WASHINGTON — Spikes in energy prices caused by the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran drove up inflation for Americans in March, according to the latest consumer price index figures released Friday.

Costs jumped 0.9% in March compared to the previous month — that’s up from the 0.3% increase in February. 

Prices for all items together, including food, energy, shelter and other commodities like vehicles, rose by 3.3% from a year ago. That’s the highest annual jump since May 2024, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics historical data. 

Fuel costs drove the spike, with gasoline and fuel oil together rising 10.9% in March compared to the previous month. Singled out, gas prices jumped 21.2% in March. The cost for airfare, largely driven by jet fuel prices, rose 2.7% in March, up from the 1.4% jump in February.

President Donald Trump launched the joint war in Iran with Israel on Feb. 28. In response to the intense bombing campaign that killed the country’s supreme leader and numerous senior officials, the Iranian regime effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow passage in and out of the Persian Gulf vital to the transport of one-fifth of the world’s petroleum.

As of Friday, Americans were paying $4.15 on average nationwide for a gallon of regular gas, according to AAA. The average for diesel across the U.S. is $5.68 per gallon.

Prior to the war, a gallon of regular hadn’t topped $3 all year.

Iran’s de facto takeover of the Strait of Hormuz by threatening to strike any tankers, other than a handful from friendly countries, has caused the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market, according to the International Energy Agency.

Despite a tenuous ceasefire agreed to Tuesday evening Eastern time, Iran is still controlling the strait. Ten oil tankers transited the waterway Tuesday, and only one on Wednesday, according to the latest figures available from the Joint Maritime Information Center, which tracks tankers and cargo ships worldwide that are transmitting location data.

Prior to the war, roughly 140 vessels daily flowed freely through the Strait of Hormuz.

Dems pounce on affordability issue

Democrats blamed Trump Friday for higher inflation, as affordability is emerging as perhaps the single-most important issue ahead of the 2026 midterm elections in November that will determine control of Congress.

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said the president is “pushing working families to the brink.” 

“Trump promised to ‘lower prices on Day One,’ and instead he waged an unhinged trade war and started an unpopular war with Iran — and what have Americans gotten in return? Nothing except even higher prices. Americans are sick and tired of this president putting his own interests first and using their hard-earned dollars to fund his war instead of making health care more affordable or expanding access to child care,” Martin said in a statement Friday morning.

White House senior deputy press secretary Kush Desai responded to the inflation figures, saying the president “has always been clear about short-term disruptions as a result of Operation Epic Fury, disruptions that the Administration has been diligently working to mitigate.”

“Although gas and energy prices are seeing volatility, prices of eggs, beef, prescription drugs, dairy, and other household essentials are falling or remain stable thanks to President Trump’s policies. As the Administration ensures the free flow of energy through the Strait of Hormuz, the American economy remains on a solid trajectory thanks to the Administration’s robust supply-side agenda of tax cuts, deregulation, and energy abundance,” Desai wrote in a statement Friday morning posted on social media. 

Other costs

The price index for food consumed at home decreased 0.2% compared to the previous month, but increased 1.9% from a year ago. 

The costs of fruits and vegetables rose 1% in March compared to the previous month, but prices for meat, poultry, fish and eggs declined 0.6%, according to the latest BLS figures.

The price index for items minus food and energy rose 0.2% in March, matching the increase in February. The cost of all items, less food and energy, rose 2.6% over the past 12 months.

The lopsided outcome reflects broader unease in Wisconsin over the rapid expansion of data center developments, seen both in recent polling and in local opposition across the state.

The post Port Washington voters pass referendum fueled by concerns about data center project appeared first on WPR.

Late last month, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced the federal government will pay a French energy company nearly $1 billion — not to build clean energy here in the U.S., but to kill it.

The developer, which was set to invest private dollars in two offshore wind projects that could have powered more than a million American homes, will be paid off by our government to simply walk away. In exchange for this extraordinary payment of taxpayer dollars, the company will use the government payoff to expand fracking and drilling operations in the U.S. 

