The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and a group of environmental organizations announced a settlement agreement Monday that would require stricter environmental impact assessments of future data center developments and initiate a statewide review of how data centers use the state’s resources. 

In June, the Sierra Club and Midwest Environmental Advocates sued the DNR in Ozaukee County court, arguing that the agency approved the permits for Vantage’s massive data center currently under construction in Port Washington without conducting a proper environmental impact statement. 

“AI data centers are massive, thirsty, energy hogs and have popped up all over Wisconsin,” Elizabeth Ward, director of the Wisconsin chapter of the Sierra Club, said in a statement. “They could completely change our landscape and use unprecedented amounts of water and energy. Wisconsinites and our regulators need to understand the impacts and opportunities to reduce harm before allowing data centers to move forward. Wisconsinites deserve an informed, transparent process for decisions that could shape their communities and environment for decades.

A report this summer by the state Public Service Commission found that the Port Washington data center and data centers being built by Microsoft in Mount Pleasant and Meta in Beaver Dam are set to be responsible for a 40% increase in statewide energy demand over the next six years. 

As part of the settlement agreement in the lawsuit, the DNR will conduct full environmental impact statements of individual data center proposals moving forward and complete a statewide strategic analysis of how data centers consume resources. 

State law and the DNR’s administrative rules allow the agency to conduct such an analysis when conflicts arise over resource demands for a  “complicated or complex issue; an issue that is new to the state; an issue or policy that will likely lead to future department actions that will require an environmental impact statement; issues for which there is a high potential for legislation or new department policy and the planning and development of controversial resource-oriented projects.”

“What started as a lawsuit over the environmental review of one data center has become an opportunity to address the data center issue on a much bigger scale,” MEA attorney Michael Greif said. “Looking at these impacts holistically is important because the impacts of data centers are statewide. State regulators will now have to examine the cumulative impacts of data center development across Wisconsin.”

Wisconsin will become one of a few states assessing the statewide impacts of data centers on their resources. In July, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed an executive order that initiated a similar analysis and last December, the Maryland Legislature enacted a law that requires a number of state agencies to study “the likely environmental, energy, and economic impacts of data center development.”

Wisconsin is facing another major test of how it plans its energy future.

We Energies has proposed a new 750-megawatt natural gas plant in Wrightstown, the Fox North Energy Center. If approved, it could begin operating around 2032 and run for 30 years or more. With Fox North added to the queue, We Energies now has roughly 4.25 gigawatts of methane gas generation awaiting Public Service Commission approval.

The utility says the buildout is needed to meet rapidly growing electricity demand and maintain reliability. Data centers are a major part of that growth.

But projected demand does not make new gas plants inevitable.

Wisconsin is being asked to make decades-long energy decisions based on electricity demand forecasts that are changing faster than our regulatory system. That is exactly why new methane gas plants must first prove they are the cleanest, lowest-cost, lowest-risk option before customers are committed to paying for them.

Before Wisconsin commits customers to decades of fuel costs and long-lived infrastructure, regulators should ask a more important question: What combination of resources can meet that demand reliably, affordably and with the least long-term risk?

That means comparing new gas plants not just with one solar farm or one battery project, but with complete portfolios of solar, wind, storage, energy efficiency, transmission, distributed resources, nuclear power and demand flexibility.

Other states, including Minnesota and North Carolina, have already shown that regulators can challenge utility assumptions and require closer examination of alternatives rather than treating new gas plants as the default response to projected load growth.

Wisconsin can do the same.

That approach is already gaining support in Wisconsin, including among labor leaders who see comprehensive energy planning as an opportunity to create good-paying jobs.

Climate Jobs Wisconsin, whose leadership includes representatives of Wisconsin building trades and construction unions, recently advanced a “35 by ’35” clean-energy and good-jobs agenda. The proposal envisions roughly 35 gigawatts of new clean-energy resources by 2035, including storage, utility-scale solar, wind, nuclear generation and networked distributed power. A plan  developed by the PSC would map what gets built, where and when, establish resource targets and create a grid-investment roadmap.

That is exactly the kind of planning Wisconsin needs.

Whether policymakers ultimately adopt those exact numbers is less important than the principle behind them: Evaluate the whole system before locking customers into decades of costs.

And expanding clean energy does not have to mean sacrificing Wisconsin’s best farmland or open space.

Renewable development can be directed toward brownfields, marginal and previously disturbed lands, rooftops, parking structures, industrial parks, sites near substations and existing infrastructure. Solar can also be integrated with agricultural production through agrivoltaics, allowing farming and energy production to coexist rather than compete.

Wisconsin should be able to protect prime agricultural land while dramatically expanding clean energy. Those goals are compatible if we plan carefully.

The jobs case matters, too.

Climate Jobs Wisconsin’s agenda is built around creating clean-energy careers with prevailing wages, registered apprenticeships and local hiring. It proposes tying those labor standards to PSC approvals and expanding Wisconsin’s ability to build new energy infrastructure with skilled union labor.

