In addition to being a health hazard for anyone living downwind of the coal-burning plants, coal is more expensive and less reliable than other cleaner sources for power. (Photo of AES Indiana's Petersburg Generation Station by Robert Zullo/States Newsroom)
Recent administrative efforts to endorse new coal-fired power plants and repair outdated plants are making my blood boil. For more than 30 years, I have worked tirelessly along with thousands of other public health and climate scientists to understand the very real public health threats posed by burning fossil fuels like coal. Coal-fired power plants are some of the worst offenders when it comes to causing harm to human health and the environment. In addition to being a health hazard for anyone living downwind of the coal-burning plants, it’s more expensive and less reliable than other cleaner sources for power.
Let’s look at some of the reasons why coal is bad for health.
When coal is burned in power plants, it releases soot – tiny particles that get deep into people’s lungs and bloodstreams. Mercury in soot is also a severe health hazard because it releases a potent neurotoxin that contributes to many chronic illnesses. Exposure to soot is linked to cancer, respiratory disease, heart disease, neurological and developmental disorders. Children and senior citizens are particularly vulnerable to impacts from coal-fired soot.
Coal ash, the hazardous residue left after coal is burned, is a concoction of toxic metals (like lead, mercury and arsenic), cancer-causing compounds, and other dangerous substances. Power plants produce about 70 million tons of it each year. In April 2026, the Trump EPA proposed weakening federal coal ash standards.
In 2023, a study published in Science magazine reported that:
Air pollution from coal power plants is associated with greater mortality than previously thought.
Such deaths have decreased due to air pollution regulations and coal power plant retirements.
Coal is not cheap
Prior to this administration, many utilities had already started phasing out coal plants in favor of clean energy because coal plants often need expensive repairs and emit costly, dirty fuel. Coal power is so expensive that, according to a 2023 study, 99% of the time it would be cheaper to get electricity by building entirely new wind and solar farms than it would be to buy power from existing coal plants.
The Trump administration announced plans to provide up to $500 million in funding to coal-fired power plants in 10 states, along with an export terminal in California. The Columbia Energy Center, coal-fired plant co-owned by Alliant Energy, Madison Gas and Electric, and Wisconsin Public Service near Pardeeville, is expected to receive $19 million in federal funding for a modernization project. The plant was originally scheduled to retire by 2024. Alliant is exploring a gas conversion for one of the two primary generating units, so there is a potential for continued operations beyond the end of 2029 (the updated retirement date for the facility).
Note the Columbia plant has released more emissions of the health-harming pollutants nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide than any other Wisconsin coal-fired power plant from 2019 to 2023, the most recent five years for which data are available.
Additional costs for coal-fired energy also come from federal taxpayers subsidizing the industry for nearly 100 years. In 2026, the subsidies will be around $5.5 billion. Plus think about all the additional costs that taxpayers must absorb from the impacts of air pollutants on their health – at a time when healthcare subsidies have lapsed for millions of Americans.
There is no such thing as clean or cheap coal. As we approach America’s 250th anniversary, it’s more than time for a real Energy Independence Day from throwback policies that harm Americans and a focus on cleaner energy sources that protect human health and the environment.
The Columbia Energy Center in Pardeeville is expected to receive $19 million from the Trump administration to "modernize" despite initial plans for the plant to be retired in 2024. (Photos courtesy of Alliant Energy, John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout | Illustration by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)
A Columbia County coal plant previously slated for retirement that is expected to receive millions of dollars from the Trump administration to “modernize” its operations dramatically increased its pollutant emissions in 2025.
Columbia Energy Center in Pardeeville is jointly owned by Alliant Energy, Madison Gas & Electric and Wisconsin Public Service and was initially set to close by the end of 2024. But that retirement was pushed back first to 2026 and then to 2029.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration listed the plant as one of the beneficiaries of more than $700 million in spending to prop up the coal industry. The plant is expected to get $19 million through funding from the Defense Production Act.
“Our action will allow these facilities to invest in upgrades that will extend their operational lives for decades into the future, reinforce the reliability of our electric grid, which is really the biggest beneficiary, and most importantly, keep electricity prices very low for the American people,” Trump said in a June 4 Oval Office news conference.
