Reading Time: 3 minutes

Legislation is being introduced that would, for the first time in a decade, increase benefits for the most severely injured workers in Wisconsin. 

The bill, if adopted by the Republican-majority Legislature and signed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, would make a number of changes to the state’s worker’s compensation system. 

In particular, it would give raises to people declared permanently and totally disabled such as 77-year-old Jimmy Novy and paraplegic Scott Meyer.

They were featured in a September Wisconsin Watch article. It reported that more than 300 PTD recipients haven’t gotten a raise in their worker’s compensation benefits since 2016.

Novy, who lives in southwest Wisconsin, receives a worker’s comp check of $1,575 per month. Had his benefit kept pace with inflation, which rose 34%, he would have received nearly $21,000 more over the past nine years.

Meanwhile, Wisconsin employers have seen their premiums for worker’s compensation insurance decrease 10 years in a row, saving them $206 million in the past year and over $1 billion since 2017.

Unlike most workers injured on the job, who get temporary worker’s compensation benefits before returning to the job, Wisconsin PTD recipients get worker’s comp checks for life. Twenty-three states provide automatic cost-of-living raises for PTD recipients. But Wisconsin PTD recipients get raises only if worker’s comp legislation proposed every two years, known as an “agreed bill,” becomes law. 

The new agreed bill was proposed by employers and labor leaders on the state Worker’s Compensation Advisory Council. The Assembly Workforce Development, Labor and Integrated Employment Committee will hold a hearing on the bill Thursday. 

The bill would make these changes for PTD recipients:

• Make an estimated 210 more PTD recipients eligible for raises, known as supplementary benefits. Currently, only PTD recipients injured before Jan. 1, 2003, are eligible for raises. The bill would change that date to Jan. 1, 2020.
• Raise the maximum weekly benefit for PTD recipients by 57%, from $669 to $1,051, effective Jan. 1, 2026.
• Give PTD recipients annual raises, with the amounts set shortly before taking effect. The raise amounts would vary based on when the recipients were injured and their earnings at the time. 

One example, provided by the state Department of Workforce Development when the agreed bill was proposed: A PTD recipient injured in 1985 and receiving $535 a week would get a 57% increase to $840. The increase would amount to nearly $16,000 per year.

Spokespersons for the Assembly committee chair, Rep. Paul Melotik, R-Grafton, and for Sen. Dan Feyen, R-Fond du Lac, chair of the Senate Committee on Government Operations, Labor and Economic Development, said the lawmakers had not yet reviewed the bill.

Novy, while in his late 20s, learned he had been exposed to manganese, a key component in batteries, from working in a battery manufacturing plant. He suffered neurological problems that affected his left leg, severely limiting his ability to walk or even maintain his balance.

The bill would raise Novy’s monthly worker’s comp check to about $2,450 from $1,575, an annual increase of about $10,000.

“That’s about time,” Novy said Friday about the bill, eager to hear when he might see a raise in his check.

The money for worker’s compensation checks comes from worker’s compensation insurance companies and from employers who are self-insured for worker’s comp. No tax dollars are involved.

Agreement among employer and labor members on the Worker’s Compensation Advisory Council on the bill was reached after a “fee schedule” for worker’s compensation medical services was included in the 2025-27 state budget adopted in July. 

The schedule limits how much health care providers can charge for worker’s comp care.

Meyer, who lost both legs following a workplace accident in 1993 and now lives in Colorado, said he hopes that for PTD recipients on fixed incomes, the proposed raises make “a meaningful impact on their day-to-day lives.”

Appleton lawyer John Edmondson, who represents worker’s comp recipients, said the raises would be “a very nice step in the right direction, albeit coming far too late for those PTD workers who economically suffered and some who simply died waiting.”

Wisconsin worker’s comp bill would raise benefit for permanently disabled 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.

Reading Time: 9 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• The average Wisconsin farmer is nearly 57 years old, and farmers are increasingly finding that their children don’t want to take over their operations. 

• Legislation introduced by Wisconsin lawmakers would create a state-run farmland link program to connect farmers who are interested in selling or renting out their land to beginning farmers. 

