Canadian energy firm Enbridge will reimburse Ashland County for the cost of policing protests that are anticipated with construction of its Line 5 reroute under a deal arranged by the Wisconsin Counties Association.

The post Ashland County approves deal to get paid for policing protests of Enbridge’s Line 5 reroute appeared first on WPR.

A coalition of Wisconsin environmental advocacy groups filed a lawsuit Monday challenging an administrative law judge’s decision to uphold the Department of Natural Resource’s permit approval to reroute the Enbridge Line 5 oil pipeline across northern Wisconsin. 

The petition, filed in Iron County Circuit Court by Clean Wisconsin and Midwest Environmental Advocates on behalf of the Sierra Club, 350 Wisconsin and the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, argues that the administrative law judge ignored extensive evidence that the pipeline reroute will damage local waterways. 

A similar lawsuit has also been filed by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. The tribe for years has fought against the pipeline, which currently runs across its land. The reroute is happening because a federal judge previously ruled the pipeline must be moved off tribal land, but the tribe argues the new proposed route will continue to harm its water resources. 

The administrative judge upheld the DNR’s permit decision after six weeks of hearings last year. The petitions from the environmental groups and the tribe move the case from the administrative legal process to the state’s court system. Separately, a challenge has been made against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Line 5 permit decisions. 

“We are more committed than ever to protecting Wisconsin’s waters from the irreversible harm this project threatens to cause. We believe the administrative ruling incorrectly decided critical legal and factual issues, and we are confident that our efforts to hold DNR and Enbridge accountable to Wisconsin’s environmental laws will ultimately be vindicated,” MEA Senior Staff Attorney Rob Lee said in a statement.

After years of states pushing legislation to accelerate the development of data centers and the electric grid to support them, some legislators want to limit or repeal state and local incentives that paved their way.

President Donald Trump also has changed his tone. Last year he issued an executive order and other federal initiatives meant to support accelerated data center development. Then last month, he cited rising electricity bills in saying technology companies that build data centers must “pay their own way,” in a post on Truth Social.

As the momentum shifts, lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation that aims to rein in data center development by repealing tax exemptions, adding conditions to certain incentives or placing moratoriums on data center projects. Virginia lawmakers, for example, are considering ending a data center tax break that costs the state about $1.6 billion a year.

“Who is actually benefiting from these massive data centers that, in many cases, are the size of one or two shopping malls combined?” asked Michigan Democratic state Rep. Erin Byrnes, who introduced a proposal to repeal the state’s data center tax exemptions. “They have a large footprint in terms of land and energy usage. And by and large, it’s not going to be the average resident who lives near a data center who’s going to benefit.”

Over the past few years, more data centers have been built in an effort to meet the demand for digital processing power, which has rapidly increased as more artificial intelligence systems come online. Data centers house thousands of servers that are responsible for storing and transmitting data required for internet services to work.

But as local communities voice growing outrage over rising electricity prices and environmental concerns brought by data centers, such as water and energy use, lawmakers in several states are hoping to slow data center development. By limiting incentives or placing moratoriums on new projects, state legislators are hoping to give themselves more time to determine whether the massive facilities are worth losing millions or more in tax revenue each year.

Some experts also say that developers and tech companies have exaggerated some of the benefits they bring to local communities. While the promise of new jobs sounds attractive, local leaders may face other concerns, such as the effects of diverting construction resources away from other purposes and higher energy costs caused by AI, said Michael Hicks, an economics professor at Ball State University in Indiana.

“A lot of households — and the people that are elected by households — and local governments are becoming more unnerved by the public pushback to data centers,” Hicks said.

Tech developers and data center operators are concerned, however, that the changes could hurt the rapidly growing industry. And most states and localities already require developers using incentives to follow certain requirements, said Dan Diorio, the vice president of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, a lobbying group for the data center industry.

State lawmakers have to consider how changes to incentive programs could upend years of construction, which has long-term business impacts, Diorio said.

“I think data centers are very much the backbone of the 21st-century economy,” he said. “We’re generating economic activity in states, contributing to state-level GDP, contributing significantly to labor income and state and local tax revenue, and creating significant amounts of jobs. I mean, we’re just jumping into something preemptively here.”

Incentives granted

At least 37 states offer incentives that are available to data centers, including sales tax exemptions and property tax abatements, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Sales tax exemptions, the most common incentive, allow data center developers to buy computers and other equipment at a much lower cost.

“I think these are one of many factors that the data centers are looking at, along with the cost of electricity, the cost of construction, land and things like that,” said Nicholas Miller, a policy associate at NCSL. “These incentives are one way that states are trying to pitch themselves as competitive to this industry.”

In 2020, Maryland implemented a program that exempts data centers from sales and use taxes if they provide at least five jobs within three years of applying to the program and invest at least $2 million in data center personal property. The first four years of the program cost the state $22 million — but $11 million of that came in 2024 alone, as the costs grew, Democratic state Del. Julie Palakovich Carr said.

Concerned about this and the impact of data centers on residents’ electricity bills, Palakovich Carr introduced legislation this year that would repeal the state’s sales and use tax exemptions for personal property used at data centers. The measure, which is under consideration in the House, would also restrict localities in the state from eliminating or reducing assessments for personal property used in data centers, which drew opposition from the Maryland Association of Counties.

The amount of money states are forfeiting to provide tax breaks for data centers is increasingly concerning, Palakovich Carr said.

“Unfortunately, that’s the turn we’re seeing across many other states,” she said. “The price starts out maybe in line with what we think it’s going to be. But over time it just costs more and more.”

Similar bills that would repeal or halt state incentives for data centers have been filed in Arizona and Georgia.

“When we look at potential subsidies for businesses, I’m really looking at it from a frame of incentivizing new behavior rather than just giving away money for things that the companies were going to already do anyways,” Palakovich Carr said. “I think it’s really important that once these things get put in place, we look at the data and see what’s happening on the ground.”

In 2024, Michigan enacted sales and use tax exemptions on certain data centers through at least 2050.

Now, with developers looking at more than a dozen sites for potential data centers, public sentiment has soured, said Byrnes, who had voted against the measure. Communities across the state began organizing in an effort to stop data centers from coming to their neighborhoods because of environmental concerns and energy costs, she said.

The outcry prompted Byrnes to co-sponsor a bipartisan package of three bills that would repeal the 2024 law.

“We’re taking a stand with this legislation to say that we don’t believe data centers should be offered these exemptions,” she said. “I believe it aligns with public sentiment.”

Lawmakers in a handful of states — including New York, Oklahoma and Vermont — have filed bills that would place a temporary moratorium on all data center projects and require studies of their impacts.

Georgia Democratic state Rep. Ruwa Romman introduced a measure this session that would put a moratorium on new data center projects until March 2027. The proposal would give the legislature time to study the impact of data centers on the state’s natural resources, environment and other areas.

“We have such a beautiful state and it would be a damn shame to completely and utterly wreck it and its landscape for short-term gain,” Romman said. “These data centers aren’t bringing jobs. They’re saying they’re bringing the revenue, but there’s a ton of fine print on the revenue that’s coming in. So, I’ve been urging my colleagues from every side of the political spectrum to just take a beat.”

In 2021, the Oklahoma legislature approved a measure from current Republican House Speaker Kyle Hilbert that excludes new data centers from qualifying for an exemption program that allows certain manufacturers not to pay property taxes for their first five years in business. Any data centers that qualified for the program in the five years prior to the law, however, can continue to apply for exemptions.

This year, as more project proposals were made, Hilbert introduced legislation to ensure no data centers could “slip through the cracks.”

“These aren’t the days of being able to build a data center, cut deals with NDAs, then start turning dirt before the constituents even know what’s happened,” Hilbert said. “Those days are over, and data centers need to be proactive in their messaging and talking to people about their concerns.”