“The era of taxpayers subsidizing unreliable, unaffordable and unsecure energy is officially over,” declared the secretary as he unveiled the deal. 

The comment is laughable in the face of skyrocketing energy prices caused by — no surprise — unsecure, unreliable oil and gas. The price of gas has risen more than a dollar per gallon in a matter of weeks as the war with Iran upends global oil markets.

Fossil fuels always come with volatility. Even American oil is sold on a global market influenced by geopolitics, supply shocks and other events outside our control. Wind and solar, on the other hand, can be paired with battery storage to offer reliable American power at the lowest cost.

That was the plan in 2022 when Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a historic investment in domestic clean energy like wind, solar, and battery storage. The idea was simple: generate more energy here, reduce dependence on global fuel markets and give families more control over their energy bills. It was a hedge against exactly the kind of volatility we’re seeing right now.

But that strategy was dismantled through the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill.” That law repealed the IRA’s clean energy tax credits, ripped away help for families to install better insulation and rooftop solar and rolled back pollution protections. Now, energy costs are on the rise as the federal government chokes the supply of wind and solar, the cheapest forms of energy. In states like Wisconsin, where more than $140 million in clean energy grants have been canceled, the ugly side of that “beautiful bill” is showing. 

Over the next decade, projections show that Wisconsin could miss out on about 17 gigawatts of generation capacity due to measures in the bill. That’s more energy than current peak demand for the entire state. Meanwhile, Wisconsin is spending about $14 billion to bring in oil, coal and gas from out of state — money that could be kept in Wisconsin if we prioritized capturing abundant and free energy resources like wind and solar. Despite this, state energy regulators have approved expensive new gas-burning power plants to power the surge of energy-hungry data centers. Wisconsinites will pay more for electricity and breathe dirtier air as a result.

As these long-term consequences take shape, utilities are moving ahead with rate hikes that will cost Wisconsinites even more. In 2025 alone, Wisconsin utilities proposed or enacted more than $2.7 billion in increases, affecting millions of customers.

So, Mr. Burgum, where is this “affordable energy” and who is benefiting from it?

There’s a deep contradiction in turning away from clean energy in this moment. At a time when electricity demand is rising dramatically from data centers, why are we choosing to build fewer of the resources that can be deployed most quickly, scaled most affordably and insulated most effectively from unstable global markets?

There is simply no path to American energy independence that relies heavily on fossil fuels. Wisconsin families and businesses could be enjoying lower bills and cleaner air instead of bracing for the next geopolitical shock. 

The good news is that none of this is set in stone. Congress could restore clean energy tax credits and invest in energy sources that are built here, priced here, and controlled here. But they need to hear from their constituents to understand how important this is. If the past few weeks have shown us anything, it’s that the most unreliable and unaffordable energy system is the one we don’t control.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The delay comes as energy use in the region is expected to skyrocket due to data center projects under construction.

The post We Energies delays retirement of aging Oak Creek coal units to the end of 2027 appeared first on WPR.

About 100 Wisconsinites joined a virtual town hall hosted by Citizen Action of Wisconsin Wednesday evening to share how data center developments across the state are harming local residents through the increased use of energy. 

Over the past year, data centers have become an increasingly potent issue in the state as the number of data center facilities in Wisconsin has risen to about 50. Data center proposals are currently pending in communities including Beaver Dam and Janesville. The Democratic and Republican candidates for governor have frequently been asked about the issue and lawmakers of both parties introduced legislation to manage data center growth — yet both chambers of the Legislature adjourned for the year without the bills being signed into law. 

The Legislature’s lack of action, and the 10 month wait before the body is back in session in January 2027, was a big concern for data center opponents at the event Wednesday who are worried about how many data center projects can be planned and started before then. 