• Eight states, including Minnesota and Michigan, have land link programs run in whole or in part by government agencies. 

• While advocates say the need for this type of program is real, some feel the legislation needs to include funding to be successful.

Joy Kirkpatrick spends much of her time thinking about the future of Wisconsin’s farmland. 

As a farm succession outreach specialist for the University of Wisconsin-Madison Division of Extension, she helps farmers figure out what to do with their farms when they’re ready to retire. 

A flood of farmers will soon face that question. The average Wisconsin farmer is nearly 57, and a growing share are 65 or older.  

For generations, the answer was simple: Hand off the land and operations to their kids. But farmers are increasingly finding their grown children have other plans. 

To fund their retirement, today’s farmers will often weigh whether to rent or sell their land to larger agricultural operations, real estate developers, energy companies or even private equity firms. 

Meanwhile, a new generation of aspiring farmers is struggling to get started. Many didn’t grow up on farms and don’t have the land they need. In surveys, beginning farmers nationwide say their biggest challenge is finding affordable farmland. 

Nationally, nearly 70% of all farmland is expected to change hands in the next 20 years, whether through inheritance or sale, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. What happens to that land will determine whether Wisconsin’s farmers can retire comfortably, and whether small farms have a place in the state’s future. 

“If we want land to be available to new or beginning farmers, figuring out ways that the land can be affordable for them and still provide the income that the owner generation needs is key,” Kirkpatrick said.

Experts say meeting those two goals will require a combination of strategies including tax incentives, conservation easements and loan assistance. But a group of Wisconsin lawmakers is looking to make a dent in the problem with a simple step: a website to connect those with farmland for sale or rent to those looking to start new farms.

A group of Republican lawmakers introduced Assembly Bill 411 and its Senate counterpart, SB 412, this summer. The legislation would direct the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to create a “farmland link” program to assist farmers with transferring property. Central to that effort, the bill instructs DATCP to build and maintain a website where farm owners could post land for sale or rent, and beginning farmers could inquire about the opportunities they’re looking for, including the chance to be mentored by an experienced farmer before taking the reins.

The legislation’s lead author, Rep. Clint Moses, R-Menomonie, grew up on a dairy farm and now runs a roughly 50-head beef operation. He’s watched farmland prices rise, much like home prices. 

“It’s much, much more challenging than it was even five to 10 years ago,” Moses said. 

It’s not just a cost problem, Moses said. In the past, farmers looking to pass on their land would talk to their neighbors to see who was interested. Today, those communities are often less connected, so prospective farmers need other ways to find land, Moses said. That’s the purpose of a farmland link website.

“It kind of allows them to not have to go out and sift through all the other real estate listings,” Moses said. 

Eight other states, including neighboring Minnesota and Michigan, have land link programs run in whole or in part by state or local governments. In Wisconsin, where the previous state-run program shut down around a decade ago, only regional nonprofit organizations now offer the service.

While some Wisconsin farm advocates are optimistic the bill could chip away at a tough problem, others say it lacks the funding and specifics to make it work. 

Pair finds farm of their dreams

Les Macare and Els Dobrick of Racing Heart Farm in Colfax found their 36 acres in the Farmland Clearinghouse listings, published by the Minnesota-based nonprofit Land Stewardship Project. 

It was 2016, and the two lived in Minneapolis and rented farmland in Stillwater, where they grew vegetables for Minneapolis farmers markets and a CSA.

But they were getting tired of commuting 40 minutes every morning and evening. 

“We knew either we were going to start looking for land, or not farm,” Macare said.

From the listing, the former sheep and vegetable farm in Dunn County sounded like a dream. The owners, a pair of sisters and their young families, were looking to move somewhere less rural. When Macare and Dobrick visited, the rolling hills and rocky outcroppings reminded Macare of their home state of Connecticut. 

“We got back in the car and we looked at each other like, can we make this happen? Because it was absolutely the perfect thing for our farm business, and for us,” Macare said.

Getting financing took more than nine months, but the sellers waited. That, Macare said, is one benefit of this kind of listing service: The buyers and sellers know the farm business and its particular challenges.

