Reading Time: 6 minutes

This article was produced by the nonprofit journalism publication Bolts, which covers the nuts and bolts of power and political change, from the local up.

The Dane County Sheriff’s Office will stop using dozens of AI surveillance cameras posted up across Madison and surrounding towns, after the county Board of Supervisors pulled funding from a contract with Flock Safety, the latest setback in this state for the Atlanta-based tech company.

Flock has swiftly grown a sprawling, nationwide network of cameras that photograph passing cars and use AI to track their movements with precision, with thousands of law enforcement agencies installing Flock cameras in exchange for access to the company’s database. But many local governments are now breaking off their agreements with Flock after numerous instances where the cameras were misused and breached, or where the data they collected ended up in ICE’s hands. 

Within Dane County, the cascade started when the city of Verona pulled its three automated license plate readers from the Flock network in November, after police officers elsewhere in the country accessed Verona’s cameras on behalf of immigration agents. Bolts previously reported that Flock ignored demands by Verona officials to take down the cameras for months after they ended the contract, and the city eventually covered the surveillance cameras with black plastic bags to protect residents’ privacy. Verona Mayor Luke Diaz told Bolts at the time that the county government’s contract with Flock was “the next big domino” to fall in Wisconsin.

Verona’s representative on the Dane County Board, Supervisor Chad Kemp, then proposed defunding the sheriff’s agreement with Flock, and the board voted 32-1 in April to strip $80,000 from the budget allocated to paying for the cameras. Sheriff Kalvin Barrett’s office confirmed to Bolts via email on April 30 that he will abide by the board’s wishes and cease using Flock. 

Other Wisconsin cities have dropped their Flock contracts since Dane County’s vote, including Monona, a suburb of Madison, and Oshkosh, in Winnebago County, where the police chief not just ended the contract but also covered cameras in plastic bags after Flock allegedly misrepresented how its data was used.

Diaz is heartened by this ongoing domino effect that’s rocking Wisconsin. “If police chiefs are bailing on it, that really shows momentum,” he said in a follow-up interview this month. “I feel like, at least politically, it is a sign that we’re winning.”

“It really shows that local activists can make a really big difference,” he said. “Small communities can be laboratories of democracy, and we can stand up to be an example for other communities.”

Now privacy activists are pushing to remove Wisconsin’s remaining Flock cameras, including those operated by the Milwaukee Police Department and by the University of Wisconsin-Madison police.

But beyond targeting any specific Flock contract, they’re also pressuring local officials across the state to set proactive guardrails around AI surveillance technologies. 

They hope to stop law enforcement agencies from responding to their wins against Flock by just turning to Flock’s competitors to install similar systems of automated license plate readers (ALPRs).

A spokesperson for the Dane County Sheriff’s Office told Bolts that the office is already exploring other vendors to replace Flock.

Law enforcement agencies often deploy invasive technologies like ALPRs without notifying the people being spied on and without approval from elected officials, said Jon McCray-Jones, a policy analyst with the ACLU of Wisconsin. He warns that, without robust protections limiting what police can do, residents will be “playing a game of Whack-A-Mole with surveillance companies” as police seek lesser-known companies like Motorola.

“We’re starting to miss the forest for the trees, where the conversation has been about how bad Flock is,” McCray-Jones told Bolts. “Sure, the headline changes with a slightly better company. But the innate issues around ALPRs don’t. You still have similar cameras, similar databases, similar mass, warrantless tracking. You just have a different logo on the contract.”

The Dane County sheriff was able to install the Flock system initially without getting approval from the board since it was paid for by a $68,750 grant funded by a separate surveillance company, Axon Enterprise. Axon used to have a partnership with Flock but has since severed it. The sheriff’s spokesperson ruled out seeking outside funding again.

Jade, a Madison resident and privacy advocate who created Deflock Dane, a project that maps the cameras that watch over the area, warns that a new technology could just as easily be installed to replace the Flock cameras without any public input. (Jade agreed to talk using only their first name for privacy concerns.)

