More people participating in the citizen science project Globe At Night could help fill gaps in what astronomers know about the extent of skyglow.
The post Help scientists document Midwest light pollution by looking at Orion appeared first on WPR.
In Port Washington, Wisconsin, many residents oppose a $15 billion data center campus that’s currently under construction for end-users Oracle and OpenAI. (No Data Centers in Ozaukee County Facebook group)
Big Tech is here in Wisconsin, looking to make Wisconsin families and small businesses pay for data centers. The Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) is about to make a decision that will affect all of us: We Energies has proposed a new rate structure on data centers that, as drafted, favors profits and protections for Big Tech companies and We Energies executives themselves, but putting Wisconsinites at risk to subsidize the costs. Here’s what’s going on and how you can do something about it.
We Energies, the largest and most profitable utility in the state, is preparing to spend $19.3 billion on electric generation due to data center proposals from Microsoft, Oracle, Vantage, and OpenAI.4. This is largely to build new gas plants in order to power the massive energy needs of Big Tech’s data centers. Here’s the problem: If sufficient protections aren’t in place now, the costs of these expensive gas plants may be forced onto families and small businesses, driving up people’s bills to keep the lights on and heat their homes in the winter.
We Energies’ proposals put us at risk for higher utility bills without fully ensuring that Big Tech is paying their fair share. As it currently stands, more expensive data centers likely means higher costs for all of us. Tech companies should be responsible for covering the cost of service needed to power their data centers, including the cost of building out power to service these high energy demands.
In addition to their problematic proposal, We Energies is proposing to add huge volumes of natural gas plants to feed these power-hungry data centers, which are expensive to build and take decades to pay off. These so-called “stranded assets” end up costing us more money for many years down the line, at times even when they are no longer in service. With rapidly changing AI technology, there is a very real risk that Big Tech does not move forward with planned data centers because they’re no longer profitable or needed. In short, data centers create short-term gains for Big Tech and We Energies with long-term consequences for Wisconsinites.
We Energies’ proposal encourages Big Tech to make decisions behind closed doors, without considering Wisconsinites or how their decisions will impact Wisconsin lands, waters and natural resources. We should all be suspicious of this. What’s happening in these meetings that We Energies and Big Tech don’t want us to know about? If Big Tech builds data centers in Wisconsin communities, Wisconsin communities deserve to know what deals are being made with the utilities.
Transparency and accountability are crucial. Big Tech and utilities like We Energies must make their data center reporting, planning and financials publicly available, so that regulators like the PSC can implement protections and ensure Wisconsinites aren’t being taken advantage of. We deserve to always know how and why our electric and gas bills are being affected.
If We Energies builds new gas plants to power Big Tech’s data centers, all of us will live with greater risks of rising gas and electricity prices as well as environmental impacts to our communities. If Big Tech wants to come into our state and use our state resources, they shouldn’t be putting us in jeopardy, they should be the ones taking on the risks.
As we prepare for the PSC to make a decision on data centers, we need to make our voices heard to decision makers: Big Tech and We Energies don’t get to decide what’s best for Wisconsin. You have a role to play in shaping the policies that affect you. Attend the virtual public hearing on Feb. 10 or by submitting a comment by Feb. 17.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
State and federal proposals to regulate and restrict medication abortion are expected to continue in 2026 as abortion opponents claim, without strong evidence, that abortion medication is dangerous to patients and the environment. (Getty Images)
Going into the fourth year without federal abortion rights protections, groups that helped overturn Roe v. Wade are focused on cutting off access to abortion pills. As multiple lawsuits over the abortion drug mifepristone unfold, state and federal proposals to regulate and restrict medication abortion are expected to continue in 2026. Abortion opponents argue that medication abortion, despite its strong safety record, is dangerous to patients and the environment.
Abortion bans are largely unpopular, but heading into a midterm election year, some lawmakers in states with strict abortion bans have already prefiled bills to add new restrictions. Here’s a look at early legislative trends emerging in abortion-related bills recently introduced or prefiled ahead of the new year.
Over the last few years, the national anti-abortion group Students for Life of America has spread unfounded claims that mifepristone pollutes U.S. waterways and drinking water, drafted model legislation to regulate the disposal of medication abortions, and requested environmental studies at the federal and state level.
In 2025, lawmakers in at least seven states introduced bills to create environmental restrictions for the abortion drug mifepristone or order environmental studies. Bills introduced this year in Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming would have required testing community water systems for traces of mifepristone.
Bills in Maine, Montana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming would have required providers to give patients medical waste kits to collect and return the tissue following a medication abortion. Women commonly flush the tissue associated with medication abortion and miscarriages, which typically occur during the first trimester.
These bills, except Pennsylvania’s, would have also mandated in-person dispensing of the medication and follow-ups, effectively banning telehealth abortion.
None of these proposals passed, but they are likely to be reintroduced in 2026 as abortion opponents continue to push for environmental regulation of abortion pills, including at the federal level.