Many landowners who advertise through the Clearinghouse are motivated by more than money, said Karen Stettler, who oversees the listings for the Land Stewardship Project. Many have cultivated their land organically for years and want to see their farms continue the same way.

“People have a lot of connection to land and to what they’re doing on farms and so are very good stewards and caretakers of their land, and they’re wanting to make sure that the next generation also has that same sort of value and vision around stewardship,” Stettler said.

Today, Macare is grateful for the opportunity to raise their vegetables and sheep on their own land. 

“The cost of land has just gotten really astronomical,” Macare said. “I feel so lucky that we bought when we did because I don’t know that 10 years later I would be able to even consider spending what I think the value of this land is now based on seeing prices around us change.”

How would the program work?

If the proposed legislation passes, Wisconsin will offer a similar service to the one Macare used, but the one-page bill offers little detail on how it would work. 

That might be a good thing, said Dan Bauer, program supervisor for the Wisconsin Farm Center at DATCP. His office would oversee the program if the Legislature passes the bill and it’s signed into law. 

The broad nature of the bill could allow his team to create what they think will be most effective, Bauer said. 

He first heard about the bill around the time it was introduced in August, when his department was asked to estimate its cost. They budgeted $66,800 in one-time costs for building the website and $100,300 a year for a full-time staff person to help design and promote it, as well as to provide “shoulder-to-shoulder, on-the-ground, wraparound farmland access services” to site users. They added another $5,000 for initial education, outreach and marketing efforts. 

For the plan to work, Bauer said, staff will need to reach out to farmers who are preparing to transition out of farming and encourage them to advertise their land. Farmers will also need expert help before, during and after any land transfer. 

“A website by itself is not going to deliver the desired outcomes as a stand-alone,” Bauer said. “To really design and launch a program that the state would be happy with, I think it has to be a combination of the website and then also that on-the-ground coaching and advising and mentorship.”

The bill doesn’t include any appropriations, so if it passes, Bauer said the department “would have to explore its options” to cover the $172,100 total. 

While Wisconsin’s two nonprofit-run farmland link programs primarily serve farmers who use organic or “sustainable” practices, the state-run program would serve all kinds of farms and farmers, Moses said. 

Bauer and an agency spokesperson said they knew the Farm Center previously administered a similar program, but they did not know how it worked, when it operated or why it closed. Ryan LeCloux, a Legislative Reference Bureau analyst, said the prior program began in 1993 as part of DATCP’s Farmers Assistance Program and existed until at least 2015, before it was removed from the agency’s website.

In any case, Bauer said, his team would likely create the new program from scratch. “Even if we had really good information on how the last program was operated, I’m not even sure how relevant it would be when you consider just how much technology has advanced in the last 10, 15, 20 years.” 

Need is real, advocates say

Before the bill was introduced, representatives of a handful of organizations that support farmers and aspiring farmers were already discussing such a possibility. A working group convened by the Farmland Access Hub began meeting last year after members identified the idea as a top priority.

“The big elephant in the room is that Wisconsin doesn’t have a (state-run) Farm Link program,” said Mia Ljung, a member of that working group and a community development educator for Outagamie and Winnebago counties through UW-Madison Extension. 

“Not to say that it’s going to be a quick fix, but if you don’t have a Farm Link program in your state, it’s going to be much harder to make those connections between current land holders, land owners and land seekers.”

The group has been studying how such programs work in other states. That research is especially important as legislators consider the bill, Ljung said, calling the proposed budget “very slim.” 

“If the initiative will be supported by enough infrastructure, funding and outreach, I am supportive because there’s a big need,” Ljung said.

The state’s biggest farm lobby has officially backed the bill. Jason Mugnaini, executive director of government relations at the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation, said supporting Wisconsin’s current and future farmers will take a variety of strategies, from creating conservation easements to helping farm families get health insurance.

Creating a land link program would be a key step, Mugnaini said. “It’s a challenge for those young folks, so finding access to land is one of the easiest ways that they can start farming full time,” Mugnaini said.

Still, the proponents agree it will take much more to get land into the hands of a new generation of small farmers.