Costs vs. benefits

Last year, Virginia, home to the most data centers in the country, gave up $1.6 billion in sales and use tax revenues from data centers, state data shows. That’s a 118% increase from the previous year, according to a report from Good Jobs First, a watchdog group that focuses on economic development incentives. Another report from the group said Georgia is expected to lose at least $2.5 billion to data center sales tax exemptions this year, 664% higher than the state’s previous estimate.

Virginia state lawmakers are considering legislation that would require data centers to achieve high energy efficiency standards and decrease their use of diesel backup generators in order to be eligible for the state’s sales and use tax exemption. The measure, which passed the House, is now moving through the Senate.

Before the end of his term, former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, suggested a provision in his proposed state budget that would extend the data center tax incentive from 2035 to 2050. The Senate’s budget bill, however, would end the incentive altogether on Jan. 1, 2027. It’s not clear if state leaders, including current Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger, support the measure.

While states can put a specific number on the tax losses, it’s much more difficult to determine how much data centers contribute to local communities and the state, Miller said.

Virginia brings in a significant amount of revenue from the property taxes for each facility. Local construction firms, restaurants and other small businesses also benefit from ongoing projects, he said.

“This is the big question,” Miller said. “With all economic development projects, it’s generally a lot easier to measure the cost of the incentive directly versus the benefits.”

The changing incentive landscape may cause instability within the data center industry, said Diorio, of the Data Center Coalition. Data center projects are large-scale capital investments that play out for several years, but changing policies could upend that progress.

“When states look at these policies or consider abrupt ends to programs, that creates significant market uncertainty,” Diorio said. “It will have a significant long-term impact on the viability of that market for data center development. Industries are very responsive to market signals, and any kind of uncertainty will bring up a red flag because you’re looking to invest for the long haul.”

Stateline reporter Madyson Fitzgerald can be reached at mfitzgerald@stateline.org.

Do solar panels work in cold or cloudy climates? 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.

A new utility-backed study finds it may cost the city of Superior around $300 million to move ahead with a contested takeover of electric, water and gas utilities run by a privately-owned company.

The post Superior wants to take over a private utility’s assets. One study puts the price around $300M appeared first on WPR.

The state Public Service Commission is partnering with the University of Wisconsin-Madison to identify potential sites for nuclear power plants in Wisconsin.

The post Wisconsin PSC, UW-Madison partnering to identify possible nuclear plant sites appeared first on WPR.

Data centers, artificial intelligence and fossil fuels are dominating headlines. Across the  United States, more than $350 billion was invested in AI and data-center infrastructure, with  tens of billions of dollars proposed in Wisconsin. Investment and economic development are  often framed as unequivocal wins, but energy infrastructure is different. If built without  foresight, the consequences will reshape the future. 

Growth is certain; however the balance between positive and negative growth is yet to be  determined. 

I have worked in Wisconsin’s energy sector since 2019, beginning in residential and  commercial solar. Over the years, I’ve seen energy debates around renewable energy become  increasingly politicized, even as their original purpose remains unchanged: to produce reliable  electricity, reduce dependence on fragile infrastructure, and give communities more control  over their energy supply. Yet, the existing industry stakeholders have blocked deployment and  ownership for everyone but themselves. While homeowners, farmers, tribal nations and  small businesses face mounting restrictions on deploying their own power systems, the state  has moved quickly to approve massive new energy loads for data centers. These agreements  are also accompanied by preferential rate structures, infrastructure guarantees and the ability  to negotiate. 

That contradiction should concern all of us. 

Wisconsin residents have grown accustomed to electric rate increases justified by grid  maintenance, system upgrades and long-term reliability. According to federal energy data,  Wisconsin already ranks among the top 15 states for electricity costs, and utilities have  signaled additional increases in the years ahead. At the same time, power reliability has  deteriorated in both rural and urban areas. 

In parts of Milwaukee, aging poles lean precariously, and low-hanging lines form tangled  webs that look untouched for decades. In rural Wisconsin, the impacts are similar. Tribal  nations such as the Sokaogon Chippewa and the Menominee Nation have experienced  long-duration outages lasting days or even weeks, disrupting health care, food systems and  economic activity. These are not isolated incidents; they are symptoms of an overstretched  and unevenly maintained grid. 

Against this backdrop, Wisconsin is welcoming some of the most energy-intensive facilities  on the planet. A single large data center can consume as much electricity as a small city,  operating around the clock, every day of the year. The rise of AI only accelerates this demand.  Unlike the rest of the state, these facilities do not proceed without firm assurances of power  availability, reliability, transmission access,and cost certainty. 

Data centers operate under a different set of rules.  

Utilities and regulators are willing to negotiate specialized rate structures, accelerate  infrastructure investments, and prioritize reliability. Meanwhile, everyday ratepayers, who  collectively use far less power and have far less leverage, are asked to shoulder rising costs  and accept declining service quality.  

This is not a free market. Wisconsin’s energy industry has become an unregulated monopoly.  Large utilities control generation, transmission and distribution, and they largely determine  who is allowed to produce power and under what terms. While utilities have invested heavily  in renewable energy they own, they continue to restrict external ownership and  community-scale generation knowing that distributed energy can reduce peak demand,  improve resilience, and lower long-term system costs.  

If utilities can justify new power plants, substations and transmission lines for data centers,  they must also explain why a similar urgency does not apply to grid reliability, ownership  opportunities for distributed energy systems and lower rates for Wisconsin residents. Why is  Wisconsin able to deliver gigawatts of electricity to data centers, yet unable to address  persistent grid failures in communities that have been struggling for decades?  

This moment calls for accountability, not ideology. Wisconsin deserves transparency in how  data center energy deals are structured, who bears the costs of new infrastructure and how  reliability risks are distributed. Ratepayers deserve to know why the largest electricity users  receive the greatest assurances, while households, businesses and communities are told to  accept less while paying more. Economic growth should not come at the expense of affordability,  resilience or fairness. If Wisconsin is going to power the future of AI and digital  infrastructure, it must also protect the people and communities that power Wisconsin itself.  

This energy crisis is not inevitable. It is the result of choices. And those choices will  determine whether Wisconsin’s energy future delivers reliable power for all, or a system  defined by higher costs, more frequent outages and growing divides between communities. 

Data centers and local communities would be barred from working in secret under legislation that received a public hearing before a state Senate committee Tuesday.

The Senate Committee on Utilities, Technology and Tourism also heard testimony on a pair of competing bills, both pitched as ensuring that data centers pay their own way for the electric power they use and controlling how they use water resources.

SB 969 would impose a blanket ban on non-disclosure agreements between data center companies and the municipalities where they’re planning projects.

“Unfortunately, we have witnessed a troubling pattern in Wisconsin and throughout our country — community leaders are signing secrecy deals with big tech companies and their agents to conceal material facts about the development of billion-dollar data centers from the public,” said Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken), the bill’s author, in his testimony on the measure. “These same entities seek to hide vital information about the scope and impacts of their intended developments from the local officials charged with guarding their citizens’ welfare, undermining sound decision-making and eroding confidence in the process.”

The secrecy surrounding a data center project in Menomonie prompted local opposition that led the community’s city council to pass an ordinance in January stopping a developer from advancing the $1.6 billion project.

“This bill is really about trust,” said state Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonie), the author of the bill’s Assembly companion. “It makes sure those conversations happen in the open and not behind closed doors.”

A data center industry lobbyist opposed the measure, asserting that a ban on non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, could stall Wisconsin’s emergence as a prime data center location.  

Brad Tietz, the state policy director for the Data Center Coalition, said the industry group has been working with its member businesses “on model frameworks that ensure early and proactive community engagement and transparency while safeguarding sensitive proprietary and security information.”

Non-disclosure agreements are especially important in the early stages of data center site selection, “where a company may be considering multiple sites and has not yet made a final decision,” Tietz told lawmakers. “But to simply put a blanket opposition on NDAs would put Wisconsin at a competitive disadvantage right when it is primed to do exceptionally well in this industry.”

