The Wisconsin Senate passed a bill Wednesday to solicit proposals from organizations seeking to run the state’s public affairs network, which livestreams and archives state government proceedings. 

The job since 2007 has been done by WisconsinEye, a nonprofit organization, but Senate lawmakers want to explore other options after the group abruptly stopped its coverage for over a month due to fundraising difficulties and started seeking more substantial state support for its operations. 

The state Assembly has proposed that the state place $10 million, which was already set aside in the state budget for WisconsinEye, into an endowment fund and allow WisconsinEye to use the interest to help support its operations. The organization’s current annual operating budget is nearly $1 million, and even with the interest, WisconsinEye would likely still need to fundraise hundreds of thousands each year.

Senate Republicans and Democrats agreed that they shouldn’t just hand state funds over to the organization for the long term, expressing concerns about WisconsinEye’s management and transparency. 

The Senate bill, approved on a voice vote, would provide a year of short-term funding and initiate a process to solicit bids for the job. The lawmakers said their proposal would allow them to explore all of their options to continue to livestream government proceedings.

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) called it a “travesty” that WisconsinEye went dark for over a month earlier this year. He noted that for that time WisconsinEye was in breach of its contract with the Legislature. He said the Senate bill would allow lawmakers to explore all options, noting that he had initially proposed that the state take over the work of livestreaming by creating a state public affairs network. 

“This is a bipartisan bright spot where we actually came together and had conversation with many,” Spreitzer said. 

Specifically, the Senate proposal asks the Department of Administration (DOA) to solicit bids for the operation of a statewide public affairs network that would provide unedited live video and audio coverage of state government proceedings. Those proceedings would include Senate and Assembly floor sessions, legislative committee meetings, state agency meetings, state Supreme Court and other judicial meetings. The bill states that if “practicable,” the network can also cover eligible news conferences and civic events. 

An amendment to the bill implements a deadline for submitting proposals of June 30, 2026. The Department of Administration will then need to submit each proposal to the Legislature and may include its own recommendations. 

The amendment also includes a provision to have WisconsinEye and the DOA secretary submit a request for temporary funding to the Joint Committee on Finance. The grant for temporary funding would be $585,630.60 and if approved by JFC would be paid out to WisconsinEye in monthly payments of $48,802.55.

The payments would cease if WisconsinEye stops providing live coverage and online access to its archives or if another organization is selected during the proposals process to take over as the state’s public affairs network.

The amendment also includes a provision, originally included in the Assembly proposal, requiring WisconsinEye to appoint new members to its board of directors including one designee each for the Assembly speaker, Assembly minority leader, Senate majority leader and Senate minority leader. 

Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin), the lead author on the bill, said he hoped the Assembly would take up the proposal. 

“Transparency is the most important thing,” Bradley said, adding that it is “awesome that we were able to get this done.”

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) noted that she had concerns leaving conversations with her fellow caucus leaders about the proposal.

“It was clear walking out of that meeting that we weren’t on the same page as the state Assembly,” Hesselbein said.

WisconsinEye restarted its coverage this month after the Joint Committee on Legislative Organization voted to provide $50,000 to the nonprofit to cover its month of expenses. 

The Assembly proposal, which was announced in a joint press conference with Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine), passed in a 96-0 vote. 

“Donors view this approach with confidence, knowing that while WisconsinEye must continue to raise private dollars, that requirement becomes an achievable goal to meet because it is coupled with a solid state commitment of financial partnership,” WisconsinEye said in a statement.

WisconsinEye said in an update this week that without an additional infusion of $50,000 in state funds for the month of March that it won’t be able to continue its coverage throughout the remainder of the legislative session. The state Assembly plans to wrap its work up this month, but the Senate plans to continue its work next month. 

The organization said it would also be “happy” to submit a proposal to the DOA should that be the path that lawmakers choose. But the statement said a request for proposal would take “considerable time” and there is “also the question from what appropriation an eventual contract might be funded.” 

“Further, WisconsinEye has funding to carry operations through February. An outstanding question is whether WisconsinEye would be in a position to maintain operations for any time period through which an RFP process might require,” WisconsinEye stated. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

"What major purchase does anyone in this room make without knowing the cost before you make the purchase? It is inconceivable to me that we do not know what something is going to cost of that magnitude before we actually consent to the cost,” Sen. Mary Felzkowski said. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

A bill to implement state-level enforcement of federal hospital price transparency requirements in Wisconsin, with the goal of bringing down the cost of health care, received pushback from hospital representatives and support from employers on Wednesday.

Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) told the Senate Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs Committee that ensuring that the cost of services provided would help with health care affordability.  

“When hospitals clearly share pricing information, patients can make informed decisions. Trust in the system grows and costs come down naturally,” Bradley said, adding that the bill would ensure Wisconsin “reaps the benefits” of changes made by the Trump administration. 

During his first term, President Donald Trump’s administration implemented rules to require hospitals to post pricing information online. The effects of the changes on patients’ costs have been mixed. At the start of his second term, Trump signed an executive order intended to bolster the effort and in December, the administration proposed a new rule that aims to simplify how price data is organized and shared with people. 

SB 383 would instruct the Wisconsin Department of Health Services to enforce federal price transparency requirements for hospitals. 

Bradley and Rep. Robert Wittke (R-Caledonia), the bill coauthors, said it is needed to help ensure that federal policies are being followed.