That is important because Wisconsin’s energy transition should not be framed as a choice between workers and the environment.

Done well, it is an industrial green growth strategy.

It can create careers for electricians, operating engineers, laborers, carpenters, pipefitters and other skilled trades while reducing exposure to volatile fuel costs and strengthening Wisconsin manufacturing.

The rapid growth of data centers makes this kind of comprehensive planning even more important.

Wisconsin families, farmers, manufacturers and existing businesses should not become the financial backstop for those investments.

If a gas plant is justified largely by projected data-center demand, regulators should determine how certain that demand really is, what alternatives were considered, who will pay for the plant and who bears the stranded-cost risk if forecasts change.

Transparency is equally important.

That means disclosing projected electricity and water use, infrastructure requirements, tax arrangements and long-term impacts before commitments become difficult to reverse.

It also means using transparent Community Benefit Agreements, so benefits are public, measurable and enforceable.

Transparency is not anti-development. It is how responsible development earns trust.

Wisconsin does not have an electricity shortage. It has a planning challenge.

The choice before us is not new gas or reliability. It is whether Wisconsin evaluates all available resources together before committing customers to another generation of long-term fossil fuel infrastructure costs.

The Fox North proposal gives Wisconsin another opportunity to get that right.

A new gas plant should have to prove it is necessary. It should not be treated as inevitable.

The Line 5 oil and natural gas pipeline across northern Wisconsin went back online Monday, three weeks after a broken valve caused 1.3 million gallons of natural gas liquids to spill into the nearby Iron County town of Saxon, the pipeline’s operator Enbridge said in a news release. 

The spill occurred Aug. 25 when a truck rolled forward and broke the valve as crews worked on the controversial reroute of Line 5’s path across the state from Canada. Enbridge immediately began working to bypass the broken valve and get the pipeline back up and running despite warnings from the state Department of Natural Resources that it was doing that construction without the proper permitting. 

The DNR issued a notice of noncompliance to Enbridge last week ordering it to halt its work. Despite that warning, Enbridge completed the work and said in its news release that “work continues at the site focused on safe access, environmental testing and remediation.” The company said it has worked closely with federal and local agencies to protect health and safety and that “we continue to work” with the DNR on the “relevant permitting and separately on environmental conditions at the incident site.” 

“Ongoing environmental monitoring at the site continues,” Enbridge stated. “Wildlife has not been impacted. Testing of surface water and from a nearby residential well continues to show no impacts. Water monitoring wells continue to show no contamination. Soil and water monitoring are in place, as are plans to test, remove and properly dispose of the soil in the trench.”

Since the spill, the company has argued it needs to get the pipeline back up and running as soon as possible because the fossil fuels it transports are too important. 

“Line 5 is critical infrastructure, securely supplying 10 refineries and propane production facilities that deliver energy to millions of people in the Midwest and Great Lakes regions,” the company news release states. 

Meanwhile, environmental activists, members of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and elected officials have continued to argue that the spill is confirmation that the pipeline has always been a risk to Wisconsin’s environment and should be permanently shut down.

For more than a year, the U.S. Department of Energy has repeatedly extended the lifespan of a coal plant in West Olive, Michigan, arguing the power generated at the facility was needed to help address a national energy emergency.

However, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a ruling issued Friday, said it was unpersuaded by the department’s justifications for keeping the J.H. Campbell Coal Plant online, determining that the department had exceeded the emergency authority granted by the Federal Power Act.

“There is no dispute that for almost a century states have exercised authority, preserved by the Federal Power Act, to regulate in-state power plants for the economic and environmental benefit of their citizens,” Judge Cornelia Pillard wrote for the panel. “It is the states — informed by federal, regional, and load-serving entities’ assessments of available supply and reliability needs — that bear the responsibility to plan for and avert reliability risks on an ongoing basis. To that end, states decide which generation resources must be built, expanded, reduced, or shut down.”

The panel ultimately vacated the order.

The Campbell plant’s owner, Consumers Energy, announced a plan to retire the facility in 2021. The Michigan Public Service Commission, which oversees energy companies within the state, and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, the energy grid operator for the central United States, each signed off on the plant’s retirement, with MISO determining the move would not violate its reliability criteria.

“The Department’s position would empower it to pick its preferred power sources in Michigan — or, presumably, any other state — and order them to operate without regard to the multiple procedural and substantive constraints built into state reliability planning processes,” Pillard wrote, determining that the department’s emergency authority “is best read to apply where the Department identifies a risk of substantial harm from inadequate electricity supply that calls for immediate action by DOE in particular.”

In addition to the Campbell plant, the Trump Administration extended the operation of five other plants in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Washington.

Retiring the Campbell plant was expected to save Mchigan residents $600 million by 2040. Consumers Energy’s quarterly report filed on June 30 notes that keeping the plant online has cost the company $259 million after factoring in the $239 million in revenue it received by selling power from the plant to MISO.

Consumers Energy Media Relations Specialist Brian Wheeler told Michigan Advance the company is reviewing the court’s ruling. 