“These are happening fast. A lot of these decisions are being made in the next six to 18 months, which is especially concerning because, as mentioned earlier, the state Legislature went home on a 10 month long vacation without helping us with many of these important decisions,” Kat Klawes, Citizen Action of Wisconsin’s climate policy coordinator, said. “There are data centers and power plants being built 24/7, so there are people out at construction sites across the state, still working late at night. And there’s local projects that are being approved.

“And this is a big issue, because Wisconsin does not have a statewide plan,” Klawes said “These projects are being approved on a case-by-case basis. Local towns are coming up against billion dollar companies and teams of lawyers who are demanding things. There’s no consistent framework for cost, water use, energy demand, community impact or community say. There is none of that. Wisconsin is the wild, wild west.”

Among the biggest concerns shared by attendees were the pressure that data centers’ massive energy use will put on regular Wisconsinites’ energy bills and the effect that increased energy use will have on the climate. 

Keviea Guiden, who works on energy burden issues on Milwaukee’s north side, noted that Wisconsin is two weeks away from the end of the winter moratorium on utilities shutting off people’s power. She said that with so many Wisconsin families already struggling to pay their bills, the state needs to do something to prevent data centers from further increasing the cost of energy. 

“We will be burdened with having to pay for those facilities being built,” she said. “Families are already being forced between if they should pay for health care, day cares, diapers, if they should figure out if the dog could even eat as well.” 

Attendees complained about the large amount of water data centers use to cool their systems and the effect that could have on local water supplies — especially the Great Lakes. But the bigger climate concern is the emissions caused by increasing the amount of electricity Wisconsin’s utility companies generate. Green Bay resident Arden Kozlow connected the fight against data centers to the fight against oil pipelines such as the activism against the Line 5 pipeline across northern Wisconsin. 

“We’re just fast tracking a process that is already happening with absolutely no regulation and no care for how it’s happening, and that, frankly, this only adds to the problem that we’ve already had with oil pipelines,” Kozlow said. “So it’s all just sort of feeding into itself and creating a bigger and bigger problem.”

Attendees still suggested a number of statewide solutions for managing the effects of data centers. 

One proposal is capping the state’s utility rates at 2% of household income, which advocates said would encourage the state’s utilities to invest in lower cost renewable energy. Attendees also supported legislation proposed by Democratic lawmakers that would put a moratorium on data center construction until many of the questions about their impacts can be answered.

State Rep. Angelito Tenorio (D-West Allis) joined the town hall to tout his proposed legislation that would require Wisconsin get 100% of its energy from carbon free sources by 2050. 

“We have a moral imperative to move towards clean energy, renewable energy,” he said, noting that Wisconsin lags behind its neighbors in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota on the issue. 

With the Legislature out for the year, local government approvals will remain the only lever Wisconsin residents have to push back against data center developments.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Education is moving out of its Lyndon B. Johnson headquarters building, the department announced Thursday, in another step toward dismantling the agency. 

The Education Department said its “chronically underutilized” building is roughly 70% vacant and estimated the relocation — slated for August — would save taxpayers approximately $4.8 million a year in operating costs. 

The move marks the latest action from President Donald Trump’s administration to do away with the 46-year-old department as part of the president’s quest to send education “back to the states.” Much of the oversight and funding of schools already occurs at the state and local levels. 

The Education Department will move roughly one block away to a building the U.S. Agency for International Development previously occupied.

The Department of Energy will move out of its James V. Forrestal building nearby and take over Education’s headquarters building. 

“Thanks to the hard work of so many, we have made unprecedented progress in reducing the federal education footprint, and now we are pleased to give this building to an agency that will benefit far more from its space than the Department of Education,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. 

‘Next on the chopping block’

Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, rebuked the relocation efforts as “one of the most overt actions by Secretary McMahon to dismantle the Department of Education (ED) and disregard the law, federal courts, and Congress.”

“Leaving the Lyndon B. Johnson headquarters building does not cut bureaucracy — it rearranges it,” the Virginia Democrat added. “This decision to close the Department’s physical building is not just a symbolic move — it reflects a broader effort to reduce the federal government’s role in ensuring people have equal access to a quality education.”

Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents Education Department workers, blasted the announcement in a Thursday statement. 

“The message the Secretary’s announcement sends to our staff and the American public is clear — education is next on the chopping block,” Gittleman said. 

“But after more than a year of fighting back against this unlawful and unprecedented gutting of a Congressionally created agency, we know that the will of the people, congressional intent, and the law is on our side,” she added. 

Interagency agreements 

The announcement came just days after the administration said the Treasury Department would take over Education’s responsibility for collecting on defaulted federal student loan debt — the first step in a multiphase process toward Treasury taking on Education’s entire, roughly $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio.

Prior to the agreement with Treasury, Education had announced nine other interagency agreements with the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Interior and State that transfer several of its responsibilities to those agencies. 

Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court in July 2025 temporarily greenlit mass layoffs and a plan to dramatically downsize the Education Department ordered earlier that year. 

That plan was outlined in a March 2025 executive order, where Trump called on McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of her own department.

Air pollution from two proposed natural gas plants in southeast Wisconsin could contribute to more than 100 premature deaths over the projects’ estimated 30-year lifespan and lead to higher air pollution exposure across the Upper Midwest.

The post Report: Planned southeast Wisconsin gas plants could lead to premature deaths, air pollution appeared first on WPR.

The Line 5 reroute has generated years of debate, protests, tens of thousands of comments and challenges to state permits that prompted a weekslong contested case hearing. The fight over Line 5 is one front in a larger battle over pipeline projects that often pit energy security and jobs against potential harms to the environment and tribal treaty rights. 

The post Work on Enbridge’s Line 5 reroute underway as legal challenges aim to halt construction appeared first on WPR.

After the Midwest’s grid operator reversed course on a key transmission project, Wisconsin customers may foot a larger share of the bill.

The post Competition intensifies over who builds Wisconsin’s grid as data centers drive power demand appeared first on WPR.

The U.S. government will pay a French energy firm nearly $1 billion to cancel its plans to build a pair of wind farms off the East Coast, the Trump administration announced Monday in its latest move to stymie offshore wind. 

The French firm TotalEnergies will forfeit its leases for projects off the coasts of New York and North Carolina, with the United States paying $928 million to reimburse what the company initially spent on the leases.

Under the deal, TotalEnergies will reinvest that money into oil and gas projects, including a liquefied natural gas export facility in Texas. 

President Donald Trump has repeatedly vowed to block the development of offshore wind projects, which many East Coast states have been counting on to meet their energy needs in the coming years. The projects canceled under the deal announced Monday would have provided power to more than 1 million homes. 

Late last year, the Trump administration invoked classified national security threats to stop work on five wind farms that were under construction, but courts have ruled that the projects can proceed. But for dozens of other projects still in the planning and permitting stages, industry experts expect little progress while Trump remains in office. 

The administration claimed in a statement that the projects were “unreliable and costly.” But New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, condemned the agreement.

“Using a pay-not-to-play scheme to pressure a company to not build offshore wind is an outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars,” Hochul said in a statement to The New York Times.

Environmental groups also blasted the deal, with some noting that it comes as Trump’s war with Iran has caused chaos for global oil markets.

“This deal is an outrageous misuse of taxpayer dollars to prevent Americans from having clean, affordable power exactly when they need it most,” Ted Kelly, director and lead counsel for U.S. clean energy at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. 

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

In an unprecedented use of federal authority, President Donald Trump’s administration has invoked emergency powers to force a series of retiring coal plants to stay open.

Utilities, states and grid operators have said the aging plants are expensive, in bad repair and no longer needed to meet regional energy needs. But Trump’s efforts to save the dwindling coal industry have forced plant operators to continue investing in the facilities — a move that some consumer advocates fear could mean billions of dollars in added costs for customers in dozens of states.