“Sometimes we need to take action to make sure that it goes all the way through the state and all of our residents have access to the things that are expected through federal law,” Wittke said. 

Bradley said the lawmakers aren’t trying to penalize hospitals, just ensure people have access to information. 

If a hospital is found to be out of compliance under the bill, Wisconsin DHS would be able to take several actions including providing a written notice to the hospital, requesting a corrective action plan or imposing a financial penalty. DHS would also need to keep a public list of any hospitals that have violated the requirements.

Hospitals would also need to be certified as being in compliance with the requirements when seeking judgment from a court against a patient who owes a debt for services.

Lawmakers introduced a similar bill in 2023, but it failed to receive a floor vote in the Senate and advance in the Assembly.

The current version of the bill includes a provision that says that if federal laws change and are eliminated, then provisions in the bill that establish state level requirements for publishing prices will take effect.

Under those provisions, each hospital would need to make a list of “shoppable services” — ones that can be scheduled in advance such as a knee replacement — available with the standard charge for each item that would be publicly available. A hospital’s list would need to include at least 300 “shoppable services,” and if a hospital doesn’t provide that many, it must list all of its shoppable services.

The change is meant to avoid overlapping and varying requirements, though hospital representatives expressed concerns that would happen anyway.

The Wisconsin Hospital Association (WHA) opposes the bill. Christian Moran, the WHA vice president of Medicaid and payer reimbursement policy, said during the hearing that the organization’s opposition to the bill is not opposition to price transparency.

“Our opposition is to the added regulatory complexity that is created by layering on state level enforcement and state level regulations and unlimited fines on Wisconsin hospitals when robust federal regulation and enforcement already exists,” Moran said.

Moran said no Wisconsin hospitals have been fined for noncompliance since the first federal regulations went into effect. 

“Personal experience, it’s somewhat inevitable: if you pass legislation on the state level that mirrors the federal level it will eventually not match up,” John Russell, president and CEO of Prairie Ridge Health, said. 

Hospital representatives also expressed concerns that not enough attention was being given to the role of health insurance companies. 

“The solution proposed to you in [SB] 383 is to double up on existing enforcement for hospitals while ignoring the state’s current responsibility to enforce and monitor insurance compliance,” Moran said.

Brian Stephens, CEO of the Door County Medical Center, said the state should be more focused on the “middlemen” including insurance providers, saying that bolstering the transparency of hospital costs has its limitations. He spoke to the work that his medical center has done over many years to improve transparency of prices.

“There’s a disconnect in this country between the concerted efforts of health care providers to provide reasonable and transparent prices and the costs that people are paying for health insurance. Unfortunately, hospital price transparency efforts have not put a dent in that dichotomy,” Stephens said. “Perhaps we need to be asking for more transparency from health insurance companies and other middlemen to understand the real drivers of health care costs in our country. Perhaps hospitals have just become a good punching bag for folks who need an effective sound bite. The reality is that, despite our wholehearted commitment to providing reasonable upfront prices, transparency has its limitations. What are the odds that a person waking up with pain will take the time to bring out his or her phone and search the most affordable hospital or clinic prior to seeking treatment.”

Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) said the testimony focused on the insurance companies’ role sounded like “a lot of finger-pointing.” 

Several other states have adopted laws or are in the process of advancing bills to bolster price transparency including Colorado, Washington State and Ohio. 

Patrick Neville, a former Republican state representative in Colorado who helped pass a similar law in his state, testified on the Wisconsin bill, saying provisions in his home state have already helped. He told the story of one patient who was charged nearly $80,000 for a hysterectomy, but didn’t have to pay the cost.

“Because we had the consumer protections in this bill in Colorado, and they weren’t compliant with price transparency. They couldn’t actually collect that $80,000,” Neville said. “That was really important and powerful for the actual consumer in this case, and so it’s actually working in Colorado.” 

Neville added that the Colorado legislation did not codify the federal rules, but he wishes it had. 

“Any president could get rid of those rules at any point and I think the way this bill is crafted… It’s hugely important,” Neville said. “That’s a clever way to craft it.” 

Several employers testified in favor of the legislation. 

Erik Sonju, president of Fitchburg-based Power System Engineering, described the unpredictable jumps in health care costs that his company has grappled with since 2018 when he started in his position. He said that 2023 was the year the “straw broke” as they dealt with a 20% increase in insurance rates and he wasn’t able to get clear answers about the rising cost. 

Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) told the committee that the cost of health care is too high. 

“This is common sense. What major purchase does anyone in this room make without knowing the cost before you make the purchase? It is inconceivable to me that we do not know what something is going to cost of that magnitude before we actually consent to the cost,” Felzkowski said.  

Felzkowski is the lead coauthor on two of the other bills the committee took up. SB 796 would require insurers to submit information about claims to the Wisconsin Health Information Organization (WHIO), a nonprofit organization that collects health care claims data, and SB 797 would provide a $600,000 grant for the WHIO to establish an online dashboard of health care claims information and to add new payer data.

The committee also took testimony on SB 703, coauthored by Wittke and Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), which would establish that employers who sponsor group health insurance plans have a right to data relating to the employees and dependents covered under those plans, including claims data, utilization reports and other information necessary to understand and manage health care costs.

Wittke said the bill will maintain privacy protections by requiring employers to designate a HIPAA compliance privacy officer and ensure that the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance maintains oversight. The bill also includes a provision prohibiting data from being sold to any party without the permission of the plan sponsor and the person to whom the claims data relates.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE