff identified three WHPD properties and a historic district within the proposed
project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE). One WHPD property is a human burial site that the
database lists as destroyed and therefore does not retain integrity to be considered a historic
property. For this site, the applicant also included a report detailing its work with the State
Historic Preservation Office and that it obtained a Permit to Disturb in accordance with Wis.
Stat. § 157.70. Commission staff identified the Washington Avenue Historic District and two
historic building WHPD properties in the indirect (visual) APE of the proposed project, but
impacts to these historic properties are not expected because the project would not significantly
change or increase visual impacts to the existing urbanized landscape, and the applicant would
use decorative exterior styling to reduce visual effects. The applicant provided an unanticipated
Docket 4480-CW-113
15
archaeological discoveries plan that should be followed if the project is constructed.
Commission authorization of the proposed project is not expected to affect any historic
properties under Wis. Stat. § 44.40.
DNR staff reviewed this project for regulated impacts to wetlands and waterways. The
applicant provided a conservative desktop review of the DNR’s Surface Water Data Viewer
database, which indicated that the project area is not in proximity to any mapped wetlands. The
east side of the project site is located on Lake Winnebago, and permanent impacts would be
unavoidable due to the intrusion of a stormwater outfall structure into the lake. The DNR
determined that individual permits are required for the following activities:
•Removal of materials from the bed of a navigable waterway under Wis. Stat. § 30.20;
•Construction of an outfall structure on the bed of Lake Winnebago under Wis. Stat. §
30.12; and
•Construction of riprap shoreline erosion control along the shoreline of Lake
Winnebago under Wis. Stat. § 30.12.
The applicant is required to obtain the above permits from the DNR prior to construction
of the proposed storm water outfall structure. The outfall will extend on the lakebed
approximately 12 feet out from shore, and riprap will cover the pipe from the shoreline out to the
top of the outfall structure. The applicant provided detailed project plans indicating the proper
use of silt fencing and erosion control blankets to prevent erosion and issues from runoff.
This is a Type III action under Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.10(3). No unusual
circumstances suggesting the likelihood of significant environmental effects on the human
Docket 4480-CW-113
16
environment have come to the Commission’s attention. Neither an environmental impact
statement under Wis. Stat. § 1.11 nor an environmental assessment is required.
Project Cost, Construction Schedule, Rate Impact
The total estimated cost of this project is $45,459,600. (PSC REF#: 539455.) The
applicant plans to fund this project with $45,459,600 from the Safe Drinking Water Loan
Program. The applicant plans to construct the proposed project from March 2025 to March
2028. Commission staff estimates that implementation of this project will result in the need to
increase customer water rates by 35 percent. The Commission provides the estimated rate
impact for general information. The actual amount of any rate increase would be determined at
the time the applicant submits an application for a rate increase. The amount of any increase
would depend on several factors including, but not limited to, project financing, growth in
customer demand, inflation, actual project costs, and the rate of return authorized.
Some utility construction projects require approval from the DNR. The Commission’s
review of construction projects and the DNR’s review are complementary, with the DNR
ensuring the project will provide public health and safety, and the Commission ensuring the
project is reasonable in cost and necessary to meet the applicant’s probable future requirements.
Conclusion
The project, as conditioned herein, complies with Wis. Stat. § 196.49(3)(b). The project
will not substantially impair the efficiency of the applicant’s service. The proposed project
includes pumps with premium efficiency in the proposed HLPS and IPS, and it also includes new
VFD for the existing LLPS pumps. These components will improve the control of the pumping
operation, increasing the overall efficiency of the applicant’s system. The applicant does not
Docket 4480-CW-113
17
expect water service interruptions and if there are any, they will be planned, and customers will
be informed prior to interruptions. Furthermore, the new reservoirs will assure the potability of
the water collected from Lake Winnebago, protecting the water from groundwater infiltration
and potential soil contaminants.
Completion of this project will not provide facilities unreasonably in excess of the
applicant’s probable future requirements. The proposed project is designed in proportion to the
existing water demand conditions of the applicant’s customers. The two proposed North and
South reservoirs will reduce storage volume from the total existing capacity of 2.43 MG to 2.00
MG, the HLPS capacity will be reduced from 18,600 gpm to 14,250 gpm, and the filtration
capacity will be reduced from 16.00 MGD to 13.70 MGD. However, the introduction of the new
IPS will add 14,250 gpm that will increase energy consumption, but will enhance the reliability
of the water system in the form of storage and pumping capacity responses during emergencies.
When placed in service, the project will increase the value of the available quantity of
service in proportion to the addition to the applicant’s cost of service. The proposed project will
improve the overall energy efficiency, pumping, and storage operation of the applicant’s water
system through the installation of more modern equipment meeting DNR expectations. The
estimated water rate increase is proportional to the increase of reliability and resilience of the
applicant’s water system, benefitting the applicant’s customers. The Commission acknowledges
and understands the aesthetic concerns of the public and finds the applicant’s selected alternative
to be reasonable and in the public interest of protecting a location that is valued highly by the
community.