“It’s a good tool in the toolbox, but it’s just one part of a very difficult and challenging discussion that has to be had, not only just in Wisconsin, but throughout the United States: Who are the next generation of farmers going to be? Where are they going to find the ability to continue farming, and how are we going to continue to feed the United States of America?” Mugnaini said.

Among the other challenges to address are the reasons farmers may be reluctant to list their land. Many farmers invest nearly everything they have into their farms. This means that some don’t pay enough in Social Security taxes to qualify for payments, or the payments they receive are minimal.

Farmers often need their land to pay their bills after they retire, said Kirkpatrick, the farm succession outreach specialist.

Fearing a hefty capital gains tax bill, many farmers opt not to sell during their lifetimes. But the idea of renting to someone just getting started in a tough business may sound risky, and beginning farmers may not be able to pay as much as bigger players can.

“If the owner generation is dependent on the sale or some sort of income coming from farmland or other assets for their late years, they’re going to be making decisions that they perceive as less risky to them,” Kirkpatrick said, explaining that many will choose to rent to an established farm operation that’s looking to expand. 

Beginning farmers need affordable land, Kirkpatrick said, “and we also need to make sure that that owner generation is able to live and age gracefully.”

A land link program won’t change the economics of the market, but Kirkpatrick thinks such a website, combined with proactive succession planning, could help farmers achieve their own goals for their land.

“I think there are a lot of farm owners that would love to see their farm used in a similar way of, you know, raising a family on it … And to be honest, it would be great for rural communities to still have those farms,” Kirkpatrick said. “If this linking program helps them realize that that’s possible, that’s great.”

“I think that we need to really think about what that generation of owners need and how we can help them plan in a way that feels right for them, and also give opportunities to others,” Kirkpatrick said.

Critics call bill ‘incomplete’

Meanwhile, several other farm lobby groups in the state have taken a neutral stance on the bill. That includes state associations of producers of cattle, corn, pork and vegetables, as well as Wisconsin Farm Credit Services and the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, a nonprofit that researches and promotes sustainable farming practices. 

“This bill is incomplete as written and requires funding to be successful,” read the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute’s comments on the legislation. “However, we encourage the idea and want to explore this option further.”

Chuck Anderas, the institute’s policy director, said he’s worried that the bill doesn’t include any appropriations. 

“That doesn’t mean that there’s no plans ever to include funding for it, but it needs to be funded enough to be successful,” Anderas said. “Otherwise, it could just be like a website that doesn’t really get used all that much.” 

That could discourage farmers and land seekers who come to the site hoping for help, Anderas said.

“We’d rather see it not happen than happen in a way that sets it up to fail.”

Neither the Senate nor Assembly versions of the bill have any Democratic co-sponsors. Sen. Brad Pfaff, D-Onalaska, serves on the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Revenue, which is currently reviewing the bill. 

Pfaff said creating a farmland link program is “an excellent idea” but the bill is “incomplete.”

“Let’s hope that we can get some more meat on the bones here and be serious about the piece of legislation, and hopefully we can get it passed before the legislative session comes to an end.”

Natalie Yahr reports on pathways to success statewide for Wisconsin Watch, working in partnership with Open Campus. Email her at nyahr@wisconsinwatch.org.

Dream of buying a small farm in Wisconsin? New legislation aims to make the process easier 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.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

A new Republican bill that would exempt certain life-saving medical procedures from falling under the definition of “abortion” is drawing criticism from medical professionals despite being described by its authors as an attempt to protect reproductive health care.

Under the bill, introduced on Friday, medical procedures “designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant woman and not designed or intended to kill the unborn child” would not fall under Wisconsin’s abortion definition. They would also not be subject to state laws prohibiting funding for “abortion-related activities” and Wisconsin’s ban on abortion past 20 weeks.

The bill, authored by Rep. Joy Goeben, R-Hobart, and Sen. Romaine Quinn, R-Birchwood, specifically exempts early inductions or cesarean sections performed in cases of ectopic, anembryonic or molar pregnancies from being considered abortion so long as the physician conducting them makes “reasonable medical efforts” to save both parent and unborn child from harm.