Data center utility costs

The bulk of Tuesday’s hearing focused on two other pieces of legislation, one authored by Democrats and the other by Republicans. Both measures were written with the intent of ensuring that power-hungry data center developments don’t pass off their electricity costs to the rest of the public.

SB 729 is authored by Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) and state Rep. Angela Stroud (D-Ashland). The Assembly companion is AB 722.

“Wisconsin must establish a comprehensive and responsible regulatory framework that protects Wisconsin taxpayers, workers, and our natural resources now and into the future,” Habush Sinykin told the committee. “Yet here’s the rub. Currently, Wisconsin has no statewide regulatory standards governing hyperscale data centers. None.”

Habush Sinykin said that the bill was written in consultation with the state Public Service Commission. It would put data centers in a new class of electric power users, “very large customers,” and require utilities serving those users to file a rate case for that class every two years.

“I believe that we all have a shared goal of ensuring that the public does not pay for the energy expenses of data centers,” Stroud told the committee. “According to the Public Service Commission, establishing a very large customer class tariff is the most effective tool currently available to ensure that energy-related costs are borne by data centers rather than shifted on to the general public.”

Utilities would also be required to report quarterly their data center users’ energy consumption and sources and make that information public.

Because data centers are also heavy uses of water, the bill requires water utilities to notify the PSC of individual customers that use 25% of the utility’s water volume.

The Habush Sinykin/Stroud bill includes provisions to encourage renewable energy use and the use of union labor. In order to qualify for a sales and use tax exemption from the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., the data center must derive at least 70% of its energy from renewables and pay the construction workers the prevailing wage in the region if they aren’t covered by a union contract.

The committee chair, Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin), questioned those provisions.

“This bill appears to me as though it’s going to say, ‘Well, you can come here. We understand you bring a massive economic impact, but actually we want more,’” Bradley said. “It’s going to drive them away from the state of Wisconsin and then we’re going to lose out.”

But Stroud said data center developers have been enthusiastic about adopting clean energy.

“We are extending tax credits to the richest companies in the world. It is not a small thing to do that,” Stroud said. “We should be getting a huge benefit. And it would change the conversation, I think, in a lot of these communities if they had access to significant benefits.”

Republicans go in a different direction

The alternative bill — AB 840/SB 843, authored by Rep. Shannon Zimmerman (R-River Falls) and Sen. Romain Quinn (R-Birchwood) — mostly takes different approaches on all of the issues involved. The Assembly version passed that house in January on a mostly party-line vote of 53-44, with two Democrats voting in favor of the legislation and one Republican voting against it.

The bill directs the PSC, in writing its rate-making orders, to ensure that the utility costs of large data centers aren’t passed off to any other customer, but doesn’t offer specific directions on how to do that. It includes language stating that developers must hire Wisconsin workers to the extent possible.

The legislation also would require that any renewable energy facility that primarily serves the load of a large data center be located on the data center property.

“This will improve reliability by reducing dependence on a distant power grid and safeguards our communities from being burdened with large energy projects that exist solely to serve data center facilities elsewhere,” Quinn said.

The bill also requires the water used at a center to be recycled, and includes requirements that data center developers post a bond that can be used to reclaim the property if the project is abandoned before it’s completed.

Earlier, Stroud said the GOP bill’s requirement restricting renewable energy to on-site at data centers would be “a non-starter for many of the companies seeking to locate in our state.”

In his testimony, however, Quinn defended the provision as a safeguard against saddling other customers with the data centers’ energy costs. “I believe we should make it more attractive for data centers to build their own power supply,” he said.

Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Gove) asked Quinn why he and Zimmerman didn’t work with Sinykin and Stroud on a common piece of legislation. Quinn replied that the provisions the Democrats prioritized wouldn’t pass in the current Legislature, including the prevailing wage provision and the renewable energy provisions.

During her portion of the hearing, Habush Sinykin said the provision for recycling water in the Republican bill was of interest to her. She also emphasized that lawmakers should work together across the aisle on legislation to address the broader concerns about data centers.

“The Senate is here through March, and the Assembly can be called back as well,” Habush Sinykin said. “I believe it makes sense and the conditions warrant a call for a special session or an extraordinary session, because people in Wisconsin do not want to wait another year or more to have regulation filling this vacuum.”

Tom Content, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, testified that affordability was a top concern for Wisconsin ratepayers.

“Electricity costs are surging at a pace higher than inflation over the past four years,” Content told the committee. “Wisconsin has the second highest electricity rates in the Midwest.”

His organization “recognizes the intent of the authors on both sides to shield customers from higher costs,” Content said. “Our hope and expectation, given that affordability is job one right now, is that lawmakers will work together in the remaining days of the session and across the aisle to take the most workable provisions of both and find common ground on a plan that the governor will sign into law.”

The towns of Two Creeks, Two Rivers and Mishicot all approved resolutions calling on Manitowoc County to place a one-year moratorium on new data center projects. 

The post 3 northeast Wisconsin towns call for 1-year moratorium on data centers appeared first on WPR.

The federal administration’s decision to rescind the Environmental Protection Agency’s Endangerment Finding may sound technical. In reality, it targets the legal foundation that has allowed the United States to regulate climate pollution for more than a decade. For Wisconsin, the move introduces new uncertainty just as communities, farmers and businesses invest in cleaner energy, efficiency and more resilient infrastructure.

The 2009 Endangerment Finding concluded that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. Courts have upheld that determination repeatedly. Eliminating or weakening it does not change the science behind climate change, but it could reshape how power plants, vehicles and industrial facilities are regulated. That shift carries consequences for states already dealing with smoky summers, heavier rainfall and rising infrastructure costs.

Wisconsin’s clean energy economy has expanded steadily, often without much attention. Renewable projects now generate enough electricity to power about 560,000 homes. Roughly 75,000 residents work in clean energy fields, and more than 350 Wisconsin companies supply technologies or services that reduce energy use or emissions. Together, these efforts reflect a broader reality: climate progress here tends to be practical and locally driven because it lowers costs and strengthens communities.

Examples are visible across the state. School districts and municipal buildings are cutting operating expenses through efficiency upgrades supported by Focus on Energy programs. Tribal and low-income households are receiving targeted weatherization investments that improve comfort and reduce utility bills. Builders and manufacturers are adopting higher performance standards to reduce long-term risk.

Federal rollbacks do not automatically halt these efforts, but they complicate financing and planning. Investors and local governments rely on predictable rules. When national standards shift, projects that once appeared viable can stall.

Some of the clearest examples are unfolding in rural Wisconsin. The SolarShare Wisconsin Cooperative is expanding community-owned solar projects that keep energy dollars circulating locally while pairing installations with pollinator habitat or sheep grazing. Hidden Springs Creamery installed a 50-kilowatt solar system to power its creamery and farm operations while continuing to produce artisanal cheeses. These projects reflect a simple idea gaining traction across the state: build it here, power it here, prosper here.

Wisconsin’s dairy sector has also become a testing ground for methane reduction strategies. Anaerobic digesters, renewable natural gas systems and advanced manure management technologies are already operating throughout the state. They reduce emissions while improving water quality and creating new revenue streams for farmers. If federal climate incentives weaken, fewer of these projects may move forward, leaving producers to absorb more risk and potentially slowing innovation that began here.

At the same time, new pressures are emerging from the rapid growth of artificial intelligence and large-scale data centers. Utilities are proposing infrastructure expansions to meet rising electricity demand, raising questions about cost allocation, water use and oversight. Small businesses, tribes, farmers and rural communities are organizing around siting decisions that affect farmland and ratepayers.

This week, the Power Wisconsin Forward campaign, supported by the Clean Economy Coalition of Wisconsin and more than 50 partner organizations, urged the Public Service Commission to ensure that data center costs do not shift onto ordinary customers. The debate highlights a broader reality. Wisconsin’s energy landscape is changing quickly even as federal climate policy moves in the opposite direction.