“Some regulation has to be put in place,” Jade said. “Reacting to whatever secretive contract is signed in the future might work, but it is not ideal to have a revolving door of surveillance companies.”

In the absence of state restrictions, the ACLU of Wisconsin is advocating for local governments to adopt ordinances that give elected officials oversight over police surveillance. A model policy endorsed by the ACLU called Community Control Over Police Surveillance, or CCOPS, would require law enforcement to get approval from a city council or county commission before using new surveillance tools, as well as develop use policies and provide annual reports on them. 

According to the ACLU, 26 jurisdictions nationwide already have a CCOPS ordinance in place, but the city of Madison is the only one in Wisconsin. (Madison police currently have no ALPR contract.) Dane County has no such ordinance, which gives the sheriff a lot more discretion. 

Supporters say CCOPS ordinances allow cities to better vet the vendors that are hired, while also allowing residents to weigh in on what level of surveillance and risk they are willing to accept before the technology is used on them. McCray-Jones says elected officials can make informed decisions “instead of having to look into these technologies on their own and after the fact, in the aftermath when the damage is already done.”

But efforts to curtail AI surveillance in this way are hitting a wall in Milwaukee, Wisconsin’s most populous city, which became a cautionary tale for Flock when a police officer repeatedly used the cameras to stalk a romantic partner. The police chief quickly revoked most officers’ access but the city is continuing to use Flock cameras at this time. 

In March, four members of the common council wrote a letter calling on the city to adopt a CCOPS policy. They also demanded other checks on surveillance, such as a requirement for officers to list a case number to justify searching the network, routine civilian hearings and independent audits, and a ban on ALPRs being used for immigration.

Even as they push for stronger oversight, though, a 2023 state law known as Act 12 has sharply limited Milwaukee’s ability to regulate police surveillance. 

Though primarily a tax bill aimed at stabilizing pension debts, Act 12 forced Milwaukee to abandon civilian oversight in exchange for the funds. It stripped the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission of its oversight authority, gave the police chief broad control over department policy and restricted the city council’s ability to set new rules. 

Until then, the commission had offered a relatively strong model of civilian control, like when it banned officers from using chokeholds and no-knock warrants, putting it in the crosshairs of the local police union. Act 12 made it into a “rubber stamp” for the police.

Several council members told Bolts that Act 12 also interferes with their ability to forbid the Milwaukee Police Department from using Flock cameras, enact a CCOPS policy or set standards for how the city uses surveillance technology. 

“We cannot propose that law here,” said Ald. Alex Brower, who cosigned the letter endorsing CCOPS. “It was extremely frustrating to find that out. There is less democratic control than there should be.”

Another council member who signed the letter, Sharlen Moore, echoed Brower’s concern, saying, “We do not have a lot of power and say-so around how they spend their budget.” 

Moore and Brower are hopeful that the state could eventually restore some level of outside control over Milwaukee police; voters this fall are electing a new governor and Legislature, and Democrats hope to win control of the state government for the first time since 2010. But until the state takes action, the council members say they’ll have to rely on the police to voluntarily restrict their use of surveillance. 

Local activists were able to convince Milwaukee police leadership to ban facial recognition technology this year after a massive show of opposition by residents at a public meeting in February.

Brower told Bolts, “The police chief would not have banned facial recognition technology on his own if it hadn’t been for the groundswell of regular people.”

Now he hopes for a similar public outcry against ALPRs and other AI surveillance. Echoing the Madison-based advocates who say they’ll keep fighting contracts in Dane County, he said, “We need an active and engaged and organized population that is fighting for their liberties.”

Foes of AI surveillance get wins in Wisconsin. But they fear they’re playing Whack-A-Mole. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Remzi Arpaci-Dusseau said he expects the college to include both supportive and critical voices in its work developing AI technology and policy.