Moreover, the bill would change the definition of “unborn child” in Wisconsin statute from “a human being from the time of conception until it is born alive” to “a human being from the time of fertilization until birth.”

OBGYN Carley Zeal, a representative for the Wisconsin Medical Society and fellow at Physicians for Reproductive Health, said “unborn child” is not a medically recognized term because doctors don’t confer personhood to a fertilized egg or fetus. Legal expert Howard Schweber told Wisconsin Watch he doesn’t expect changing the definition of “unborn child” to begin at fertilization will have a meaningful impact.

Abortion as a political issue hits deep in the heart of Wisconsin, where Marquette Law School polls since 2020 show 64% of all voters believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Democrats have campaigned in support of eliminating restrictions on abortion, while Republicans, who in 2015 passed the state’s current ban after 20 weeks of pregnancy, have sought to increase restrictions on, penalize or ban abortion completely.  

The bill follows multiple successive changes to Wisconsin’s abortion law since 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling and returned the issue of abortion to individual states — leaving Wisconsin scrambling to put together a consistent abortion policy.

The new GOP bill also seems to nod toward several high-profile national incidents of patients dying from being denied reproductive care in states with restrictive abortion bans, even when the bans include exceptions for abortion care if a patient’s life is in danger. 

One  National Institutes of Health study found that after Texas’s abortion ban was passed, maternal morbidity during the gestational period doubled from the time before the law despite it having a medical emergency clause.

Goeben and Quinn stated in a memorandum that their bill seeks to “counter misinformation spread by bad actors” about doctors not performing needed medical care for fear of being criminalized under abortion statutes. Goeben told Wisconsin Watch she consulted with physicians about the bill and believes it will reassure them of their ability to provide this care.

“A doctor may at all times, no matter where the state is at on the abortion issue, feel very confident in providing the health care that women need in these very challenging situations that women face,” Goeben said.

Medical and legal experts weigh in

Both Zeal and Sheboygan OBGYN Leslie Abitz, a member of both the state medical society, the Committee to Protect Healthcare and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said they oppose the bill. 

They argue it is an attempt by the Wisconsin Legislature to use “emotionally charged, ideologically driven, non-medical terms” to “interfere with the patient-physician relationship” in medical care.

“The stated goal of the bill — to distinguish between medical procedures from abortion — is misleading because it suggests that abortion care is not an essential part of comprehensive health care,” Abitz said. 

“A woman is putting her health and her life at risk every time she chooses to carry a pregnancy, and so she shouldn’t be mandated to put her life at risk.”

Schweber views the bill differently. While a clause in Wisconsin’s 20-week abortion ban statutes already exempts abortions performed for the “life or health of the mother,” he believes Goeben and Quinn’s bill could make hospitals and insurance companies more comfortable with authorizing lifesaving reproductive health care procedures.

“Insurance companies and hospitals or doctors, in order to err on the side of safety, will tell the doctors not to perform a procedure that is medically needed and, in fact, properly legal,” Schweber said. “(This) law is trying to prevent a chilling effect on legal medical procedures.”

Though the bill is not yet formally introduced, the Society of Family Planning, a nonprofit composed of physicians, nurses and public health practitioners specializing in abortion and contraception science, opposes it.

“The narrative that exceptions to an abortion ban — or redefining what abortion care is — can mitigate the harm of restrictive policies is based in ideology, not evidence,” Executive Director Amanda Dennis said in a statement.

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has not yet taken a position on the bill, but told Wisconsin Watch that state medical emergency clauses “do not offer adequate protection for the myriad (of) pregnancy complications people experience, resulting in substantial harm to patients” in the case of an abortion ban.

Political reaction to the bill

Prominent Democratic lawmakers, such as gubernatorial candidate Sen. Kelda Roys, D-Madison, have criticized the proposed bill as part of a series of moves by anti-abortion politicians to distance themselves from the “deadly” consequences of abortion bans. 

“The way that you protect people from legal jeopardy is by not criminalizing health care,” Roys said. “Goeben’s bill just shows how deadly and dangerous criminalizing abortion bans are. It’s an acknowledgement of the truth, which is that abortion bans kill women.”