It would be misleading to suggest Wisconsin’s political environment has become less polarized. Recent legislative sessions show deep divisions and limited consensus on climate priorities. That context makes federal rollbacks more consequential. Without consistent national guardrails, states rely more heavily on local initiatives and market forces, which can advance progress but unevenly.

Legal challenges to the EPA decision are likely, but outcomes remain uncertain. In the meantime, utilities, farmers and local governments must make decisions without clear signals from Washington.

The practical question facing Wisconsin is not whether federal politics will shift. It is whether the state continues investing in projects that already deliver measurable results. Efficiency upgrades lower utility bills. Community solar keeps energy spending local. Methane reduction technologies help farms manage waste while improving soil and water conditions.

In a politically diverse state, climate progress rarely looks dramatic. It often appears as quieter momentum built through local partnerships and incremental gains. The federal rollback raises real risks, but it does not erase the infrastructure or collaboration already underway.

What happens next will be shaped less by national rhetoric and more by decisions made at the Public Service Commission, in county zoning meetings and on working farms across Wisconsin.

An administrative law judge has upheld key state permits for Enbridge’s $450 million plan to reroute an oil and gas pipeline around the reservation of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.

The post Judge rules in favor of Enbridge’s Line 5 reroute in Wisconsin, upholding state permits appeared first on WPR.

President Donald Trump and the EPA announced Thursday that they’re eliminating the scientific basis for controlling pollution that’s warming the planet, posing widespread effects for the nation and Wisconsin.

The post Trump’s move ending power to control climate pollution could cost Wisconsin billions appeared first on WPR.

A group of Democratic state lawmakers on Thursday announced a proposal to put a moratorium on data center construction in Wisconsin as communities across the state grapple with local resistance to the development of hyperscale AI data centers. 

Debates around data centers have become increasingly tense in recent months as residents of communities including Mount Pleasant, Mount Horeb, Beaver Dam, Port Washington and Janesville have rallied opposition to  the approval of data centers by local officials. 

While officials in these communities are often tempted by the promise of increased property tax revenue from the facilities, residents have raised objections to their local representatives ceding local land to multibillion-dollar tech companies, the massive amounts of energy and water needed to operate the large data centers and the related effects on local utility rates and the environment to produce all the power.

Several pieces of legislation to regulate data center construction have already been proposed in the Legislature. In January, Assembly Republicans passed a bill that would establish some regulations, but Democrats said it didn’t do enough to prevent electricity costs from being passed on to regular consumers and included a provision that would stymie renewable energy development in the state. 

With just days left before the Legislature ends its work for the session next week, a group of Democratic lawmakers rolled out a proposal that would pause data center construction until “all of the questions that you have, that you have been asking your local mayors, you have been asking your local legislators, you have been asking these data centers, that all of those are actually answered,” Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said at a press conference Thursday afternoon with local data center activists. 

The bill defines a data center as “a facility having a primary purpose of storing, managing, and processing digital data and that has at least 5,000 servers, occupies at least 10,000 square feet, or has an electricity demand of at least 100 megawatts.”

The bill wouldn’t allow the construction of any data centers in the state until the state establishes a data center planning authority; prohibits energy and water costs from being shifted to residential utility customers; creates a “land and community funding mechanism”; eliminates state and local financial subsidies for data centers; mandates public reporting of data center energy and water use; creates data center-specific pollution regulations; requires that 100% of the energy produced for data centers be renewable; requires that data center construction projects pay prevailing or collectively bargained wages; restores planning authority to the Public Service Commission; prohibits non-disclosure agreements between data centers and government entities and creates an enforcement and penalty structure for data centers that violate regulations. 

“The intent is not to permanently prohibit data centers, but to ensure that any future development is responsible, transparent, and does not impose additional financial burdens on Wisconsin households,” a co-sponsorship memo on the proposal states. “Wisconsinites should not be asked to shoulder higher utility costs while large new energy users operate without clear rules, accountability, or public oversight. This bill provides the Legislature with the time and authority necessary to establish a fair and comprehensive framework that protects ratepayers, workers, and local communities before large-scale data centers are allowed to move forward.”

On Thursday, a few dozen people gathered outside the state Capitol to protest against data center construction before meeting in a hearing room for a news conference and panel discussion. Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), one of the several Democrats running in the primary for governor, said at the press conference that the data center proposals have galvanized anti-corporate views in communities of all political stripes. 

“This is about community power and returning community control to folks all across the state,” Hong said. “I am so incredibly grateful because I have not seen this type of bipartisan opposition to corporate control. I have not seen this type of bipartisan support for ensuring that we protect our natural resources. Our natural resources are not for sale. Our health is not for sale. Our shared future depends on all of us fighting right now to ensure that we are holding AI data centers accountable.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and his top environmental policy officer finalized a move Thursday to undo an Environmental Protection Agency regulation that laid the foundation for federal rules governing emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change.

At a White House event, Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said they were officially rolling back the “endangerment finding” that labeled greenhouse gases a threat to public health and provided a framework for the EPA to regulate emissions. 

The 2009 finding, established under President Barack Obama, called climate change a danger to human health and therefore gave the EPA power to regulate greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide from cars and trucks. 

Such regulations created a challenge for automakers and other industries, which dragged down the entire economy, according to Trump, administration officials and allies in Congress. 

Democrats and their allies in environmental and climate activism, though, consider the measure a crucial tool to address climate change and protect human health.

Undoing the finding will remove the economy-wide uncertainty, Trump argued. 

“That is why, effective immediately, we are repealing the ridiculous endangerment finding and terminating all additional green emission standards imposed unnecessarily on vehicle models and engines between 2012 and 2027 and beyond,” he said Thursday. 

Affordability argument

In its initial notice last year that it would repeal the endangerment finding, the EPA said it did not have the authority to regulate vehicle emissions.

With household costs, including transportation, expected to be a major theme in the fall’s midterm campaigns to determine control of Congress, members of both parties have framed it as an economic issue.

“This will be the largest deregulatory action in American history, and it will save the American people $1.3 trillion in crushing regulations,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at Tuesday’s press briefing.

Some Democrats and climate activists argue the rollback will hurt the country’s nascent renewable energy sector, driving up the cost of home heating, electricity and other common expenses.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., issued a lengthy joint statement slamming the announcement.

“The Trump EPA has fully abandoned its duty to protect the American people from greenhouse gas pollution and climate change.  This shameful abdication — an economic, moral, and political failure — will harm Americans’ health, homes, and economic well-being. It ignores scientific fact and common-sense observations to serve big political donors,” the senators said.

“This sham decision initially relied on a now thoroughly disgraced and abandoned ‘report’ by known climate deniers. Zeldin stuck to this charade anyway, undaunted by half a century of actual evidence, showing the fix was in from the beginning,” they continued.

Money and fossil fuels

The move outraged Democrats and climate activists when Zeldin first proposed it last summer. Climate activists say undoing the finding undercuts the federal government’s ability to address an issue critical to the United States and the entire world.

In a Tuesday floor speech, Schumer blasted the rollback as a giveaway to fossil fuel companies, leaders of which contributed to Trump’s 2024 campaign.

“Remember: In the spring of 2024, Donald Trump invited top oil executives to Mar-a-Lago and told them, if you raise me a billion dollars to get me elected, I will cut regulations so you can make more money,” Schumer said. “That devil’s bargain is now coming true. I never thought it would be this way in America, in this bald disgusting way that so hurts people’s health, but there it is.”

Democratic attorneys general and environmental groups are likely to sue over the rollback.

At least one lawsuit, from the Environmental Defense Fund, was promised Thursday afternoon.

“EDF will challenge this decision in court, where evidence matters, and keep working with everyone who wants to build a better, safer and more prosperous future,” Fred Krupp, EDF president, said in a statement Thursday. 

Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat, said last year he would “consider all options if EPA continues down this cynical path.”

Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

LAS VEGAS, Nev. – Geotab Inc. (“Geotab”), a global leader in connected transportation, video telematics and asset tracking solutions, today at Geotab Connect 2026 launched the GO Anywhere family of asset trackers. Purpose built for distinct customer needs and use cases, the new hardware line delivers unified visibility across trailers and equipment while addressing critical business challenges, including the significant financial drain caused by lost or underutilized assets. The launch comes as the industry faces staggering costs from equipment misplacement and downtime; for instance, construction equipment loss alone exceeds $1 billion yearly in the U.S., often leading to project delays that multiply the total financial impact.

Geotab is including Starlink Direct To Cell connectivity in its GO Anywhere Plus asset tracker*. This marks a significant milestone in the industry, merging mobile and satellite networks, in a commercial IoT device. This innovation provides seamless coverage for high-value assets even in the most remote “dead zones,” at a fraction of the cost of traditional, hardware-intensive satellite connectivity.

“Losing a critical piece of equipment is about more than the replacement cost, it’s about the worker who can’t finish their job and the customer whose project is now stalled,” said David Wooten, Senior Manager Product Management at Geotab. “By providing near real-time visibility and vital data insights, we are helping remove the uncertainty that comes with managing valuable assets across multiple sites. Whether it’s ensuring a generator is maintained based on engine hour readings or confirming a trailer is ready for the road, we want to ensure that when a crew shows up for work, the tools and assets they need are working well and are exactly where they should be.”

Three Tailored Solutions for Total Fleet Visibility

The GO Anywhere family includes three distinct solutions tailored for various operational needs:

GO Anywhere Plus: The ultimate all-in-one solution for high-value mixed fleets. This hybrid tracker combines wired power for near real-time location, engine hours, and inferred hubometer readings with a field-replaceable backup battery for uncompromised insights. GO Anywhere Plus utilizes Starlink Direct to Cell technology, ensuring total operational awareness even in the most remote locations.This eliminates the need for expensive, specialized satellite hardware while maintaining connectivity where traditional cellular networks fail.

GO Anywhere: The definitive “set and forget” solution for non-powered assets, combining long battery life with consistent, reliable tracking. Engineered to deliver up to 10 years of battery life, the device lowers total cost of ownership by eliminating the need for frequent battery maintenance. GO Anywhere provides hourly location updates as a standard, helping ensure assets are trackable over time. In the event of theft, High-Frequency Mode can be activated for rapid recovery.

Small Asset Tracking: Utilizing Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) beacons, this solution allows businesses to track portable tools and equipment via nearby connected assets. This helps reduce the “invisible” costs of equipment loss through geofences that trigger alerts when assets move or are left behind.

By integrating these devices into the unified MyGeotab platform, businesses can eliminate blind spots in their operations, moving from reactive recovery to proactive asset management. Whether protecting construction equipment or monitoring sensitive logistics, the GO Anywhere family helps ensure every asset is accounted for in an increasingly complex global supply chain.

For more information on the GO Anywhere asset tracking solutions, please visit: https://www.geotab.com/fleet-management-solutions/asset-tracking/.

The GO Anywhere will be available in North America in Q2 2026, with a global rollout to follow.

*Starlink Direct To Cell will be available through select carrier partners.

About Geotab:
Geotab is a global leader in connected vehicle and asset management solutions, with headquarters in Oakville, Ontario and Atlanta, Georgia. Our mission is to make the world safer, more efficient, and sustainable. We leverage advanced data analytics and AI to transform fleet performance and operations, reducing cost and driving efficiency. Backed by top data scientists and engineers, we serve approximately 100,000 global customers, processing 100 billion data points daily from more than 5 million vehicle subscriptions. Geotab is trusted by Fortune 500 organizations, mid-sized fleets, and the largest public sector fleets in the world, including the US Federal government. Committed to data security and privacy, we hold FIPS 140-3 and FedRAMP authorizations. Our open platform, ecosystem of outstanding partners, and Geotab Marketplace deliver hundreds of fleet-ready third-party solutions. This year, we’re celebrating 25 years of innovation. Learn more at www.geotab.com and follow us on LinkedIn or visit Geotab News and Views.

The post Geotab Launches New GO Anywhere Asset Trackers Featuring Satellite Connectivity appeared first on School Transportation News.

At a public hearing held by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission Tuesday, dozens of Wisconsin residents decried the effects massive data centers could have on the state’s electricity rates and ability to adopt renewable energy sources. 

The three-member PSC is considering a proposal from the Wisconsin Electric Power Company to establish a tariff system for providing electricity to massive data centers. Under the proposal, “very large” customers that would be subject to the tariff would have a combined energy load of 500 megawatts — the equivalent of powering about 400,000 homes. 

The first phase of Microsoft’s $13.3 billion data center project in Mount Pleasant is projected to require 450 megawatts. 

Critics of the proposal say that under this system, regular consumers will still be on the hook for 25% of the infrastructure costs associated with increasing the state’s energy load. 

Over the past year, the growth of data center development in Wisconsin has spurred an increasingly tense debate. Local governments have been tempted to allow their construction as a source of property tax revenue while local residents raise concerns over energy and water use, the conversion of historical farmland, the ethics of artificial intelligence and long-term environmental impacts.

The massive energy needs of data centers have become the central issue in the debate, with people in Wisconsin and around the country questioning how to manage the demands of giant corporations seeking to use orders of magnitude more energy than is currently being produced.

“I speak to you not only as a We Energies customer, a member of the Wisconsin State Senate, but on behalf of people across Wisconsin who have communicated to me their worry and fear about the development of hyperscale data centers,” Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said at the hearing. “This worry and fear transcends political divides and income brackets, residents and small businesses alike fear that these data centers will fundamentally alter and potentially destroy our Wisconsin way of life, and with good reason; the scale of the proposed development is unprecedented.” 

Larson added that often “this debate is framed as a false choice that our state must prioritize economic growth or meet our clean energy and climate goals. This is simply not true. In reality, Wisconsin can and must be a leader in pursuing both advancing economic development while accelerating a just transition to affordable, reliable, clean energy in a way that does not harm residents, health, economic security or the environment.”

The vast majority of those testifying during the more than three-hour hearing Tuesday afternoon were opposed to the structure of the proposed system — largely due to the 500 megawatt threshold proposed by the utility company. 

Several people said they were concerned that the threshold being set at this level would encourage the growth of still large data centers that use less than 500 megawatts of energy — and the costs of those centers’ electricity use will be passed on to regular consumers. 

“I submit that 500 megawatts is at least an order of magnitude too high,” Pleasant Prairie resident Charles Hasenohrl said. “The threshold should be lower than 50 megawatts, where at that point, companies are required to cover all costs, which again include generation, transmission and distribution.” 

Opponents also said they were concerned that data centers increasing the energy demand in Wisconsin will encourage the PSC and the state’s utility companies to construct new natural gas power plants, instead of encouraging the growth of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.

“Renewable energy is the cheapest way to generate electricity, and it’s only getting cheaper,” Dr. Jonathan Patz, a professor of health and the environment at UW-Madison, said. 

Patz added that burning fossil fuels to provide energy for currently proposed data centers in southeastern Wisconsin will increase air pollution not only in the immediate region but spread to Chicago and western Michigan. 

“Because the right choice happens to be both the safest and the most affordable. That’s solar and wind power,” Patz said. “Let’s stop killing people unnecessarily with pollution from burning fossil fuels, especially knowing the multi-decadal life span of a power plant. The rest of the world is turning to renewable energy. Why should the PSC prevent us from transitioning to clean energy and improving our health at the same time?”

The handful of people who testified in favor of the proposal were union representatives. Several of the state’s unions have been vocal in supporting the construction of data centers, arguing that their members will benefit from the jobs created while the centers are being built. The union representatives said that the state should work to protect costs from being passed on to ratepayers, but that the state shouldn’t discourage data centers from coming to Wisconsin. 

