As America prepares to celebrate its 250th birthday, my son and I recently spent a week driving across the country, visiting Rocky Mountain, Arches, Great Basin, and Yellowstone National Parks. The trip reminded me that despite our differences, Americans share a common responsibility: to leave our country stronger and more prosperous than we found it.

Wherever we traveled, people wanted many of the same things: good-paying jobs, thriving communities, affordable energy and opportunities for future generations.

Those hopes are shaped by many decisions, but few are more important than how we produce, deliver and pay for energy.

Most families are not thinking about climate policy. They are thinking about utility bills, housing costs, job opportunities and whether their communities can compete in a changing economy.

A recent Wisconsin Conservation Voters poll found that 84% of Wisconsin voters are concerned about rising electricity costs — ranking utility bills alongside groceries as a financial stress.

Wisconsin families want affordable energy, reliable electricity, good-paying jobs and a stronger future for their children. Clean energy helps deliver all four.

More than 75,000 Wisconsinites already work in clean energy. Wisconsin manufacturers supply components used across the country. Electricians, engineers, construction workers, and skilled tradespeople are modernizing our energy system while helping businesses and homeowners lower energy costs.

This is not tomorrow’s economy. It is today’s.

Clean energy is an economic development strategy, a manufacturing strategy, a workforce strategy and an affordability strategy. Communities embracing innovation are attracting investment, creating jobs, and becoming more competitive.

Unfortunately, federal policy is moving in the opposite direction.

The Trump administration recently announced a $700 million taxpayer-funded effort to keep aging coal plants operating, including one in Wisconsin. At the same time, it has proposed spending approximately $2.5 billion to buy out offshore wind leases representing roughly 13 gigawatts of generating capacity while redirecting support toward fossil fuel development.

These decisions matter because they directly affect affordability, health and our future.

Americans are increasingly being asked to support aging coal plants through both their electric bills and their tax dollars. Extending the life of outdated infrastructure delays investment in newer technologies that are often less expensive and more reliable.

We are already doing this with coal plants in Oak Creek, Sheboygan and Beloit. We cannot keep repeating that mistake.

Wisconsin also faces another challenge.

Artificial intelligence is creating unprecedented demand for electricity. Two proposed data centers alone could require nearly four gigawatts of power, more electricity than every Wisconsin household combined.

Data centers can create jobs and economic opportunity. But they also require new power plants, transmission lines and grid upgrades.

The question is simple: Who pays?

Wisconsin families, farmers and small businesses should not shoulder those costs.

Large energy users should pay the full cost of the infrastructure they require. Utilities should be transparent, regulators should protect ratepayers and communities deserve a meaningful voice before billions of dollars are committed.

This is not a choice between economic growth and environmental responsibility.

The strongest energy policies lower costs, strengthen energy independence, improve reliability, create jobs and protect the resources that make Wisconsin such a great place to live.

Wisconsin has everything it takes to lead: innovative businesses, talented workers, world-class manufacturers and practical problem-solvers.

As America approaches its 250th birthday, we should remember that every generation is called upon to build something lasting.

For ours, that means building an energy system that is affordable, reliable, resilient and capable of powering Wisconsin’s economy for decades to come.

The clean energy transition is not happening because it is partisan. It is happening because it works.

The question is whether Wisconsin will build it, power it and prosper from it.

Reading Time: 6 minutes

Milwaukee’s Public Transportation, Utilities and Waterways Review Board waded into the statewide fight over utility regulation on Wednesday with a three-hour hearing discussing forming a publicly-owned electric utility. 

The proposed starting point: assuming control over We Energies’ infrastructure within city limits.

“Energy networks are best delivered by monopolies,” said Jim Carpenter, a board member. “The problem is that We Energies is a profit-driven monopoly, and sometimes profits get in the way of providing the best solution to a problem.”

The board has no power to recommend action by Milwaukee’s Common Council; Wednesday’s meeting was the board’s first since 2023. Instead, Aldermen Alex Brower and Robert Bauman used the hearing to open a discussion about the viability, risks and potential benefits of a possible city-owned electric utility. Backers and critics alike packed the board room, some eager to weigh in on the proposal.

“Everyone deserves to have savings. Everyone deserves to have the option to have control over their power,” said Cleopatra White, a working-class single mother in Milwaukee’s Southgate neighborhood. 

She said she wanted to show support for creating a publicly-owned utility because it’s an issue that affects everyone in Milwaukee, regardless of political party. 

What is a public utility? 

Wisconsin’s publicly-owned utilities — Manitowoc Public Utilities, for instance — generate roughly 11% of the electricity produced in the state, often with lower electric rates than their investor-owned counterparts. 

Wisconsin law allows municipalities to acquire utilities’ property, but that option is largely untested.

Brower pitched the takeover as a means to shield residents from electrical rate increases. We Energies filed its most recent rate case in April, projecting a roughly 9.3% increase in customers’ electricity rates over the next two years. 

But the plan faces pushback from We Energies and the union representing its workers. They argue that residents benefit from the economies of scale that a large, well-established utility provides.

“Reliability is not created by changing who owns the utility,” said James Meyer, business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 2150. “It comes from trained workers, proven emergency response systems and the ability to move crews, equipment and materials quickly when customers need help. Milwaukee has that today, and this proposal puts it at risk.”

We Energies spokesperson Brendan Conway said his company is responsive to ratepayers’ concerns about costs and service. 

“We know many families in Milwaukee are feeling pressure from rising energy costs, and we’re focused on keeping bills low while delivering the reliable energy customers count on every day,” Conway wrote in an email. 

How would a municipal utility be created? 

State law offers two routes for municipalities to assume control of utility infrastructure within their territory: seizing the facilities through eminent domain or negotiating a purchase agreement. 

The eminent domain route would likely require legal action by the city to prove the “necessity of the taking,” attorneys working with the Milwaukee Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) wrote ahead of Wednesday’s hearing. 

Brower won his seat representing District 3 in a special election last April with the backing of Milwaukee’s DSA chapter, which helps organize the “Power to the People” campaign drumming up support for a municipal electric utility. Many of its members attended the hearing. 

Both options would require a referendum and a hearing before Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission to determine a fair price for We Energies’ property. But Milwaukee’s suburbs rely  on much of the same infrastructure as the city, which could block Milwaukee from acquiring shared infrastructure. 

Shorewood Village Manager Rebecca Ewald, whose community shares a substation with Milwaukee, told Wisconsin Watch that she hasn’t discussed the idea with its sponsors. Oak Creek City Administrator Andrew Vickers declined to comment on the plan; his city, which borders Milwaukee’s southern edge, hosts several We Energies power plants. 

Milwaukee itself has only one We Energies power plant: the Valley Power Plant along the Menomonee River near the city’s central business district. It generates enough electricity to meet roughly 10% of Milwaukee’s annual needs, Conway said. 

Brower argues the current lack of generation within city limits wouldn’t hinder his goals. “We have the power to purchase (electricity) on the wholesale markets,” he told Wisconsin Watch.

State law allows municipal utilities to construct generators outside of their boundaries. In Brower’s view, Milwaukee could expand rooftop solar and battery storage to meet some energy needs — possibly sited on the city’s abundant vacant land.

Municipal control of We Energies’ substations and transmission assets could also mean shrinking the pool of customers paying for that infrastructure, including We Energies’ new mixed-use Juneautown substation in the city’s Historic Third Ward.

Act 10, a 2011 state law stripping most public-sector employees of collective bargaining rights,  also complicates the picture. 

Brower believes a Milwaukee public electrical utility should aim to hire the We Energies workers who currently operate infrastructure within the city, but doing so would make them public-sector employees. “We don’t want that,” he said.

“We are seriously considering a legal option of outsourcing the day-to-day management to a third-party entity once we acquire the utility infrastructure,” he added — a possible workaround to ensure that  employees under a municipal utility would retain their current rights. 

His pitch has yet to sway the IBEW, which generally supports We Energies in cases before the PSC and Legislature. 

“If the workers are forced into uncertainty over pensions, healthcare, seniority, contracts and union protections, many may not move to the city from the utility,” said Sam Rozenberg, an IBEW member and We Energies dispatcher who spoke at the hearing. “They have options. And if they leave, Milwaukee loses more than employees. It loses the people who know this system and know how to restore service safely.”

While there is no guarantee current We Energies workers would join a new municipal electric utility, Ursula Schryver, senior vice president of education, training and events for the American Public Power Association, told the board that Milwaukee could tap into a national network of public utilities to respond to natural disasters.

Other cities explore municipal utilities

Milwaukee isn’t the only city exploring this option. 

St. Petersburg, Florida’s city council approved a feasibility study earlier this year. Ann Arbor, Michigan’s city council voted down a proposal to study a municipal takeover of electric infrastructure last spring, though the plan’s backers now plan to take the matter to voters as a ballot petition.

A similar study commissioned by the San Diego, California city council produced an $8 billion cost estimate,  prompting some city leaders to balk at the idea. The same study also suggested that San Diego residents could recoup the costs in the long run. 

Brower said  San Diego’s deliberations offer a chance to pressure an investor-owned utility to make concessions. Even if the possibility of a municipal takeover in Milwaukee acts as a bargaining chip during an upcoming rate case, he said, “there’s power in winning concessions. But we are fighting for the entire thing.”

Samuel Mendoza, who recently moved with his wife to Milwaukee near the Harambee neighborhood, discussed his experience working in public works for the City of Los Angeles. While he didn’t work under the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, he said the municipal utility paid its nearly 12,000 workers well.

“I’m surprised coming here that there wasn’t already something municipal,” Mendoza said. “Especially things that are really specific to the city, you’d want to have a utility company that could handle those issues instead of just being so widespread.” 

What happens next?

We Energies was absent from the hearing. Brower invited the company to join a meeting with the board or the city’s representatives to make its case. 

As for next steps, Bauman suggested exploring the public utility concept through a task force made up of members of the Common Council, mayoral administration and Department of Public Works and then requesting that the council fund a feasibility study.

Could Milwaukee create its own electric utility? Officials explore taking over We Energies infrastructure within city limits  is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Tech firm Oracle is suing Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission (PSC) in Ozaukee County Circuit Court, opening a new front in a fight over financial protections for Wisconsin ratepayers. 

The June 19 lawsuit comes as Oracle and We Energies — the utility set to power the company’s planned data center in Port Washington — are asking the PSC to reconsider credit rating requirements for data center developers that could cost the company millions of dollars a year.

Oracle’s lawsuit seeks to accomplish the same ends through the courts.

The PSC approved We Energies’ “very large customer” rate structure in April, requiring the utility to exclusively bill data center customers for new energy generation infrastructure needed to serve them, among other protections for existing ratepayers. The agreement also requires data center developers with credit ratings below A- to post financial guarantees to reduce the risk of shifting costs to other customers if a developer runs into financial trouble.

Oracle currently holds a BBB credit rating — a tier below the PSC standard, but still considered investment-grade by ratings agencies — largely because of aggressive borrowing to finance new artificial intelligence infrastructure. Under the current rate structure, the Oracle subsidiary involved in the Port Washington project would need to provide cash deposits or letters of credit exceeding $100 million per year to receive service from We Energies.

“If the Commission does not reopen its decision on this issue, the implications for Wisconsin would be significant and limit the ability of numerous investment-grade companies to invest in Wisconsin,” the utility’s attorneys wrote in a June 10 request to reopen the case.

We Energies also contended that Oracle runs little risk of defaulting on its obligations.

“Tens of billions of dollars in Oracle’s value would need to be destroyed before creditors and counterparties, such as Wisconsin Electric and its other customers, could experience losses,” the utility’s attorneys wrote. Even in a bankruptcy, they added, generators built to serve data centers “will still have value and will be able to provide electricity to other customers.” 

We Energies and Oracle asked the PSC to consider a stepped approach to security requirements that eases the burden on companies with “investment-grade” credit ratings, including BBB ratings, and to waive the Oracle subsidiary’s financial backing obligations. 

In its lawsuit, Oracle asked the court to “set aside, reverse and remand” the credit rating limits in the PSC-approved agreement, arguing that the commission acted outside of its authority and without sufficient evidence to justify the rule. The company maintains that the A- bar isn’t “needed to prevent harm” to We Energies’ other customers or shareholders, and that the commission “failed to consider the significant, adverse impacts” of the requirement on Oracle.

Ratepayer advocates and clean energy groups support the PSC credit rating requirements, and some of the same groups are pushing back against Oracle’s efforts to reopen the issue. 

“We believe that PSC did its job,” Clean Wisconsin spokesperson Amy Barrilleaux said. “It cannot leave all these other thousands of customers vulnerable.”

The company hired attorneys from the Madison office of law firm Husch Blackwell. One of those attorneys, David Zoppo, has previously represented investor-owned utilities before the PSC. Oracle’s attorneys did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

The credit rating dispute could shape future electrical service contracts between data center developers and utilities. 

Northern States Power Company, a subsidiary of utility giant Xcel Energy that provides electrical service to parts of northwestern Wisconsin, asked the PSC on Monday for its own “very large” customer rate structure. 

That proposal would set the credit rating bar at BBB-,  the lowest investment-grade category. Potential data center customers below that threshold would need to provide additional financial guarantees.

Oracle sues Wisconsin regulators as it seeks relief from data center credit requirements is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

We Energies this week asked Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission to revisit its recent ruling on electrical rates for the utility’s data center customers, arguing new credit rating requirements create an undue burden for data center operators. 

The PSC approved We Energies’ “very large customer” rate structure in April, requiring the utility to exclusively bill data center customers for new energy generation infrastructure needed to serve them, among other protections for existing ratepayers. The agreement also requires data center developers with credit ratings below A- to post financial guarantees, either in cash or lines of credit, to reduce the risk of shifting costs to other customers if a developer runs into financial trouble. 

That requirement poses a problem for Oracle, which is partnering with OpenAI and Vantage to develop a vast data center campus in Port Washington.

The cloud computing giant currently holds a BBB credit rating — a tier below the A- bar set by the PSC, but still considered investment-grade by ratings agencies — largely due to aggressive borrowing to finance new artificial intelligence infrastructure. Under the current rate structure, the Oracle subsidiary involved in the Port Washington project would need to provide cash deposits or letters of credit exceeding $100 million per year to receive We Energies service.

“If the Commission does not reopen its decision on this issue, the implications for Wisconsin would be significant and limit the ability of numerous investment-grade companies to invest in Wisconsin,” the utility’s attorneys wrote in a June 10 filing. 

Several other major technology companies — including Intel, Tesla and Micron — hold BBB credit ratings, the attorneys noted. 

Ratepayer advocates backed credit limits for data center developers during the PSC’s deliberations on the case. In written testimony to the PSC in January, Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board chief economist Steve Kihm pointed to energy trading giant Enron, which held a BBB credit rating just a year before its 2001 bankruptcy, as a reason to be cautious with financial commitments from high-dollar investors. 

In its request to reopen the case, We Energies argued that the risks of Oracle or other tech giants defaulting on obligations are extremely low. 

“Tens of billions of dollars in Oracle’s value would need to be destroyed before creditors and counterparties, such as Wisconsin Electric and its other customers, could experience losses,” the utility’s attorneys wrote. Even in a bankruptcy, they added, generators built to serve data centers “will still have value and will be able to provide electricity to other customers” — as opposed to a scenario in which the generators sit idle while solvent ratepayers cover the debts We Energies incurred to build them.

We Energies and Oracle asked the PSC to consider a stepped approach to security requirements that eases the burden on companies with “investment-grade” credit ratings, including BBB ratings, and to waive the Oracle subsidiary’s financial backing obligations. The utility argued that its proposed waiver would still offer greater protections than those required from Meta in its recent agreement with Wisconsin Power and Light, a subsidiary of Alliant Energy.

But Union of Concerned Scientists energy analyst Maria Chavez pointed out that We Energies’ arrangements with new hyperscale data center customers differ from Meta’s one-off service agreement with Alliant. Meta isn’t “specifically asking for extra generation capacity assets to be added,” she said, whereas the Port Washington data center campus — and Microsoft’s data center in Mount Pleasant — will require new, dedicated energy sources. 

“The greater risk to ratepayers,” she added, “the more reason to have a high standard for financial security requirements.”

We Energies and Oracle urged the commission to “move quickly” on the issue to “provide certainty for generational investments that are currently moving forward in this state.”

Meanwhile, Oracle’s share value tumbled this week amid uncertainty about its data center investments. The company’s debt-to-equity ratio exceeded 400% as of May, whereas other hyperscale data operators maintain ratios of 80% or lower.

We Energies asks Wisconsin regulators to ease data center credit standards is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

A dozen Wisconsin state lawmakers are urging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to reject a utility coalition’s request to pause competition for major electrical transmission projects in the Midwest.

The lawmakers — eight Assembly Republicans and four Senate Republicans — argued in a letter to the commission that competition for electrical transmission is a net positive for ratepayers, who stand to benefit from lower costs and increased innovation. That outcome, lawmakers wrote, “is even more urgent today given the rising issue of customer affordability.”

The utilities requesting a pause dispute whether competition truly lowers final costs for customers, but that argument is secondary to their primary concern: Powering the Midwest’s data center boom will require vast electrical transmission upgrades, and major regional utilities argue that competition only slows down projects needed to bring data centers online before international competitors overtake the U.S. in the artificial intelligence race.

Among the utilities behind the request are Xcel Energy, owner of Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin, and American Transmission Company (ATC), Wisconsin’s largest electrical transmission operator. 

The state lawmakers cast the utilities’ request as the latest stage of a long-standing fight over transmission market competition — one that has unfolded in the Assembly over the last five years.

Data center boom intensifies transmission competition

Ratepayer advocacy groups successfully lobbied FERC, which oversees utilities nationwide, to introduce competitive bidding for regional transmission projects in 2011, arguing that the previous model — allowing local monopolies to build all projects planned within their territories — all but guaranteed inflated costs. 

The shift triggered a nationwide gold rush for transmission projects. Regulators pre-approve developers’ “return on equity,” or profit on each dollar invested, for transmission construction, so winning a project means picking up a reliable revenue stream. 

Dozens of developers have since bid on transmission projects planned by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), the nonprofit that manages the wholesale electricity market for much of the Midwest. MISO has approved more than $32 billion in new transmission projects since 2022 — projects largely planned before the region’s data center boom reached full swing.

The rush to win projects has placed well-established local utilities like ATC in competition with powerful national utilities venturing outside of their traditional territory, international developers venturing into the U.S. market, and startups backed by private equity firms. 

As data center developers rapidly scale up Midwest operations, the pace of transmission upgrades could become a choke point.

In March, MISO reversed its decision to award substations in Fond du Lac, Ozaukee and Sheboygan counties to private-equity-backed startup Viridon, instead handing the projects to ATC. 

ATC’s initial bid was more expensive than Viridon’s, but the company successfully argued it alone could build the substations in time to serve the nearby Vantage data center campus in Port Washington. Viridon had not yet secured Public Service Commission permission to  operate in Wisconsin — a hurdle ATC does not face.

MISO initially aimed to complete the substations by 2033; the Port Washington data center plans to come online in early 2028. Though ATC emerged victorious, it told FERC that the 15-month delay between MISO’s initial approval of the substations and the reversal was “completely unnecessary.”

Utilities say competition slows projects needed for AI growth

In the utility coalition’s initial request to FERC, it cast competition-related delays as a national security threat. 

“These projects — expressways for power — are as critical to meeting today’s challenges as the Eisenhower interstate highway system was to prevailing in the Cold War,” the utilities argued in their initial filing. “China has devoted itself to overtaking America as the world’s AI leader and is just months behind.”

The utility coalition proposed two options: Allow MISO, along with the grid operator for parts of the Great Plains and Southwest, to exempt transmission projects from competitive bidding on a case-by-case basis or suspend competition entirely for the next five years — “when our country must begin building the infrastructure that will decide which nation wins the AI race,” the utilities wrote.

Ratepayer advocacy groups immediately pushed back. Paul Cicio, chair of the nationwide Electricity Transmission Competition Coalition, called the request “tone deaf.”

“Suspending competition for five years,” he wrote in a press release, “would expose consumers in these regions to unchecked cost escalation for years, guaranteeing higher utility bills.” 