Goeben said she is surprised by the opposition because her bill on its own does not introduce any additional penalties to abortion.

“These are the issues that the other side of the aisle has talked about, saying, ‘oh, the poor women that can’t get health care!’” Goeben said. “So I thought honestly that this would be supported by everybody, if we are really concerned about the health care of women.”

She said she would also be open to discussing amendments to the bill, which would include exemptions for abortions performed because of other medical complications such as preeclampsia or maternal sepsis.

Anti-abortion organizations Wisconsin Right to Life, Pro-Life Wisconsin, Wisconsin Catholic Conference and Wisconsin Family Action have endorsed the proposal. 

A similar bill by Quinn prior to the Wisconsin Supreme Court invalidating Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban in July died in the Senate last year. Even if the new bill is to pass through the Legislature, Gov. Tony Evers plans to veto it, spokesperson Britt Cudaback told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Looming gubernatorial, attorney general and legislative races in 2026 could decide the future of abortion laws and enforcement in the state. New legislative maps and a national midterm environment that historically has favored the party out of power in the White House gives Democrats their best chance to win control of the Legislature since 2010. 

Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the GOP frontrunner for governor, previously supported a bill planning to ban abortion after six weeks, though he has rolled back that position in recent media appearances and deleted all mention of abortion from his website.

Schweber said Wisconsin’s newly liberal majority Supreme Court will decide the future of abortion in the state. The justices must answer the cases being brought to them on whether the  state constitution guarantees a right to an abortion.

“Just because the U.S. Constitution does not secure a right to abortion does not mean that Wisconsin or Ohio or Texas constitutionally doesn’t have that right,” he said. “Each state supreme court now has to decide this profound question.”

Editor’s note: This story was updated to remove an incorrect description of the Society of Family Planning and to include additional background for Zeal and Abitz.

Medical experts criticize Republican bill that would exclude life-saving medical procedures from ‘abortion’ definition 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.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

As the demand for power increases with the rise of data centers, Wisconsin lawmakers are continuing legislative efforts to advance nuclear energy growth in the state. 

The issue has previously seen bipartisan support in the Capitol. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers in July signed two Republican-led bills into law: one that creates a board to organize a nuclear power summit in Madison and another that directs the Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities, to study new and existing locations for nuclear power and fusion generation in the state. Nuclear fusion, an emerging technology, produces more energy than nuclear fission and almost no radioactive waste, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

In a statement at the time, Evers called the bills “an important step in the right direction” toward lowering costs, growing the economy, mitigating climate change and reducing Wisconsin’s reliance on out-of-state energy sources. 

The Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee in August approved $2 million to fund the nuclear power siting study. A spokesperson for the Public Service Commission said the agency is working through “internal processes” to begin the study, including whether outside assistance is needed to complete it. A report is due to the Legislature in early 2027, just after a new governor takes office.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant in Two Rivers is Wisconsin’s lone nuclear power plant, and in late September the federal government extended its licenses to 2050 and 2053.

But the bipartisan interest in boosting Wisconsin’s role as a nuclear energy generator has opened the door for more legislation in the Capitol. State Rep. Shae Sortwell, R-Two Rivers, introduced a bill this month that he said builds off the legislation from earlier this summer. Sortwell said his proposal, Assembly Bill 472, aims to ease costs associated with building nuclear power plants through items like tax credits.

Evers’ office said the governor has not reviewed Sortwell’s bill. But in a statement, Evers said Wisconsin should invest in options to expand nuclear energy in the state.

“It’s important that we continue our work to help lower energy costs and reduce our reliance on out-of-state energy sources,” Evers said.“With new, advanced nuclear technology and the ever-increasing need for energy across our state, investing in clean energy solutions like innovative nuclear options could be a game-changer for Wisconsin, our economy, and folks across our state.”

Sortwell, who cosponsored the earlier bills, said now, while Evers is still in office, is the time to prioritize nuclear energy policy. Evers is not running for reelection, and Sortwell said an open governor’s race in 2026 could swing power in that office toward a candidate who is less supportive of growing Wisconsin’s role as a nuclear energy producer.