“These projects require significant amounts of power, far beyond what’s available today to be operational and successfully run,” Jim Meyer, business manager for IBEW Local 2150, said. “Faced with this problem, the traditional method of having a utility company add power generation capacity through building more power plants, then spreading those costs over its customer base, would simply be unfair to its everyday customer, like my membership, who live and work in the areas and are also customers themselves. The VLC tariff will put the tab for those plants exactly where it belongs, with those very large customers who need that new electric load.”

PSC Administrative Judge Michael Newmark said that the job of the commission isn’t to decide if the state should go all in on encouraging data center construction but only the “reasonableness of the rates, terms, and conditions of electric service” in the We Energies proposal. Several people testifying expressed frustration that often the commission holds public hearings only to ultimately vote against the majority sentiment of the public and side with corporate utility interests. 

“I am wondering whether this is an exercise in futility,” Milwaukee resident Ted Kraig said. “Technologically, it makes no sense to be building up old fossil fuel infrastructure, and still, the Public Service Commission just goes and basically rubber stamps it. My concern is that we can have 1,000 people testifying with the best evidence and arguments imaginable, but the Public Service Commission sitting there with little check boxes … We Energies gets whatever it wants.” 

The Public Service Commission is expected to make its decision on the tariff by May 1.

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified Judge Michael Newmark. We regret the error

Alliant Energy is asking state regulators to approve custom electric rates for Meta’s large data center campus in Beaver Dam, but the heavily redacted document hides details from the public, including the amount of energy the project is expected to use. 

The post Alliant Energy proposes custom electric rates for Meta’s data center campus appeared first on WPR.

On Friday, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released the final version of its Environmental Impact Statement on Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 tunnel project, starting a 30 day waiting period before making its final decision on whether to grant the pipeline company a permit to move forward with the proposal.

Canada-based Enbridge celebrated the release of the statement as a true milestone, with spokesperson Ryan Duffy praising the six-year review as “thorough, transparent, and science driven.” However, Line 5 opponents argue the final document fails to address several key concerns, including the project’s impacts on Indigenous treaty rights and alternatives for transporting oil outside of the Great Lakes.

The Line 5 tunnel project would replace the segment of dual pipelines operating in the Straits of Mackinac – where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet – with a new, single segment housed in a tunnel in the bedrock beneath the lakes. 

The 645-mile long pipeline runs from Northwestern Wisconsin, through Michigan where it ends in Sarnia, Ontario. It carries up to 22.68 million gallons of crude oil and natural gas liquids through the Straits of Mackinac each day. 

Julie Goodwin, a senior attorney for Earthjustice, which is supporting the Bay Mills Indian Community in its fight against the pipeline, said the final environmental impact statement sets up a predetermined decision to approve the tunnel by failing to consider scenarios where oil is not flowing through the straits.

In its review, the corps looked at four main scenarios: taking no action and allowing the dual pipelines to continue operating, constructing a tunnel beneath the lakebed as Enbridge would prefer, placing a gravel/rock protective cover over the dual pipelines, and replacing the dual pipelines with a new segment installed using horizontal directional drilling under the lakebed.

“The corps had the opportunity, of course, during this environmental review process to look at alternatives that transport oil outside of the Great Lakes region or in different ways. And they just, they never took that opportunity,” Goodwin said.

A 2016 study from the University of Michigan determined more than 700 miles of shoreline in lakes Huron and Michigan would be vulnerable to pollution should Line 5 rupture. A 2018 study published by Michigan State University determined that the economic damage from a Great Lakes oil spill would amount to $5.6 billion dollars.

While the environmental impact statement acknowledges the straits are a profoundly sacred place in the culture, history and spirituality of Anishinaabe Tribal Nations, it does not address the tunnel project’s impact on treaty rights, which grant tribal nations the right to hunt, fish and gather on lands ceded to the federal government. 

The corps writes that its review of treaty rights is separate from its review of the project under the National Environmental Policy Act and that it is consulting on a government-to-government basis with federally recognized Tribes to determine if the tunnel project would infringe upon treaty rights. The final finding will be included in its record of decision.

On March 21, 2025, Bay Mills Indian Community alongside the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi, and Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi sent a letter to the Army of Corps of Engineers withdrawing their participation as cooperating agencies in drafting the environmental impact statement, due to President Donald Trump’s Administration’s plan to expedite review of the tunnel project. 

The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians similarly withdrew from talks with the corps on March 26.

Whitney Gravelle, president of the Bay Mills Indian Community, said it has been frustrating to watch the corps move forward with the environmental impact statement without completing surveys and research on cultural resources and treaty rights. 

“That’s one of the reasons we left as a cooperating agency,” Gravelle said. “The corps has disregarded tribes. They’ve disregarded tribal treaty rights, they’ve disregarded cultural resources, and it has just been one of the most dehumanizing processes I have ever participated in.”

The tunnel itself will bore through several cultural sites, archaeological resources and what Anishinaabe consider to be the site of creation, Gravelle said and there are hundreds if not thousands of archaeological sites on the north and south ends of the straits.

“Those burial places are how we understand our history, how we understand our culture, how we understand our trade movements, or where we’re meant to be harvesting, hunting and gathering,” Gravelle said. “To then be told that all of these places can be destroyed and that it doesn’t really matter, what you’re really saying is that our Indigenous lifeways then don’t matter.”

Gravelle emphasized that the impacts from the tunnels construction are not abstract or theoretical, telling Michigan Advance that these places are where parents go to teach their children ceremony on the water, uncles teach their families how to hunt and put food on the table and elders share stories so their community can understand who they are as a people. 

“To have those rights limited or overlooked or misunderstood is really undermining the impact that will be felt by generations,” Gravelle said. “Not only by myself, but by my niece, you know, by my children, by the generations that will exist long after I’m gone from this earth.”

In a statement, Sean McBrearty, the campaign coordinator for anti-Line 5 Oil & Water Don’t Mix coalition pointed to several of the environmental impacts included within the assessment. 

“The EIS confirms that the tunnel would result in permanent wetland loss and require excavation and removal of roughly 665,000 cubic yards of bedrock from beneath the Straits of Mackinac, the ecological heart of the Great Lakes system,” McBrearty said. “These impacts are not temporary, and they cannot be undone.”

While much of the focus on Line 5 has centered around the Straits of Mackinac, Gravelle noted that concerns about an oil spill stretch the length of the pipeline, which has leaked more than 30 times over its lifespan, spilling more than 1 million gallons of oil.

However, Gravelle and several other pipeline opponents emphasized that a permitting decision from the Army Corps of Engineers does not give Enbridge a green light to move forward with the project, as the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy has yet to decide on a Clean Water Act permit for the project. The Sierra Club and Oil and Water Don’t Mix have already called on Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to block the project from moving forward. 

“All eyes are really turning to Governor Whitmer,” Goodwin said. “She has two choices to either cave to the Trump administration’s agenda and their friends in the oil industry, or stand up for Michigan and protect the Great Lakes.”

Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission typically operates far from the spotlight, quietly regulating the utilities most residents only notice when the lights go out. But a wave of proposed energy-intensive data centers in Wisconsin is fueling wider public interest in the agency’s work.

“These are the three most important people in state government that nobody has ever heard of,” said Tom Content, executive director of the state Citizens Utility Board. “They are setting the state’s policy for its energy future.”

With six new data centers planned or under construction in Wisconsin, the commission must now decide how — or whether — Wisconsinites should pay to keep them running. 

Balancing utility and ratepayer interests

The agency — more than a century old and among the first of its kind in the country — oversees Wisconsin’s utilities, both public and investor-owned. It balances two sometimes conflicting goals: the financial stability of utilities, without which the state’s grid could fall into disrepair, and fair treatment of utility customers. The commission’s roughly $39 million budget for the 2027 fiscal year primarily comes from fees paid by utilities, which pass those costs on to their customers.