Department of Natural Resources records show that the pollution emitted by the plant massively increased last year — a sign that the utility companies were ramping up the plant’s usage beyond its planned retirement date.
In 2024, according to the DNR data, the plant emitted 3.9 million pounds of carbon monoxide. That jumped to 6.6 million pounds last year. Carbon dioxide emissions increased from 11 billion pounds in 2024 to 14 billion in 2025.
Emissions of particulate matter, which is connected to health problems such as asthma, nearly doubled from 362,833 pounds to 685,876.
The amount of nitrogen oxide, ammonia, lead, arsenic and cyanide pumped into the air by the plant all increased last year, the DNR report shows.
Alliant Energy spokesperson Cindy Tomlinson told the Examiner that the plant’s life had to be extended to meet the midwest’s energy demand.
“In recent years, to meet MISO requirements and the energy needs of the Midwest, the plant has run more frequently, however it continues to operate in the normal range and in full compliance with the air permit requirements,” she said. “Our application and the potential $19 million grant award, provides us with an opportunity to cost-effectively modernize Columbia — an existing cornerstone in the American energy infrastructure. If awarded the grant, funds would be used to lower costs on several planned projects that are designed to maintain reliable and safe operations at the plant.”
But climate and health advocates say that the utility companies’ refusal to transition away from fossil fuels, and the Trump administration’s embrace of the industry will have dramatic effects on the health of Wisconsinites.
“Coal makes us sick, coal kills people, coal poisons our water, coal causes so much harm that is so well documented that it is almost unthinkable that in 2026 our government would use our taxpayer dollars to continue with this technology,” Brittany Keyes, clean air policy manager for Healthy Climate Wisconsin, said. “There’s no such thing as clean coal, and the utilities running with our taxpayer dollars to continue to burn coal longer is taking Wisconsin backwards.”
Modeling data from the EPA shows that shutting down the plant would result in 2,600 fewer asthma attacks, 1,200 fewer missed school days, and at least four fewer premature deaths statewide each year.
Amy Barilleaux, spokesperson for Clean Wisconsin, says that the state and its utilities are making that health tradeoff even though the coal needs to be imported from elsewhere.
“I think Wisconsinites know we don’t have coal here. We have to get coal shipped in or trained into Wisconsin,” Barilleaux said. “It’s extremely expensive, so we have the extreme expense on the front end. Wisconsinites are being asked to foot the bill to keep expensive coal plants open, because of AI. Because the Trump administration says we need to support all the energy demands that are needed by tech companies. Then at the same time you have this giveaway potentially to fossil fuel companies saying, ‘Well, we’re gonna, you know, make it really hard, as hard as possible,’ to have clean energy that we do make in Wisconsin. We do have sunshine, we do have wind.”
The plant’s life has been extended at a moment when the future of Wisconsin’s energy is at the forefront of the state’s political debate. The massive energy demand of the hyperscale data centers being constructed across the state and the rise in electric bills that have followed have drawn frustration from voters across the political aisle.
The state’s Republicans are running on a desire to continue the reliance on fossil fuels. When Trump appeared at an Eau Claire dairy farm for an event earlier this month, U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, running for reelection in the hotly contested 3rd Congressional District, touted the president’s support of “beautiful, clean coal.” U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the presumptive Republican nominee for governor, has for years fought against the development of solar energy in his northern Wisconsin district.
Democrats meanwhile are running on lowering energy costs. State Rep. Francesca Hong has run on a statewide data center moratorium while former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes has promised to appoint people to the Public Service Commission who will work to keep utility rates frozen.
Barilleaux said the state would be less susceptible to outside influence on its energy policy if it enacted “integrated resource management,” a system used in other states that requires public utilities to get their future plans approved and publicized by state regulators.
“Wisconsin does not have to be hurt by these mandates coming down from the Trump administration, these rolling back of regulations,” she said. “If our utilities had just gone ahead and kept their word and shut down the coal plants when they said they would, we wouldn’t have to be having a conversation like this right now, so we could have protected ourselves from this moment, and we still can, like other states.”