“I don’t want to lose this opportunity when I’ve got a Democrat governor I know who is supportive right now and I may not have one in 15 months,” Sortwell said. 

Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann and U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the two Republicans running for governor, have both signaled support for nuclear energy.

Among Democratic candidates, two so far shared their position with Wisconsin Watch. Rep. Francesca Hong, D-Madison, said she supports nuclear energy, but not incentivizing its expansion over wind and solar, and not to accelerate the development of data centers. Brewers beer vendor Ryan Strnad said he supports advancing nuclear generation.

The costs of nuclear energy

Sortwell’s bill, scheduled for a hearing Wednesday, includes several provisions, including prioritizing nuclear energy as an option to meet Wisconsin’s energy demands. But it largely focuses on the costs tied to producing nuclear energy, including allowing public utilities to raise consumer rates to recover their construction costs. 

“The issue is, nuclear power can have a little bit longer of a time to actually get up and operational,” Sortwell said. “It could take several years and those costs then just kind of build up on the front end.” 

The bill would create a tax credit for new nuclear energy generation, which a company could claim over the course of 20 years. EnergySolutions and WEC Energy Group in May announced plans to build a new plant at the Kewaunee Power Station, which would be able to take advantage of the tax credits in the bill upon operating, Sortwell said. 

It also allows public utility companies through their rates to recover expenses related to developing nuclear energy sites. Those costs could include dollars for site evaluations or regulatory filings, according to the bill. 

But that should be a concern for customers, who would see those expenses in their bills before these plants are even built, said Tom Content, the executive director of the Citizens Utility Board. He pointed to a 2024 We Energies and Wisconsin Public Service request to collect about $200 million from ratepayers for costs associated with building natural gas projects. The Public Service Commission denied the request in July 2024. 

“When we’re thinking about the bottom line for customers in the context of bills that are already rising more than inflation, we really need to keep our eye on what people are paying every month for energy and how we can keep that affordable,” Content said. 

The bill also eases the regulatory process for private power producers that may seek to generate nuclear energy for “very large customers,” such as data centers, Sortwell said. The legislation would require the Public Service Commission to approve rates and charges if the power generated is nuclear energy within 75 miles of the “very large customer.” Those specifications could put less of a strain on Wisconsin’s power grid, Sortwell said. 

Notable

Both the Senate and the Assembly have floor sessions scheduled Tuesday. The Assembly is expected to vote on several law-enforcement-related bills including: 

• Assembly Bill 136, which would raise the penalty for impersonating a law enforcement officer, firefighter or emergency medical personnel from a misdemeanor to a felony. 
• Senate Bill 25, which would limit additional investigations into law enforcement officers if a district attorney determines there is no basis to prosecute them for an officer-involved civilian death. Sen. Rob Hutton, R-Brookfield, cited former Wauwatosa police officer Joseph Mensah as an example for the bill in a February letter to the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety. 

The Senate’s Committee on Universities and Technical Colleges will hold a public hearing Wednesday on Senate Bill 498, which prevents Universities of Wisconsin schools and technical colleges from “restricting free speech protected under the 1st Amendment” and limiting “expressive rights and academic freedom” of instructors. The bill, which was filed in the weeks after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, would allow the attorney general, a district attorney or a person whose rights were violated to sue the UW System Board of Regents or a technical college district board. 

Editor’s note: This story was updated to correct the amount We Energies and Wisconsin Public Service requested from ratepayers. The correct amount requested was $200 million.

Nuclear energy gains bipartisan steam in Wisconsin heading into a pivotal 2026 election season 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.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

A bill with bipartisan support scheduled for a committee vote on Tuesday could restore funding for Wisconsin veterans homes in Green Bay and Chippewa Falls that closed in September due to funding cuts in the 2025-27 state budget.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers told Wisconsin Watch he would sign the Republican-sponsored bill, even though it includes additional items that are not part of a Democratic “clean” proposal that only funds the veterans homes. But it’s unclear if the bill will pass the Republican-controlled Assembly.