The post Dean of UW’s College of Computing and AI: ‘We’re not here to be AI cheerleaders’ appeared first on WPR.

Port Washington residents and environmental advocates urged Wisconsin regulators to deny air quality permits for a massive data center there and conduct further environmental review of the project.

The post Port Washington residents urge DNR to deny air quality permits for data center appeared first on WPR.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

How much should data centers pay for the massive amounts of new power infrastructure they require? Wisconsin’s largest utility, We Energies, has offered its answer to that question in what is the first major proposal before state regulators on the issue.

Under the proposal, currently open for public comment, data centers would pay most or all of the price to construct new power plants or renewables needed to serve them, and the utility says the benefits that other customers receive would outweigh any costs they shoulder for building and running this new generation.

But environmental and consumer advocates fear the utility’s plan will actually saddle customers with payments for generation, including polluting natural gas plants, that wouldn’t otherwise be needed.

States nationwide face similar dilemmas around data centers’ energy use. But who pays for the new power plants and transmission is an especially controversial question in Wisconsin and other ​“vertically integrated” energy markets, where utilities charge their customers for the investments they make in such infrastructure — with a profit, called ​“rate of return,” baked in. In states with competitive energy markets, like Illinois, by contrast, utilities buy power on the open market and don’t make a rate of return on building generation.

Although six big data center projects are underway in Wisconsin, the state has no laws governing how the computing facilities get their power.

Lawmakers in the Republican-controlled state Legislature are debating two bills this session. The Assembly passed the GOP-backed proposal on Jan. 20, which, even if it makes it through the Senate, is unlikely to get Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ signature. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a spokesperson for Evers said on Jan. 14 that ​“the one thing environmentalists, labor, utilities, and data center companies can all agree on right now is how bad Republican lawmakers’ data center bill is.” Until a measure is passed, individual decisions by the state Public Service Commission will determine how utilities supply energy to data centers.

The We Energies case is high stakes because two data centers proposed in the utility’s southeast Wisconsin territory promise to double its total demand. One of those facilities is a Microsoft complex that the tech giant says will be ​“the world’s most powerful AI datacenter.”

The utility’s proposal could also be precedent-setting as other Wisconsin utilities plan for data centers, said Bryan Rogers, environmental justice director for the Milwaukee community organization Walnut Way Conservation Corp.

“As goes We Energies,” Rogers said, ​“so goes the rest of the state.”

Building new power

We Energies’ proposal — first filed last spring — would let data centers choose between two options for paying for new generation infrastructure to ensure the utility has enough capacity to meet grid operator requirements that the added electricity demand doesn’t interfere with reliability.

In both cases, the utility will acquire that capacity through ​“bespoke resources” built specifically for the data center. The computing facilities technically would not get their energy directly from these power plants or renewables but rather from We Energies at market prices.

Under the first option, called ​“full benefits,” data centers would pay the full price of constructing, maintaining and operating the new generation and would cover the profit guaranteed to We Energies. The data centers would also get revenue from the sale of the electricity on the market as well as from renewable energy credits for solar and wind arrays; renewable energy credits are basically certificates that can be sold to other entities looking to meet sustainability goals.

The second option, called ​“capacity only,” would have data centers paying 75% of the cost of building the generation. Other customers would pick up the tab for the remaining 25% of the construction and pay for fuel and other costs. In this case, both data centers and other customers would pay for the profit guaranteed to We Energies as part of the project, though the data centers would pay a different — and possibly lower — rate than other customers.

Developers of both data centers being built in We Energies’ territory support the utility’s proposal, saying in testimony that it will help them get online faster and sufficiently protect other customers from unfair costs.

Consumer and environmental advocacy groups, however, are pushing back on the capacity-only option, arguing that it is unfair to make regular customers pay a quarter of the price for building new generation that might not have been necessary without data centers in the picture.

“Nobody asked for this,” said Rogers of Walnut Way. The Sierra Club told regulators to scrap the capacity-only option. The advocacy group Clean Wisconsin similarly opposes that option, as noted in testimony to regulators.