Trump has long positioned himself as a champion of coal, making it a centerpiece of his “energy dominance” agenda. The emergency orders issued by his administration claim that the grid is at risk of energy shortfalls, and the coal plants are needed to ensure a reliable power supply.

But state officials in many places affected by the orders say that’s not true.

“Rather than allowing the realities on the ground, the regulators and the utilities to make rational decisions about how to meet energy needs, we have the Trump administration trying to do Soviet-style central planning to push an ideological agenda that will drive costs to customers,” said Will Toor, executive director of the Colorado Energy Office.

Under Trump, the U.S. Department of Energy has issued emergency orders to block the retirements of coal plants in Colorado, Indiana, Michigan and Washington state. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright has claimed that the power demands in various regions require the plants to stay operational.

Observers expect similar orders to be issued for most, if not all, of the dozens of coal-fired units slated for retirement during the remainder of Trump’s term. Utilities subject to the orders have said they will increase costs for ratepayers, and argue those costs should be borne by the multistate region to which they provide power, rather than just their local customers.

Despite their costs, three of the five plants being blocked from retirement haven’t produced electricity since the emergency orders went into effect, either because they need extensive repairs or because power demands have been met without them.

Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act gives the secretary broad authority to take temporary control of the U.S. electricity system during emergency situations. Until now, that authority had only been invoked during wartime or natural disasters. All of the Trump administration’s orders were issued before the war with Iran. Consumer advocates say Trump’s use of the act to overturn long-planned facility retirements is unprecedented, and likely illegal.

State officials, utilities and environmental groups have challenged all of the orders.

While such emergency orders can be issued only for 90-day periods, Wright has repeatedly renewed the orders before they expire.

The Department of Energy did not respond to a Stateline interview request.

Keeping coal online

Last May, Wright issued the first emergency order to prevent the shutdown of the J.H. Campbell Generating Plant in Michigan, just days before it was scheduled to retire. The plant has remained open since then, accruing $135 million in net costs through December. Consumers Energy, the utility operating the plant, is seeking to charge ratepayers in 11 states to recoup those costs.

Michigan Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel has appealed the order, while a coalition of environmental groups has filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn it, arguing that the feds have failed to demonstrate a true emergency. That case is currently in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals awaiting oral arguments, which may take place in May.

State leaders in Colorado have appealed an order to keep a plant there open, while Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat, has sued the federal agency. Environmental groups have filed a lawsuit challenging the order in Indiana. Energy analysts say the Michigan case will likely be resolved first, and is expected to have major implications for the emergency orders elsewhere.

Douglas Jester, a former state energy official in Michigan, noted that Consumers Energy has had to pay extra to bring back staff, establish new delivery contracts for coal and catch up on maintenance. Jester now serves as managing partner at 5 Lakes Energy, a clean energy consulting group.

In his emergency order, Wright said the plant was needed to ensure energy reliability and reduce the risk of blackouts. His agency, in a statement issued last month, said the coal plants kept open by the emergency orders helped keep the power system online during Winter Storm Fern.

Coal industry leaders have made a similar argument, saying that growing energy demands require more baseload power, as opposed to intermittent renewables such as wind and solar.

The emergency orders are “very much needed,” said Emily Arthun, CEO of the American Coal Council, an industry trade group, “so that we can continue to have the energy just for our day-to-day lives,” said Emily Arthun, CEO of the American Coal Council, an industry trade group. “Coal plants, baseload plants, are critical to the well-being of our grid. Coal is needed at critical moments for energy.”

Some labor unions have also praised the orders as beneficial to their workforce.

But state leaders and consumer advocates argue that utilities and regulators have already completed detailed plans to replace the power the aging coal plants provided, through a mix of renewables, natural gas plants and battery storage.

“If you were to believe the Department of Energy, you would believe that more than half the country is experiencing an emergency around the clock,” said Michael Lenoff, senior attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental group that is suing the Trump administration to overturn the orders. “It costs a lot of money to make sure that an old, decrepit coal plant is available to operate.”