Senate Bill 411, from Sen. André Jacque, R-New Franken, would provide the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs $1.95 million over the biennium to increase funding for the costs of running the agency’s Veterans Housing and Recovery Program, which supports veterans at risk of homelessness. The dollars would also cover costs for leasing a new facility in Chippewa Falls. Klein Hall, which housed VHRP veterans there, was nearly 50 years old and needed repairs, staff told Wisconsin Watch this summer. 

Veterans organizations, Republicans and Democrats spoke in favor of the bill at a public hearing in September, and no one spoke against it. The bill also requires the Universities of Wisconsin System Board of Regents to fund the Missing-in-Action Recovery and Identification Project and reduces the disability rating threshold for veterans or their surviving spouses to claim property tax credits. 

But the bill’s path beyond Tuesday’s executive session vote in the Senate’s Committee on Natural Resources, Veteran and Military Affairs, which Jacque leads, remains unclear at this point. 

Even if Jacque’s bill makes it to Evers’ desk for his signature, it would still take “a few months” to reopen the Green Bay facility and at least a year for a site to reopen in Chippewa Falls, said Colleen Flaherty, a spokesperson for the WDVA. The Chippewa Falls timeline is longer because the WDVA would have to apply for a new round of federal grants, Flaherty said.

Still, Jacque said in a statement to Wisconsin Watch that he was “heartened” by the support for SB 411 so far. 

“I look forward to continuing discussions with the Department of Veterans Affairs and fellow committee members to get this legislation to the governor as quickly as possible,” he said. 

How we got here

SB 411 is one of several legislative proposals brought forward after the state’s two-year budget passed without additional funds to cover the rising costs of running veterans homes across the state. 

Evers originally proposed $1.9 million in new funding for the low-cost housing option, but the Legislature’s Republican-led budget writing committee removed those dollars during the legislative process.  

Political finger-pointing followed as the state prepared to close the Green Bay and Chippewa Falls facilities. Evers placed the blame on the Republicans in the Legislature. Republican lawmakers, such as Sen. Eric Wimberger, R-Oconto, argued Evers and the WDVA already had funding to keep the veterans homes open. 

According to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the WDVA receives an appropriation for “general program administration,” which has been underspent its funding by $600,000 to $2 million in each of the last six fiscal years. The agency has broad enough stipulations that it could use extra funds to support the veterans housing program. 

But it’s possible the WDVA believes the Legislature did not intend to continue to support the veterans homes when it did not approve the specific funding proposed during the budget process, the LFB said. Flaherty, with the WDVA, said the agency “needs legislative approval for the funding.”

Evers spokesperson Britt Cudaback said the governor is “hopeful” the Legislature will “work quickly” and pass SB 411 in its current form, which he would sign into law.

“While it’s great to see that Republicans have now decided they support Gov. Evers’ budget requests, it’s disappointing they chose not to approve these investments months ago when they had the chance, which could have prevented two facilities serving homeless veterans from closing,” Cudaback said. 

Wimberger, in a statement to Wisconsin Watch, continued to place the blame on Evers.

“I’m not opposed to Senator Jacque’s bill,” Wimberger said. “However, Governor Evers is extorting the Legislature since the program already has funding. If paying twice makes Governor Evers stop sending veterans out on the streets, maybe we do that.” 

What’s next for SB 411?

Should SB 411 move beyond the Senate’s committee, it would then go to the full Senate for consideration. The chamber has not met since early July. 

It’s also unclear how far SB 411 would go in the Assembly. State Rep. William Penterman, R-Hustisford, who leads the Assembly Committee on Veterans and Military Affairs, did not respond to questions from Wisconsin Watch on if he would hold a hearing on Jacque’s bill. 

Two Assembly bills that also seek to restore veterans home funding, one from Democrats and another from Republicans, have not received any public hearings yet. Nor has another Senate Democratic-sponsored bill, which would only provide funding for veterans homes. 

In the meantime, the WDVA found new placements for all of the veterans who previously called the Green Bay and Chippewa Falls sites home. The last veteran left Chippewa Falls on Sept. 9 and Green Bay on Sept. 12, Flaherty said. 

Can Wisconsin’s split government pass a bill to support homeless veterans? 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.