The PSC isn’t always the decision maker on energy policy. State lawmakers can write rules for utilities for the PSC to enforce. But when state law leaves room for interpretation, the PSC is left to decide.

Most utilities under the PSC’s authority are municipal water and sewer services — the Milwaukee Water Works, for instance.

But many of the PSC’s highest-stakes decisions center on investor-owned utilities. Private gas and electrical utilities don’t compete for customers. As “regulated monopolies,” each is the sole provider in its portion of the state. The PSC acts as the regulator, approving rate hikes, bond issues and major construction projects.

The PSC also approves utilities’ “return on equity” — a profit margin factored into ratepayers’ bills. In Wisconsin, that rate typically runs around 10%.

Powering the data center boom

The PSC lacks a direct say in data center construction. But because data centers demand vast amounts of electricity, it decides how to distribute the costs of new infrastructure needed to power data centers.

The commission approved the construction of We Energies natural gas plants in Oak Creek in Milwaukee County and the town of Paris in Kenosha County in May 2025.

Both plants are part of We Energies’ more than $2 billion plan to expand its natural gas generation capacity to meet surging electricity demand largely driven by data centers. Planned data centers in Mount Pleasant and Port Washington alone are projected to expand service area electricity demand by 40% between 2026 and 2030.

Wisconsin has no precedent for handling such a surge in demand for electricity.

Now the commission is considering a We Energies proposal for a new payment structure for “very large customers” that could set the standard for allocating the costs of building and operating power plants needed to meet data center demands. 

“Our proposed data center rate is considered by many people to be the gold standard, and one that could be a model for what others across the country use,” We Energies spokesperson Brendan Conway wrote in an email to Wisconsin Watch.

The Sierra Club is among several advocacy groups involved in the We Energies case as an “intervenor,” meaning it can question the utility and provide expert witnesses. 

“What the PSC requires them to do will likely influence future decisions on large customer rates, which is why it’s so important that we get this right this time around,” said Cassie Steiner, a senior campaign coordinator with the Sierra Club’s Wisconsin chapter. 

The PSC is also weighing an Alliant Energy proposal to establish a payment structure for Meta’s planned data center in Beaver Dam. Some critics argue Alliant Energy should propose a framework covering all data center customers rather than a one-off agreement.

At the heart of the debate: Should Wisconsin’s residential and industrial customers cover any of the costs of powering new data centers?

To answer that question, the PSC holds proceedings in which utilities and intervenors trade questions and answers about the risks and rewards of a utility’s proposal. The commission collects up to $542,000 from utilities to help intervenors pay attorneys and expert witnesses; utilities cover their own expenses. Utility customers ultimately pay for both sides through their electricity bills.

Not all intervenors are critics. Microsoft and data center developer Vantage have intervened in the We Energies case. The proposed payment structure reflects negotiations between the three companies that took place before We Energies filed its case before the PSC. 

Utilities generally work closely with data center developers. Four of Wisconsin’s investor-owned utilities, including We Energies’ parent company, are founding members of the state’s Data Center Coalition, which says it aims “to ensure our state’s significant growth in data center development translates into sustainable economic benefits.” A data center boom is good business for utilities because they earn a return on any new infrastructure they build.

High-demand customers like Microsoft can also intervene and provide key data to inform PSC decisions.

In the We Energies case, details about Microsoft’s projected energy use for its southeast Wisconsin facilities are protected by an order that limits access to the PSC and other parties in the case. 

The PSC needs the data to judge whether proposed arrangements — like granting data centers 100 megawatts of free electricity if they exceed the supply agreed to in their contracts — properly balance the interests of utilities and the public. Microsoft successfully moved to shield that information from public disclosure on the grounds that it could give competitors a window into their operations.

“Load forecasts are sensitive because they give competitors information about our business outlook and investment decisions,” a Microsoft spokesperson told Wisconsin Watch.

Alliant’s one-off payment structure case is subject to even greater access restrictions: Entire pages of the proposed contract between Alliant subsidiary Wisconsin Power and Light and Meta are redacted. 

As the PSC considers the two cases, customers are still being billed in the same manner as  large industrial customers — a payment structure not built for such high electricity demands. Critics of the We Energies proposal agree some alternative is needed.

“They would be better off recognizing that there are some potential harms to other customers even with the proposal they have out there,” said Brett Korte, a staff attorney with the advocacy group Clean Wisconsin.

In written testimony, We Energies Vice President and Treasurer Tony Reese wrote that the new payment structure must leave non-data center customers “no worse off” than under the status quo.

Parties that disagree with a PSC outcome can appeal in court. One such challenge reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2005, when the justices upheld the commission’s approval of a coal plant expansion in Oak Creek. 

The commissioners

Unlike state Supreme Court justices, PSC commissioners are not elected. Governors appoint them to staggered six-year terms, subject to Senate confirmation. Gov. Tony Evers appointed all three current commissioners. Chairwoman Summer Strand has served on the commission since 2023; commissioners Kristy Nieto and Marcus Hawkins took their seats in 2024.

The commissioners are supported by a full-time staff of researchers, auditors, attorneys, accountants and a range of other specialists to inform their decisions. Nieto and Hawkins previously worked on the PSC’s staff.

Former commissioners occasionally land jobs with the utilities they once regulated. Six months after stepping down from the PSC in February 2024, commissioner Rebecca Valcq took a job with Alliant Energy — the parent company of Wisconsin Power and Light, which provides electricity for much of central and southern Wisconsin. She became the company’s president in 2025.

Moves like Valcq’s have drawn concerns from watchdogs about utilities’ influence over the agency built to regulate them. Wisconsin law bars ex-commissioners from testifying before the PSC for a year after leaving. State Rep. Amanda Nedweski, R-Pleasant Prairie, wants to extend that window, proposing a three-year “cooling off period” before ex-commissioners can take executive roles with utilities, enforced by the Wisconsin Ethics Commission. 

“Historically, good-government reforms that rein in the influence of special interests tend to draw bipartisan support,” Nedweski wrote in an email — though she said she hasn’t yet secured any Democratic co-sponsors.

What’s next? 

The PSC is set to hold its next hearing in the We Energies case on Tuesday, with room for residents and interest groups to weigh in.

Hanging over the finer details of the proposal is a larger question: What risks will ratepayers bear if the data center boom later goes bust?

“Of course no company is too big to fail,” Reese wrote last month. “But in the very unlikely event that a customer as massive and financially stable as Microsoft becomes unable to meet its financial obligations,” his company’s proposal promises “adequate protection” to the utility and  customers.

“Making sure our customers aren’t stuck paying data centers’ costs is at the foundation of our customer protection plan,” We Energies spokesman Conway told Wisconsin Watch.

Considering that Wisconsin ratepayers still owe nearly $1 billion on “stranded assets” — power plants that have been shut down due to obsolescence — critics of the data center proposals are skeptical. 

Will the utility’s proposed guardrails hold up in a worst case scenario? That’s now up to the PSC.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Data center boom spotlights Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission. Here’s what the agency does. 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.

An Amazon Web Services data center is shown situated near single-family homes in Stone Ridge, Va., in 2024. As Americans grow increasingly frustrated over their electricity bills, states are trying to keep the nation’s growing number of data centers from causing higher energy costs for consumers. (Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

As Americans grow increasingly frustrated over their electricity bills, states are trying to keep the nation’s growing number of data centers from causing higher energy costs for consumers.

For years, many states competed aggressively to land data centers, sprawling campuses full of the computer servers that store and transmit the data behind apps and websites. But many officials are now scrutinizing how those power-hungry projects might affect the electric bills of households, small businesses and other industries.

Oregon last year became one of the first states to enact a law requiring utilities to charge data centers different electric prices than other industries because of how they drive up the cost of energy production and transmission.