“While that happens, we are continuing to comply with the current 90-day Department of Energy order that keeps the Campbell plant operating,” Wheeler said in an email. “Ultimately, we will follow the law and work to ensure that everyone who benefits from power from the Campbell plant across the Midwest pays their fair share.”

Consumers Energy is seeking to recover the cost of keeping the plant open from ratepayers in Michigan, as well as energy customers in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, challenged the Department of Energy’s order and its subsequent extensions on behalf of the people of Michigan. Friday marked the first time a decision had been made on any of those challenges. 

“I am relieved that the court saw through this facade and threw out the DOE’s order that had zero basis in reality,” Nessel said in a statement. “My office has been fighting this unlawful political stunt at every turn, and this ruling proves what we have been saying all along: this administration does not get to invent fake emergencies to bypass the rule of law against the best interests of Michigan residents. We remain committed to fighting these nonsensical orders and protecting our ratepayers.”

Earthjustice, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Clean Air Task Force and the Environmental Defense Fund also petitioned the court to set aside the order.

In the court’s ruling, Pillard notes that the U.S. Department of Energy order it reviewed had already expired, as each renewal has extended the plant’s lifespan by 90 days.

Earthjustice attorney Michael Lenoff, in an interview with the Advance, called on the department to follow the law and rescind its most recent order extending the plant’s operations through Nov. 14.

“If it doesn’t and continues to issue these unlawful emergency orders, we will challenge them in court,” Lenoff said.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has told the oil and gas company Enbridge to halt construction on the Line 5 pipeline across northern Wisconsin after a massive spill of natural gas liquids in Iron County late last month. 

The spill, which occurred near the town of Saxon and at 1.3 million gallons of natural gas liquids was the largest in the company’s history, was caused when an unoccupied truck rolled over a valve while crews were doing construction work. The company is in the process of rerouting Line 5 off the Bad River tribe’s reservation — a controversial project which has triggered numerous challenges to the DNR and federal permits. 

Since the spill, environmental activists, tribal members, candidates for office and elected officials in both Wisconsin and Michigan have renewed their calls for the pipeline to be shut down. 

After the spill, Enbridge began working to bypass the damaged valve so the pipeline could again be used to transport Canadian oil and gas. On Wednesday, the DNR issued a notice of noncompliance to the company, noting that Enbridge was constructing the bypass without the proper permits from the DNR. 

In the notice, and in an accompanying letter from DNR Secretary Karen Hyun, the agency said that it had told the company on three separate occasions it could not conduct the bypass work without approval from the state, and possibly from both the county and federal governments. 

The notice states that the bypass construction involves matting placed in nearby wetlands and close to Spoon Creek, which is considered a navigable waterway regulated by state law. 

In her letter, Hyun said she was “deeply concerned and incredibly frustrated” by Enbridge’s actions, especially the potentially harmful effects caused by the “significant discharge” of pollutants known as volatile organic compounds — which can be harmful to people’s health and the local environment. 

“Enbridge has continued to add to the growing list of environmental concerns and violations, demonstrating disregard for the environment, human health, and the statutory authority of the department,” she wrote. “Regarding the Line 5 reroute construction, Enbridge has caused additional discharges to the environment since my earlier letter, which have caused continued frustration and profound unease for the department and the people of Wisconsin. Additionally, at the location of the Line 5 Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) spill on August 25, Enbridge has made the decision to start unpermitted construction of a bypass, despite the extensive efforts of the DNR to educate Enbridge on the necessary permits and approvals for this bypass construction and a commitment to review submitted materials in a timely matter. Based on this pattern of noncompliance demonstrated by Enbridge, my concern over the environmental impacts of Enbridge’s activities over the past weeks has only heightened.”

In a statement, Enbridge spokesperson Juli Kellner said the company is working “around the clock” to clean up the spill site and return the pipeline to service. 

“Enbridge continues working towards both priorities related to the third-party line strike near Saxon, Wis. — the safe control and remediation of the incident site and completing a temporary bypass to allow the pipeline to return to service, which will help resolve energy supply disruptions,” she said. “Around the clock work on both priorities is being done in parallel. Line 5 is critical infrastructure delivering energy to millions of people in the Midwest and Great Lakes regions. We continue to work with the Wisconsin DNR on relevant permitting and separately on environmental conditions at the incident site.”

Rob Lee, an attorney for Midwest Environmental Advocates who has worked on the challenges to Enbridge’s Line 5 permits, said that the company doesn’t get to decide that restoring the pipeline is more important than following state law. 

“Enbridge knew it needed authorization before it started this work. The DNR told the company that repeatedly. Enbridge went ahead anyway. That shows extraordinary disregard for Wisconsin’s environmental laws and for the state agency charged with enforcing them,” Lee said. ““Enbridge cannot simply decide that getting Line 5 back in service is more important than following Wisconsin law. They’ve been out there moving earth, crossing waterways and disturbing wetlands without permits. They need to stop treating environmental requirements as obstacles to work around and start following the law. If they don’t, DNR should revoke the permits for the reroute.”