She said Wisconsin needs lawmakers who are willing to stand up to the utility companies.
“Wisconsin does not have to be as vulnerable as it is to both this Wild West of energy plans that we’re in right now, and to the whims of whoever is in the presidency, we don’t have to be hurt by the way we produce energy, we don’t have to be in this situation,” she said.
New federal dollars could extend the life of one of Wisconsin’s remaining coal power plants.
The Trump administration plans to spend $425 million to support operations at 13 coal plants in 10 states, arguing the move will help meet rising electricity demand and preserve thousands of jobs tied to the ailing coal industry. The White House will do so by invoking the Defense Production Act, a Cold War-era law that gives the president broad authority to accelerate American industrial output at times of crisis.
Some of that funding could go to Madison-based utility Alliant Energy, which told Wisconsin Watch that it applied for a $19 million grant to extend the life of coal-powered units it owns at the Columbia Energy Center near Portage in central Wisconsin. The utility previously planned to retire the plant’s coal units before the end of the decade.
President Donald Trump announced the action from the Oval Office Thursday, highlighting that the coal plants set to benefit are all in states he won during the 2024 election.
“Wisconsin put you over the edge,” U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., interjected, standing among the gaggle of Republican lawmakers and Cabinet officials behind the president.
“Our action will allow these facilities to invest in upgrades that will extend their operational lives for decades into the future, reinforce the reliability of our electrical grid … and keep electricity prices low for the American people,” Trump said, adding that the move may also bolster the nation’s artificial intelligence boom.
The administration will also distribute $200 million in Department of Energy grants to reopen a coal plant in Maryland and build the first new coal plants in the U.S. in over a decade: one in Alaska and another in West Virginia.
The Trump administration has already intervened to block the retirement of coal plants in Michigan, Indiana and elsewhere. But the White House did not pair those earlier orders with funding to support ongoing operations, so ratepayers across most of the Midwest — including in Wisconsin — will pick up the bill for those extensions.
Wisconsin’s Citizens Utility Board (CUB) and other Midwestern ratepayer advocacy groups have since filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit challenging federal orders blocking the closure of the Michigan and Indiana plants. The costs of extending aging coal plants’ operations “are adding to an affordability challenge customers are already experiencing in Wisconsin and nearby states,” said CUB Wisconsin Executive Director Tom Content.
Alliant has already pushed back the retirement dates for its coal-powered generators at the Columbia Energy Center and Edgewater Energy Center in Sheboygan. The company initially pledged to shut down the last coal generator at the Columbia plant by 2024; Alliant did not clarify the new expected life span of the plant.
The Edgewater plant is slated to transition to natural gas generation by 2029.
Coal generation accounts for a declining share of Wisconsin’s and the Midwest’s overall energy mix. Natural gas surpassed coal as the state’s primary fuel for generating electricity in 2022.
Extending operations at Alliant’s remaining coal plants could reduce the amount ratepayers will still owe when those facilities eventually close.
Wisconsin clean energy advocates reacted with alarm to the White House’s doubling down on coal generation.
“Burning coal in Wisconsin releases a long list of toxic chemicals and heavy metals, both into the air and water,” said Clean Wisconsin spokesperson Amy Barrilleaux. “No one in Wisconsin is asking for more mercury, arsenic, lead or soot. But we will be getting all of it, especially as the Trump administration dismantles pollution safeguards at coal plants, insisting more power is needed for the ‘AI data center revolution.’”
“It’s also important to note that burning coal is one of the most expensive ways to produce energy in Wisconsin — far more expensive than wind and solar farms, which are the cheapest,” she added. “So Wisconsinites will have higher energy costs and will be paying for the health costs, the longer we burn coal in this state.”
Alliant has scaled up investments in renewable energy generation in recent years, buoyed in part by clean energy tax credits extended by the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. The U.S. Department of Energy also agreed to back $3 billion in loans supporting Alliant’s wind generation and battery storage buildouts in the final days of the Biden administration.
The Trump administration has since largely reversed Biden-era tax incentives for renewable energy development. In its 2025 annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Alliant noted that the termination of clean energy tax credits could “adversely impact” the company’s finances.