“We are now making data centers pay a higher rate commensurate with the amount of energy they’re sucking out of the system,” said Oregon state Rep. Tom Andersen, a Democrat.

Republican and Democratic leaders in at least a dozen states have targeted data centers with separate, higher electric rates to protect other customers. States also are requiring long-term commitments and financial guarantees through collateral before greenlighting infrastructure investments for new data center projects. But lawmakers acknowledge that numerous factors affect energy prices, so targeting data center-specific costs can be complicated.

An increasingly digital world and the rise of energy-intensive artificial intelligence has led to major expansion of data centers: Consultant McKinsey & Company expects companies to spend nearly $7 trillion worldwide on data centers by 2030. But the industry is facing growing scrutiny, from neighbors who don’t want to live near the massive server farms and from residents worried about how data centers will affect their own swelling utility bills.

Delaware legislation that would charge data centers higher rates advanced out of committee last week. On Tuesday, a Florida state Senate committee approved a bill that would create new rate structures for data centers.

In Oklahoma, a Republican state senator has proposed a moratorium on new data centers until late 2029, allowing the state to study how data centers affect utility rates, the environment and property values.

Separate legislation from state Rep. Brad Boles will seek to protect other ratepayers from the costs of data centers. Boles, the Republican chair of the state Energy and Natural Resources Oversight Committee, said his in-the-works measure would ensure data centers pay their fair share.

Boles told Stateline that his constituents are increasingly worried about data centers, with a dozen potential major ones proposed across the state.

“We’re trying to ensure that those data centers pay for their own infrastructure and we don’t shift that cost or burden to everyday Oklahomans,” he said.

In Oregon, Andersen’s legislation created a new rate structure for data centers with long-term contracts and required regulators to separate the costs of those facilities from other ratepayers.

But consumer advocates have already accused the state’s largest utility of trying to skirt the new law by making residential customers pay part of the long-term cost of supplying large data centers in a pending rate case.

Andersen, a member of the state House Committee on Climate, Energy and Environment, said the new rate structure is unlikely to immediately lower consumer bills. Rather, it aims to curb future increases as data centers require more power generation and transmission.

“We’re not going to change the rates that are being currently paid by the ratepayers and the users of the electricity,” he said. “It’s just going to stop future raises.”

The data center boom

Rising utility bills continue to outpace inflation, sparking anger from consumers and more scrutiny from state regulators, governors and lawmakers.

The boom of data centers is frequently cited as a prime reason for rising electricity prices, as their operation requires more power generation, transmission and distribution upgrades. A Bloomberg News analysis in September found wholesale electricity costs as much as 267% more for a single month than it did five years ago in areas with significant data center activity.

Data center companies say they aren’t the only reason prices are rising.

“It’s inaccurate to draw a clear line between large load customers like data centers coming online and increases in prices. It’s just not that simple,” said Lucas Fykes, senior director of energy policy and regulatory counsel at the Data Center Coalition, a trade group representing data center owners and users, including Amazon, Meta and Visa.

He said many factors have contributed to higher electricity prices, including extreme weather events and the nation’s aging electric grid.

Fykes said his organization opposes rate structures that treat data centers differently from other large electric users such as industrial sites. The organization is working with regulators as states increasingly implement practices to ensure residents and small businesses aren’t on the hook for big energy investments if major projects including data centers don’t come to fruition.

Fykes said the country is likely just in the “beginning innings” of a longer ramp-up in technology and power needs.

“We are also in a global race to build out data centers, to support AI, to support cloud infrastructure,” he said. “It’s important to make sure that we maintain those assets here in the United States.”

That can pose competing interests for political leaders, including mayors, who have pushed hard to land investments from tech companies.

“We want to be leaders in AI, but we don’t want the infrastructure needed to support it,” said Rusty Paul, the mayor of Sandy Springs, Georgia, in the Atlanta metro area.

He was among several mayors addressing the issue of data centers at last month’s winter meeting of the United States Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C. On a data center panel, Paul acknowledged the effect of Georgia’s tax incentives for data centers: “They’re just popping up everywhere,” he said.

But utilities and regulators are also making long overdue grid upgrades that aren’t tied to data centers, he said.

“The cost of electricity is going up for everybody — and it’s not all related to data centers,” he said.

A bipartisan push

The Georgia Public Service Commission last year created new rules that officials said would protect ratepayers from data center costs. In addition to covering costs of power consumed at their facilities, data centers would have to fund the costs incurred by upstream generation, transmission and distribution, the regulator said.

But lawmakers aren’t convinced those steps went far enough.

State Sen. Chuck Hufstetler, a Republican, is again pushing legislation that would solidify the regulator’s rules into law. His bill would prohibit utilities from passing along the fuel, generation or transmission costs of data centers to other customers.

He told Stateline that the regulator’s rules need to be codified into law so they can’t be weakened later.

Hufstetler said rising utility bills are among the biggest issues facing his constituents. High prices played a key role in November’s election, when Democrats flipped two seats on the state’s Public Service Commission board — the first time Democrats won statewide constitutional office in nearly two decades.

“I saw people with MAGA hats going into the election polling places that were saying, ‘I’m not voting for those guys that raised my rates,’” Hufstetler said, referring to the Republican incumbents who lost.

Hufstetler said the bill, which passed out of committee last year, has already gained major bipartisan support in the Senate, where it is sponsored by multiple Republicans and Democrats.

“This is very bipartisan,” he said. “We have all heard from our people around the state of Georgia.”

The Georgia Public Service Commission agrees in principle with the legislation, said agency spokesperson Tom Krause. But he said the regulator worries about losing flexibility if its rules are written into law.

“Not just this bill, but whenever the legislature codifies a rule that we put in place, we get a little nervous because it can tie our hands in special circumstances,” he said.

A complex challenge

As part of implementing a law enacted last year, Maryland’s utility regulator is weighing a new rate structure for data centers and other large load users.

Proposed regulations would require certain preapproval analysis for heavy power users, a separate rate tariff for data centers and collateral to ensure other ratepayers don’t end up paying for major investments if projects do not come to fruition.

Maryland’s Office of People’s Counsel, an independent agency representing residential utility users, said the proposed changes meet statutory requirements but could do more to protect consumers.

In a news release last month, Maryland People’s Counsel David S. Lapp said residents are already facing higher costs from data centers from outside the state.

“While we push for better federal rules to address those costs, Maryland has the power—and customers a clear need—to make sure data centers within Maryland take on every cost that they impose on residential customers,” Lapp said.

Democratic Gov. Wes Moore recently joined 12 other governors and the Trump administration in urging the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, to shield residents and businesses from the infrastructure costs from data centers.

Maryland state Del. Lorig Charkoudian, a Democrat, said the grid operator has for years failed residents in the 13 states plus the District of Columbia that it serves. By delaying renewable energy projects, she said, PJM has kept older, more expensive power plants online, driving up prices as data centers increase demand.

PJM’s board last month rolled out a new data center plan that it said would improve demand forecasting, accelerate the addition of new generation projects and give states a larger role.

Charkoudian said states and utilities struggle to determine just how much power is needed. Data center users shop around for sites, which can cause wildly inaccurate forecasts of just how much power a utility will need.

“It actually has a very concrete financial impact on ratepayers,” she told Stateline. “And so that’s why one of the things that really could make a difference for ratepayers is if we actually had an accurate count of how much we’re getting online.”

While some of those challenges lie outside the realm of state control, Charkoudian said there are things the state can do, including the new rate structure for larger users. She’s crafting a bill encouraging data centers to curtail their power usage during peak periods, such as hot days, when the electrical system is taxed by heavy usage of air conditioners, Maryland Matters reported.

Charkoudian said adding solar generation and storage are low-cost ways to respond quickly to demand. And states can avoid the need for more generation by doubling down on energy efficiency programs that lower demand and also consumer costs.

“The best time to fix this was five years ago,” she said. “The next best time is right this minute, because it’s only going to get worse.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira contributed to this story. Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.