Docket 4480-CW-113
18
Certificate
The City of Oshkosh, as a water public utility, is authorized to construct the facilities
proposed in its October 22, 2024 application, at a total cost of $45,459,600, subject to the
conditions in this Final Decision.
Order
1. The applicant’s application for authority to construct facilities in Winnebago
County, at an estimated total cost of $45,459,600, is granted.
2. The Commission, consistent with its past practice, shall review in a future rate
proceeding the recoverability of costs associated with the project. If it is discovered or identified
that the project cost, including force majeure costs, may exceed the estimated cost by more than
10 percent, the applicant shall, within 30 days of when it becomes aware of the possible change
or cost increase, notify the Commission of the accounts or categories where costs deviate from
those authorized and shall itemize and segregate those costs by major accounts and provide
sufficient documentation to support and explain the reasons for such deviations.
3. The applicant shall notify and obtain approval from the Commission before
proceeding with any substantial change in the scope, design, size, or location of the approved
project.
4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary federal, state, and local permits prior to
commencement of construction.
5. If the applicant does not begin on-site physical construction within two years of
the effective date of this Final Decision, the certificate authorizing the project shall become void
unless the applicant: (a) files a written request for an extension of time with the Commission
Docket 4480-CW-113
19
before the date on which the certificate becomes void; and (b) is granted an extension by
the Commission.
6. If the applicant has not begun on-site physical construction and has not filed a
written request for an extension before the date the certificate becomes void, the applicant shall
inform the Commission of those facts in writing within 20 working days after the date on which
the certificate becomes void.
7. The applicant shall submit to the Commission the final actual costs segregated by
the Commission’s uniform system of accounts within one year after the in-service date. For
those accounts where actual costs deviate significantly from those authorized, the final cost
report shall itemize and explain the reasons for any such deviations.
8. No later than 180 days from the effective date of this Final Decision, the applicant
shall use the most recent version of the free AWWA Water Spreadsheet Tool to conduct a
detailed water audit, develop a non-revenue water control plan that includes a list of action items
and a timeframe for completing them, and provide a copy of the audit and plan to the
Commission.
9. This Final Decision takes effect one day after the date of service.
Docket 4480-CW-113
20
10. Jurisdiction is retained.
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 30th day of June, 2025.
For the Commission:
Andrew P. Galvin
Administrator
Division of Water Utility Regulation and Analysis
APG:GAU:rgs:kle DL:02064106
Attachment: Notice of Rights
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN
4822 Madison Yards Way
P.O. Box 7854
Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7854
NOTICE OF RIGHTS FOR REHEARING OR JUDICIAL REVIEW, THE
TIMES ALLOWED FOR EACH, AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE
PARTY TO BE NAMED AS RESPONDENT
The following notice is served on you as part of the Commission’s written decision. This general
notice is for the purpose of ensuring compliance with Wis. Stat. § 227.48(2), and does not
constitute a conclusion or admission that any particular party or person is necessarily aggrieved or
that any particular decision or order is final or judicially reviewable.
PETITION FOR REHEARING
If this decision is an order following a contested case proceeding as defined in Wis. Stat.
§ 227.01(3), a person aggrieved by the decision has a right to petition the Commission for
rehearing within 20 days of the date of service of this decision, as provided in Wis. Stat. § 227.49.
The date of service is shown on the first page. If there is no date on the first page, the date of
service is shown immediately above the signature line. The petition for rehearing must be filed
with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin and served on the parties. An appeal of this
decision may also be taken directly to circuit court through the filing of a petition for judicial
review. It is not necessary to first petition for rehearing.
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
A person aggrieved by this decision has a right to petition for judicial review as provided in Wis.
Stat. § 227.53. In a contested case, the petition must be filed in circuit court and served upon the
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin within 30 days of the date of service of this decision if
there has been no petition for rehearing. If a timely petition for rehearing has been filed, the
petition for judicial review must be filed within 30 days of the date of service of the order finally
disposing of the petition for rehearing, or within 30 days after the final disposition of the petition
for rehearing by operation of law pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.49(5), whichever is sooner. If an
untimely petition for rehearing is filed, the 30-day period to petition for judicial review commences
the date the Commission serves its original decision.2 The Public Service Commission of
Wisconsin must be named as respondent in the petition for judicial review.
If this decision is an order denying rehearing, a person aggrieved who wishes to appeal must seek
judicial review rather than rehearing. A second petition for rehearing is not permitted.
Revised: March 27, 2013
2 See Currier v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Revenue, 2006 WI App 12, 288 Wis. 2d 693, 709 N.W.2d 520.