Lenoff and other environmental advocates have said the coal plants ran during the winter storm because the government forced them to, not because the grid needed them to meet power demands.

Even as his administration has declared an energy shortage emergency, Trump has tried to block new renewable projects from being built, including several offshore wind farms that East Coast states are relying on to meet their power demands.

Meanwhile, the administration has also authorized power generators to export electricity to Mexico and Canada, which may happen only when regulators have determined the U.S. has sufficient energy supply to meet its own needs.

“How can you authorize the export of energy to Canada from a Western market that you just declared is in an emergency status with shortages?” said Tyson Slocum, energy program director at Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy nonprofit. “It’s complete incoherence.”

Aging plants

Three of the five plants being blocked from retirement have yet to even produce electricity since the emergency orders went into effect.

The plant in Colorado suffered a failure in a steam valve that was not repaired because it was on the verge of retiring. The federal order has forced the Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association to invest in repairing the plant, and the costs to keep the plant operational could reach $80 million a year even if it never produces power, said Toor, with the Colorado Energy Office.

“It’s very unlikely to actually operate even with this order,” he said.

Tri-State and the other utilities that own the plant have requested a rehearing of the emergency order, saying that keeping the plant open will be costly for their ratepayers.

In Indiana, one of the two plants targeted by the feds has suffered mechanical failures that would require extensive repairs.

“(The order) doesn’t even make sense because it’s not even really open,” said Ben Inskeep, program director at the Citizens Action Coalition, an Indiana-based consumer advocacy group. “You don’t want to throw good money after a plant you’re about to retire.”

Unlike the Democratic-led states subject to the other orders, Indiana’s leaders have welcomed the federal intervention. Republican Gov. Mike Braun issued his own executive order soon after the Department of Energy announcement directing state officials to evaluate ways to extend the life of the state’s remaining coal plants.

Meanwhile, the TransAlta Centralia coal plant in Washington state, while remaining in operational mode, has not supplied power to the grid since January, as the state’s energy needs have been met by more affordable sources elsewhere.

Democratic state Sen. Marko Liias sponsored a bill, signed into law earlier this month, that rolls back tax and regulatory exemptions that were granted to TransAlta under a 2011 agreement to gradually phase out the plant. The compliance burden will make it economically infeasible for the plant to operate again, he said.

“It’s crystal clear to the market that we’re not going backwards, we’re slamming the door and nailing it shut,” Liias said.

Consumer costs

While some states have pushed to close coal plants due to climate goals and pollution concerns, market forces have largely driven the coal industry’s decline. According to a 2025 analysis by the financial advisory firm Lazard, electricity from coal-fired power plants costs an average of $122 per megawatt-hour. That same amount of power can be produced for $78 from natural gas plants, $61 from onshore wind and $58 from utility-scale solar.

Some energy analysts say Trump’s efforts to keep fossil fuel-powered plants open could become very costly to ratepayers. A report published by Grid Strategies LLC, a consulting firm, found that as many as 90 aging plants could be subject to similar emergency orders during the remainder of Trump’s term. The analysis found that keeping those plants open could cost ratepayers anywhere from $3 billion to $6 billion a year.

“What the Department of Energy is doing is picking losers, the uneconomical plants that the utilities, the regulators, everybody involved agreed need to retire and be replaced with something cheaper and more efficient,” said Michael Goggin, who authored the report, which was commissioned on behalf of Earthjustice and other environmental groups.

Meanwhile, some consumer advocates say the orders have created chaos for utilities and energy planners. The operators of plants scheduled for retirement in the coming years no longer know if it’s safe to cancel their coal contracts, transition their workforce or defer maintenance on their facilities. And financiers may be wary of investing in new, cheaper energy projects that could be sidelined by orders to keep coal online.

“The administration has made clear that they’re not going to allow a coal-fired power plant to retire, regardless of whether or not it’s absurdly expensive to operate, whether it’s contaminating soil, air and water in that community, they literally don’t care,” said Slocum, of Public Citizen.