In June, 25 congressional Republicans sent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a letter inquiring about potential avenues for regulating mifepristone, as the New York Times reported. And as Politico recently reported, Students For Life lobbied the agency to add mifepristone to its recently updated list of contaminants that utilities will have to track in drinking water. It’s too late to include a new drug on the list, which is updated every five years.
But according to Politico, EPA staffers advised anti-abortion activists to use an upcoming public comment period to drum up requests that the agency include active metabolites in mifepristone. The EPA collects nationwide data on the chemicals on this list, which could be used to set future federal limits.
In Florida, where abortion is banned at six weeks’ gestation, lawmakers recently advanced HB 289 ahead of the 2026 session, which would allow parents to file wrongful death lawsuits for the loss of a developing fetus and to claim damages for mental pain and loss of support. Its companion bill, SB 164, filed for the third year in a row by Republican Sen. Erin Grall, faces an uphill battle in the Florida Senate, reported the Florida Phoenix, which noted that jurors could be asked to consider the salary the fetus could have earned over its life as part of damages to which parents could be entitled.
Groups opposing the legislation as far-reaching and likely to increase liability exposure for OB-GYNs who specialize in high-risk pregnancies include the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, the Florida Justice Reform Institute and the Doctors Company, the nation’s largest physician-owned medical malpractice carrier.
One of the bill’s leading champions, Andrew Shirvell, founder and executive director of Florida Voice for the Unborn, told state House Judiciary Committee members they should continue expanding “civil remedies afforded under Florida law to hold accountable those who continue to take the lives of unborn children illegally in our state.”
Another bill, HB 663, would allow a family member to sue someone for providing or attempting to provide an abortion up to two years after the fact with up to $100,000 in damages, even if the woman consented or if the abortion was performed in another state or country where the procedure is legal.
Even though Missouri voters in 2024 approved an amendment to protect abortion rights in the state constitution, broad access has not returned to the state. Between January and October, there were only 80 in-clinic abortion procedures in Missouri, according to state data, with an additional 79 abortions in hospitals and identified as medical emergencies.
A trial in January could determine whether Missouri’s anti-abortion laws violate the voter-approved amendment. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers have put a new constitutional amendment on the 2026 ballot that would ban nearly all abortions in the state with limited exceptions.
In 2023, Ohio voters approved a constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights through fetal viability, and prohibiting the state from interfering with or penalizing someone for exercising that right. But Republicans have been advancing anti-abortion bills to create restrictions that make accessing abortion more difficult without directly flouting the amendment.
During this legislative session, which ends Dec. 31, state Sen. Kyle Koehler introduced SB 309, which could add steps to accessing medication abortion and would require doctors to deliver a state-mandated script about the dangers of mifepristone. It would also allow patients, their parents if they’re underage, or the father of the fetus to sue if they feel the patient was uninformed when taking the pill.
In November, the Ohio House passed HB 485, which would require students in fifth through 12th grade to watch either a “Meet Baby Oliva” fetal development video created by the national anti-abortion group Live Action, or a similar video. Live Action’s video has been criticized by reproductive health advocates for not being fully medically accurate or comprehensive. Similar bills have been introduced in dozens of states this year, and have been enacted in Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota and Tennessee.
Privacy concerns around reproductive health in the post-Roe era persist nationally. Lawmakers in states that protect abortion rights continue to try to shore up medical and data privacy protections for abortion, which is almost completely illegal in more than a dozen states.
In Indiana, where the legislative session began in December, Sen. La Keisha Jackson introduced SB 109. Under the measure, a health care provider’s report about an abortion submitted to the Indiana health department as a medical record would be confidential and not subject to disclosure as a public record. In a state lawsuit brought by two OB-GYNs from Indianapolis, an appeals court in December upheld the privacy of these records, known as terminated pregnancy reports.
In Washington state, Democratic lawmakers are still drafting legislation that would regulate license plate readers following reports that authorities in Texas searched thousands of cameras, as far as Washington and Illinois, to find a woman they believed had a self-administered medication abortion.
State abortion restrictions typically hold health providers liable, but women have been jailed or prosecuted for their pregnancy outcomes. One Democratic lawmaker in Alabama, where abortion is banned throughout pregnancy except to save the pregnant person’s life, has introduced legislation that comes with steep penalties for men convicted of rape or incest that resulted in pregnancy.
Democratic Rep. Juandalynn Givan’s prefiled HB 46 would authorize abortion to preserve the health of the mother or if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. It would also require men convicted of rape or incest to pay for the abortion, and undergo either vasectomy or castration, as determined by the court. As the Alabama Reflector reported, the bill is unlikely to be considered, but for Givan it’s really about starting a broader conversation of bodily autonomy.
“We have already set a double standard,” Givan said. “Have you seen a bill crafted that tells a man what he cannot … do with his body? You have not, outside of the standard laws that speaks to rape and incest, and we already know that that is definitely a crime.”
In his first year back in office, President Donald Trump rescinded many of the Biden-era policies intended to expand abortion access, including the previous administration’s interpretation that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act covers abortions necessary to save a pregnant person’s life even in a state that has banned abortion.
More major federal policy decisions around abortion are anticipated in 2026. The Food and Drug Administration agreed to review mifepristone’s safety, but abortion opponents recently called for FDA Commissioner Martin Makary to be fired, accusing him of slow-walking the review until after the midterm elections in November.
Just a few months before that, in July, a controversial Medicaid policy effectively defunding Planned Parenthood clinics and other nonprofit clinics that provide abortions, is slated to expire. Whether Republicans will renew the funding restriction or let it lapse — allowing the nation’s largest network of reproductive health clinics to continue serving Medicaid patients for services unrelated to abortion — remains to be seen.
This story was originally produced by News From The States, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
State environmental regulators can require large livestock farms to obtain permits that seek to prevent manure spills and protect state waters, a state appeals court has ruled.
Last year, a Calumet County judge ruled in favor of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in a case challenging the agency’s authority to require permits for concentrated animal feeding operations or CAFOs. Those farms have at least 1,000 animal units or the equivalent of 700 milking cows.
In 2023, the WMC Litigation Center sued the DNR on behalf of the Wisconsin Dairy Alliance and Venture Dairy Cooperative. They argued that agency rules that require CAFO permits and regulate stormwater runoff from farms can’t be legally enforced because they’re inconsistent with state and federal law.
In a decision Wednesday, a three-judge panel upheld the lower court’s decision.
“Because we conclude the two challenged rules do not conflict with state statutes and do not exceed the DNR’s statutory authority, we affirm the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the DNR,” the panel wrote.
A DNR spokesperson said it’s reviewing the decision and unable to comment further at this time.
An attorney for farm groups had argued the DNR can’t go beyond federal requirements under state law, adding that state and federal laws exempt farms from regulation of their stormwater runoff.
Federal appeals court rulings in 2005 and 2011 found the Clean Water Act doesn’t allow the Environmental Protection Agency to require CAFOs to get wastewater discharge permits until they actually release waste into waterways. The three-judge panel noted state permitting programs may impose more stringent requirements than the EPA’s permitting program.
In a joint statement, Wisconsin Dairy Alliance and Venture Dairy Cooperative said the decision is disappointing for Wisconsin’s ag community.
“We believe that there is no place for bad actors and that polluters should face penalties, but this case had nothing to do with weakening environmental laws. Our sole mission in challenging the DNR’s authority was to ensure that Wisconsin farmers are held to standards consistent with federal law,” the groups wrote.
“We continue to believe that a ‘presumption of guilt’ runs contrary to the very fundamentals of the American justice system. We are disappointed with today’s outcome and will continue to fight for Wisconsin farmers regardless of the size of their farm,” the groups continued.
The ruling affects the state’s 344 CAFOs. Under permits, large farms must take steps to prevent manure spills and runoff that include developing response plans, nutrient management plans and restricting manure spreading when there’s high risk of runoff from storms.
Midwest Environmental Advocates is among environmental groups that intervened in the case. They said the legal challenge could have severely limited the DNR’s ability to protect state waters from manure pollution, noting CAFOs can house thousands of cows that produce more waste than small cities.
Adam Voskuil, an MEA attorney, said the ruling affirms environmental regulations.
“We’re continuing to protect water resources in the state, and (it’s) a prevention of rolling back really important, necessary regulations,” Voskuil said.
Without them, Voskuil said the DNR would be responsible for proving whether each individual CAFO has discharged pollutants to surface water or groundwater. He said it’s likely the agency wouldn’t have the resources to do that work, meaning many farms wouldn’t be permitted or taking required steps to prevent pollution.
Darin Von Ruden, president of the Wisconsin Farmers Union, said there has to be oversight of any industry.
“There needs to be some kind of authority that can call out the bad actors and make sure our water supply is safe,” Von Ruden said.
The Wisconsin Department of Justice has been defending DNR in the case. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul has previously said the state should be strengthening protections for state waterways, not weakening them.
Manure has been linked to nitrate contamination of private wells. Nitrate contamination can lead to blue-baby syndrome, thyroid disease and colon cancer. Around 90 percent of nitrate in groundwater can be traced back to agriculture.
The lawsuit is not the first to challenge DNR’s authority to require permits for CAFOs. In 2017, the Dairy Business Association sued the agency in part over its permit requirements, dropping that claim as part of a settlement with the DNR. Large farms have also challenged the agency’s authority to impose permit conditions on their operations. In 2021, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the DNR had authority to impose permit requirements on large farms to protect water quality.
This story was originally published by WPR.
Wisconsin DNR can require CAFO permits to protect water, appeals court rules 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.
Login