But We Energies says everyone will benefit from building more power sources.

“These capacity-only plants will serve all of our customers, especially on the hottest and coldest days of the year,” We Energies spokesperson Brendan Conway wrote in an email. ​“We expect that customers will receive benefits from these plants that exceed the costs that are proposed to be allocated to them.”

We Energies has offered no proof of this promise, according to testimony filed by the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, which represents factories and other large operations. The trade association’s energy adviser, Jeffry Pollock, told regulators that the utility’s own modeling of the capacity-only approach showed scenarios in which the costs borne by customers outweigh the benefits to them.

Clean energy is another sticking point. Clean Wisconsin and the Environmental Law and Policy Center want the utility’s plan to more explicitly encourage data centers to meet capacity requirements in part through their own on-site renewables and to participate in demand-response programs. Customers enrolled in such programs agree to dial down energy use during moments of peak demand, reducing the need for as many new power plants.

“It’s really important to make sure that this tariff contemplates as much clean energy and avoids using as much energy as possible, so we can avoid that incremental fossil fuel build-out that would otherwise potentially be needed to meet this demand,” said Clean Wisconsin staff attorney Brett Korte.

And advocates want the utility to include smaller data centers in its proposal, which in its current form would apply only to data centers requiring 500 megawatts of power or more.

We Energies’ response to stakeholder testimony was due on Jan. 28, and the utility and regulators will also consider public comments that are being submitted. After that, the regulatory commission may hold hearings, and advocates can file additional briefs. Eventually, the utility will reach an agreement with commissioners on how to charge data centers.

Risky business

Looming large over this debate is the mounting concern that the artificial intelligence boom is a bubble. If that bubble pops, it could mean far less power demand from data centers than utilities currently expect.

In November, We Energies announced plans to build almost 3 gigawatts of natural gas plants, renewables and battery storage. Conway said much of this new construction will be paid for by data centers as their bespoke resources.

But some worry that utility customers could be left paying too much for these investments if data centers don’t materialize or don’t use as much energy as predicted. Wisconsin consumers are already on the hook for almost $1 billion for ​“stranded assets,” mostly expensive coal plants that closed earlier than originally planned, as Wisconsin Watch recently tabulated.

“The reason we bring up the worst-case scenario is it’s not just theoretical,” said Tom Content, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin, the state’s primary consumer advocacy organization. ​“There’s been so many headlines about the AI bubble. Will business plans change? Will new AI chips require data centers to use a lot less energy?”

We Energies’ proposal has data centers paying promised costs even if they go out of business or otherwise prematurely curtail their demand. But developers do not have to put up collateral for this purpose if they have a positive credit rating. That means if such data center companies went bankrupt or otherwise couldn’t meet their financial obligations, utility customers may end up paying the bill.

Steven Kihm, the Citizens Utility Board’s regulatory strategist and chief economist, gave examples of companies that had stellar credit until they didn’t, in testimony to regulators. The company that made BlackBerry handheld devices saw its stock skyrocket in the mid-2000s, only to lose most of its value with the rise of smartphones, he noted. Energy company Enron, meanwhile, had a top credit rating until a month before its 2001 collapse, Kihm warned. He advised regulators that data center developers should have to put up adequate collateral regardless of their credit rating.

The Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group echoed concerns about risk if data centers struggle financially.

“The unprecedented growth in capital spending will subject (We Energies) to elevated financial and credit risks,” Pollock told regulators. ​“Customers will ultimately provide the financial backstop if (the utility) is unable to fully enforce the terms” of its tariff.

Jeremy Fisher, Sierra Club’s principal adviser on climate and energy, equated the risk to co-signing ​“a loan on a mansion next door, with just the vague assurance that the neighbors will almost certainly be able to cover their loan.”

A version of this article was first published by Canary Media.

Wisconsin debates how to pay for the power-hungry AI boom is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.