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org. 

Agriculture leaders and producers are urging Congress to allow year-round sales of fuel made with up to 15 percent ethanol, which they say could boost domestic demand for corn — and offer a cheaper gas option for U.S. drivers this summer.

The post Gas prices are surging. Farm groups say American ethanol could help ease the pain. appeared first on WPR.

The town of Beloit is the fifth Wisconsin community with an NDA for a possible data center.

The post More than NDAs. Wisconsin communities face scrutiny over data center secrecy. appeared first on WPR.

Investor-owned utility profits have soared as consumer utility bills have skyrocketed in recent years, according to a new analysis of dozens of electricity providers.

The Energy and Policy Institute, a watchdog group tracking fossil fuel and utility industries, analyzed financial disclosures from 110 investor-owned electric utilities between 2021 and 2024, as well as available 2025 filings. The report, published on Thursday, does not include nonprofit electric providers such as municipal utilities or rural electric cooperatives. 

Last year, state-regulated, investor-owned electric utilities kept about 15 cents of every dollar they collected as profit, the report concluded. (For a customer paying a $200 monthly electric bill, that means about $30 went to corporate profits.) The 2025 figure is up from around 13 cents on average between 2021 and 2024, it said.

The utilities examined in the analysis reported almost $186 billion in profits between 2021 and 2024, the study concluded.

“These patterns suggest that a substantial share of what customers pay for electricity is consistently flowing to investors as profit,” the report said, “a finding that is especially significant as consumers face persistently high energy costs and financial stress.” 

The analysis found regional variation in utility profits. 

Utilities in the Southeast operating outside of organized wholesale electricity markets, where electricity is sold and bought in bulk, earned higher profits. Across Alabama, Florida, Georgia and other Southeastern states, utilities retained nearly 16% of their revenue as profit between 2021 and 2024, the report said.

By contrast, utilities in the PJM Interconnection regional market serving the mid-Atlantic averaged about 11.8%, while utilities in New York and New England reported similar or lower levels. 

The report found the utilities with the highest average margin between 2021 and 2024 were MidAmerican Energy (27.22%), Florida Power & Light (23.51%), Nantucket Electric (23.24%), Empire District Electric (22.45%) and Florida Public Utilities (20.35%). 

The analysis comes as consumer utility bills continue to outpace the rate of inflation and state lawmakers of both parties increasingly scrutinize utility prices.

A February report from the National Energy Assistance Directors Association found about 1 in 6 U.S. households were behind on utility bills. That organization, which represents state employees administering federal energy assistance programs, said American households were collectively behind $25 billion on electric and gas bills at the end of 2025 — up from about $23 billion the year before.

The association said home heating costs were projected to rise by 11% this winter — more than four times the rate of inflation — reaching their highest level in at least four years amid higher electricity and natural gas prices and colder-than-average weather.

Most consumers get their electricity from utilities that must seek state approval for rate changes, with appointed or elected state boards approving price structures.

While state lawmakers, governors and regulators are increasingly questioning utility prices, the Energy and Policy Institute says states can take more action to control profits.

Thursday’s report calls for states to set lower profit rates for investor-owned utilities, scrutinize the financing of new capital investments, link utility earnings to customer results and strengthen the role of consumer advocates in rate decisions.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

More than 71,000 customers of Wisconsin’s largest electric utility were without power Friday afternoon due to strong winds.

The post Tens of thousands of We Energies customers without power due to strong winds appeared first on WPR.

State regulators gave three utilities the OK to acquire a large solar and battery project in Rock County that will provide enough energy to power more than 45,000 homes.

The post Regulators sign off on utilities’ purchase of solar, battery project in Rock County appeared first on WPR.

Pam Polyak, who owns a cargo and logistics company in Waukesha County, says consumers will eventually feel the pinch if fuel prices stay high, and conflict in Iran could slow shipping times.