The company did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the status of Department of Energy financing for its wind and battery storage projects.
U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum argued Thursday that clean energy tax incentives created a false impression of the viability of renewable energy sources. Wind energy developers, he said, “weren’t trying to generate electricity. They’re just trying to generate tax credits.”
“Energy shouldn’t need subsidy,” Trump responded.
Editor’s note: This story was updated on June 5, 2026 to include information from Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Wisconsin regulators on Thursday approved a one-off contract between Alliant Energy and the Meta subsidiary building a data center campus in Beaver Dam, but with a major caveat: Alliant must return with a standardized plan to power future data centers — and shield other customers from resulting costs.
The agreement bears little resemblance to the model We Energies proposed for its hyperscale data center customers in Mount Pleasant and Port Washington. That model covers all future We Energies data center customers and was approved last month with major modifications by the three-member Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC).
Both the PSC and ratepayer advocates expressed reservations about allowing Alliant to proceed without a standardized payment structure for data center customers. Negotiating contracts one-by-one, Commission Chair Summer Strand argued, would undermine the public’s interest in transparency and consistency.
Strand and fellow commissioners Kristy Nieto and Marcus Hawkins approved a modified version of the agreement, acknowledging that the Beaver Dam campus will open in 2027 with or without a tailored contract with Alliant. Sending the utility back to the drawing board for another year, they reasoned, could expose other customers to greater financial risk. The commissioners directed Alliant to propose a standardized payment structure for large data center customers similar to the We Energies arrangement approved last month.
Wisconsin Power and Light, an Alliant subsidiary, filed its case with the PSC last spring, months before Meta joined state and local officials in announcig its Beaver Dam data center campus.
The Beaver Dam facility, the first of its kind in Alliant’s Wisconsin service territory, is smaller than the soon-to-open Microsoft and Vantage data centers. Meta projects the facility will use 220 megawatts at peak, less than half the projected use of the Mount Pleasant and Port Washington campuses. But even that comparatively modest demand would be six to eight times the current peak for all of Beaver Dam.
In testimony to the PSC in November, Rebecca Valcq, Alliant’s assistant vice president for regulatory affairs and data center services, said the Beaver Dam campus would benefit other customers by “making more efficient use of existing infrastructure” and “spreading fixed costs” across a larger base. She also urged commissioners to consider the data center’s projected $2.1 million in annual local, state and federal tax revenue, among other economic benefits.
Alliant is a founding member of the Wisconsin Data Center Coalition, which promotes the state as a destination for data center developers.
Unlike We Energies, Alliant says it does not expect to immediately build new power plants to serve the Beaver Dam campus. Instead, Meta would purchase electricity from the same generators as the rest of Alliant’s customers. Hawkins noted on Thursday that even if the new data center doesn’t immediately require new generators, it might change the retirement timelines for Alliant’s existing power plants.
Contract negotiated in secret
The utility negotiated its contract with Meta behind closed doors. When it approached the PSC, it asked for approval without changes and requested extensive redactions, hiding many contract terms from the public. Alliant argued that the contract’s specific terms, and the surrounding secrecy, were needed to “attract and accommodate” Meta — and to compete with other states or utility territories courting data center development.
The redactions spurred pushback from ratepayer advocates and the PSC itself, which made more details of the contract available as the case progressed. In Thursday’s hearing, Strand drew parallels with the nondisclosure agreements some data center developers seek from local governments in Wisconsin, including Meta in Beaver Dam, which Wisconsin Watch first reported on in January.
“For some of these new private sector, big tech data center customers that are used to operating confidentially, coming into our state or coming into this process might be a shock to the system,” Strand said. “There is still this black-box approach that includes nondisclosure agreements, heavily redacted filings, corporate pseudonyms and negotiations shrouded in secrecy… This lack of transparency is hurting, not helping.”
The nonprofit law center Midwest Environmental Advocates in December sued the PSC to obtain unredacted documents from the Alliant case. That lawsuit is ongoing.
PSC adds protections, warns of gaps
Alliant proposed some protections for itself and non-data center customers. It set a floor for Alliant’s revenues from Meta, protecting the utility in a scenario in which the data center uses less electricity than initially anticipated.