The post Spike in diesel prices could drive up cost of goods, says Wisconsin trucking leader appeared first on WPR.

Heliox, A Siemens Business (Heliox), a leader in EV charging solutions, will showcase its latest fleet and commercial EV charging innovations at the EV Charging Summit & Expo, taking place March 17–19, 2026, in Las Vegas, Nevada, at Booth 641. The company will feature its versatile Heliox 60 kW DC chargers, including the new dual-port pedestal and single-port mobile units. It will also showcase its next-generation Heliox 44 kW V2G bidirectional DC charger and the powerful VersiCharge Blue 80A AC Series. Together, these solutions underscore Heliox’s commitment to reliable, future-ready infrastructure for fleets, depots, and commercial sites.

Heliox will spotlight its 60 kW chargers, delivering compact, adaptable DC fast charging for cars, buses, and trucks, making it ideal for depots, maintenance yards, and temporary or evolving sites. The lineup now includes the new Heliox 60 kW Dual, which offers two outlets for parallel charging and dynamic power sharing (1×60 kW or 2×30 kW) to optimize CAPEX utilization and serve more vehicles from a single unit. Available in both hardwired and portable configurations, in networked or standalone operation, and in single- and dual-connect variants, the system can be deployed as a single unit or in multiples and mounted on a wall, pedestal, or mobile cart to match each fleet’s power availability and long-term growth plans.

Heliox will showcase its 44 kW V2G DC charger, a next generation bidirectional solution that enables vehicles to both charge quickly and discharge energy back to the grid or facility, helping fleets turn parked EVs like school buses, into flexible energy assets. Designed and manufactured in the United States, the system supports grid services and new revenue opportunities while offering a compact design and intuitive operation to support long term reliability in demanding fleet environments.

Building on this DC fast charging and V2G foundation, Heliox will also feature the VersiCharge Blue 80A AC Series, a powerful Level 2 AC charger engineered for fleets, school buses, and commercial EV applications. Delivering up to 80A and 19.2 kW of power with flexible installation options and connected smart charging features, the VersiCharge Blue 80A AC Series helps operators manage energy use, control costs, and seamlessly integrate AC charging into modern depots, yards, and workplaces.

As part of the event program, Job van Campen will join other industry leaders on a panel session titled “V2G: Harnessing EVs as a Grid Resource for Reliability and Resiliency” on March 19, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. PT. During the session, he will explore how vehicle-to-grid technology can transform EV fleets into dynamic grid assets, enabling operators and utilities to enhance reliability, support the integration of renewable energy, and create new economic value from existing fleet investments. Attendees can visit Booth 641 to continue the conversation with Heliox experts and see how solutions like the Heliox 44 kW V2G can support real-world use cases, from demand response and peak shaving to backup power during outages.

Across its 44 kW V2G, 60 kW DC chargers, and VersiCharge Blue 80A AC Series platforms, Heliox, A Siemens Business, continues to deliver smart, efficient, and reliable charging solutions backed by global expertise and robust local support. With UL compliant, Build America, Buy America ready products, advanced connectivity, and comprehensive service offerings showcased at Booth 641, the company is positioned to help fleets, operators, and commercial customers scale electrification with confidence as infrastructure demands grow.

About Heliox, A Siemens Business:
Heliox, A Siemens Business, delivers world class EV charging equipment, services, and robust solutions for a broad range of EV fleets. Our portfolio encompasses all aspects of smart and efficient AC and DC charging infrastructure, including IoT-connected hardware, software, and a comprehensive service offering. Designed and manufactured in North America, Heliox builds UL and CSA compliant products that also meet Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) standards. Heliox’s high-quality, field-proven charging products are now backed by Siemens’ financial strength, global reach, and long-term stability—delivering the best of both worlds. For more information, visit www.heliox-energy.com.

The post Heliox, A Siemens Business, Showcases Advanced Fleet and Commercial EV Charging Solutions at EV Charging Summit & Expo 2026 appeared first on School Transportation News.

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.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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.