That minimum covers the cost of building transmission lines to serve the data center. The American Transmission Company, the largest transmission operator in Wisconsin, is currently building a $200 million line to plug in the Beaver Dam campus.
Construction unfolds at the 350-plus-acre Beaver Dam Commerce Park, the site of a Meta data center, Jan. 20, 2026, in Beaver Dam, Wis. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
Alliant also proposed requiring Meta to reimburse the utility for the costs of transmission infrastructure if the tech giant backs out of the Beaver Dam project before the new line is complete — and requiring Meta to put up collateral in case its credit rating falls.
The PSC agreed with those terms and added further protections, including requiring Alliant to regularly report on the costs of serving the Beaver Dam campus and leaving the door open for the commission to adjust the cost-sharing to shield other customers from unanticipated expenses.
Commissioners identified some ratepayer protections beyond what it has authority to require. The transmission buildout needed to serve data centers is largely outside of PSC jurisdiction. Much of that authority instead rests with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which oversees transmission utilities nationwide, and the Midcontinent Independent Systems Operator (MISO), a nonprofit that manages much of the Midwest’s electrical grid.
MISO awarded the transmission line project that will serve the Beaver Dam data center to ATC, which spreads construction costs across all its Wisconsin customers, most of whom are outside Alliant’s territory. While Alliant’s new contract requires Meta to pay a minimum transmission fee to shield other Alliant customers from unexpected costs, those protections don’t extend to customers of other utilities using ATC’s transmission lines.
Alliant’s customers will also pick up “tens of millions of dollars” in transmission costs tied to data centers in other Wisconsin electrical utility territories, Hawkins said. “Whether or not that is appropriate — or something that we are being open-eyed about — is a concern of mine,” he added.
Commissioners on Thursday urged Alliant to begin discussions with ATC on a fairer method for distributing costs — one of the few options within commission authority.
The commission directed Alliant to produce a standardized plan before making agreements with new data center customers.
The PSC is aware that more data centers could come to Alliant’s turf.
“Evidence indicates there are 12 other potential data centers in this utility’s territory that are potentially in the works,” Nieto said. Given that future, she added, Alliant must “establish clear rates, terms and protections and provide transparency, regulatory clarity and public accountability as required when serving loads capable of reshaping a utility’s entire system.”
Ratepayer groups say PSC sent clear message
Ratepayer advocates welcomed Thursday’s decision while emphasizing the importance of the directive to outline a standardized payment structure for future data centers.
“While the PSC approved Alliant’s contract, with modifications, for Meta’s Beaver Dam data center, the Commissioners recognized that continued one-off, bilateral contract negotiations are not sufficiently protective of Wisconsin families and small businesses,” Brett Korte, a staff attorney with Clean Wisconsin, said in a press release.
“Today’s PSC decision requiring Alliant to develop a tariff for future data centers will result in a consistent, transparent framework that helps protect the public interest.”
Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board Executive Director Tom Content echoed commissioners’ hopes that Alliant and other electrical utilities will reach an agreement with ATC to protect non-data center customers from transmission-related cost shifts.
“We’re calling on ATC to protect customers across Wisconsin and Michigan to make sure people who aren’t even (customers of) these utilities aren’t on the hook,” he told Wisconsin Watch.
Alliant raised no immediate objections to the PSC’s changes.
“Protecting our customers while allowing communities to grow is central to our commitment at Alliant Energy, and that’s exactly what this contract is designed to do,” a spokesperson wrote in a statement on Thursday afternoon. “It maintains reliability, supports meaningful local economic benefits, and delivers benefits that help keep rates stable for all customers.”
In a quarterly earnings call last week, the company announced plans for a 370-megawatt electric service agreement with a data center customer in Iowa. Unlike Wisconsin’s PSC, Iowa’s utility regulator has been more open to one-off contracts between utilities and data centers.
By removing that option for Alliant’s future arrangements with data center customers, Content said, the PSC’s latest ruling could set a new standard for other utilities in the state.
“They’re sending a message,” he added. “None of this individual contract stuff.”
Login