In a protest filed with FERC in late May, Wisconsin’s Citizens Utility Board pointed to the Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission line in southern Wisconsin as an example: The 102-mile project was not subject to competitive bidding, and construction costs came in roughly 40% over budget by the time ATC, Dairyland Power Cooperative and ITC Midwest completed the line in fall 2024. 

Opponents of the utilities’ request recognize that the data center boom complicates the playing field for transmission competition. 

“Timelines are looking different than the industry is used to,” said Caitlin Marquis, managing director of Advanced Energy United, a trade group representing an array of clean energy and energy efficiency industries. “Transmission competition has been facing curveballs and challenges since it was introduced,” she added. Many challenges result from lobbying by incumbent utilities, and data centers’ speedy construction cycles are only the latest addition.

Her organization opposes the utilities’ request, arguing that incumbent utilities have a long track record of delaying non-competitive transmission projects — and that regulators should streamline the bidding process rather than forego competition entirely. 

But utilities argue competitive bidding has yet to prove its worth. While MISO generally favors lower-cost bids, an ATC spokesperson wrote in an email to Wisconsin Watch, “evidence of a low bid is not evidence of cost savings.” 

Bid prices often do not match the final project cost, they added, and substantial overruns are common, even on projects with competitive bidding.

Federal fight echoes years of debate in Wisconsin

As regional grid operators introduced competitive bidding for transmission projects a decade ago, utilities turned to state legislatures for right-of-first-refusal, or ROFR, laws.

Those laws give local utilities first dibs on transmission projects within their territories, including those planned by regional grid operators like MISO. 

Michigan and Minnesota adopted such policies; Iowa’s Supreme Court struck down a ROFR law in 2023.

Utilities have backed similar proposals in Wisconsin each year since 2021, including a 2025 bill introduced by outgoing Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester.

Those proposals would have “insulat(ed) incumbents from market discipline” and left ratepayers holding the bag, the Wisconsin lawmakers argued to FERC. 

“Having failed repeatedly to persuade the Wisconsin Legislature,” they continued, “the same incumbent entities are now pursuing an end-run at FERC.”

ATC maintains that options before FERC would “not operate as a substitute” for a ROFR law, “even temporarily.”

The utilities don’t stand alone before FERC. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a union representing the tradespeople who build and maintain transmission lines, also backs the request to pause competition.

Editor’s note: This story was updated June 4, 2026 to include comments from Caitlin Marquis, managing director of Advanced Energy United.

Wisconsin lawmakers oppose utility push to pause competition for power line projects is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin once banned the construction of new nuclear power plants, only to lift the rule in 2016 to allow for more energy options. 

Former Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill overturning the moratorium on April 1, 2016, allowing new plants to be built, according to a post from the Wisconsin Energy Institute. 

The previous moratorium was approved in 1983, stipulating that a federally licensed facility for nuclear waste must be available. 

The 2016 bill allowed the state to move forward with new nuclear facilities, but no new facilities have been built as of 2026. Currently, Wisconsin has one nuclear facility in operation, Point Beach, near Two Rivers, according to the Public Service Commission. 

With changing technology and support from the Wisconsin Legislature, companies are working to get approvals for a new facility in the future, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Wisconsin Energy Institute: Governor Walker signs nuclear energy bill into law
• Public Service Commission of Wisconsin: Nuclear Energy
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin and UW-Madison partner to study future of nuclear energy

Did Wisconsin have a ban on building new nuclear power plants before 2016? 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.

The post Bent Tree North Wind Project Approved appeared first on RENEW Wisconsin.

Reading Time: 7 minutes

A coalition of electrical utilities, including two major players in Wisconsin’s power supply, is seeking federal intervention to pause competitive bidding for transmission projects needed to meet the vast energy needs of the data center boom.

The coalition filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on Tuesday asking the agency to exempt at least some major grid upgrades from bidding, arguing “bureaucratic red tape” can tack months onto project timelines and strain the country’s ability to “achieve dominance” in artificial intelligence. 

“This complaint is about whether our country will seize, or squander, a generational chance to own the next century,” the utilities wrote.

Among the companies behind the complaint are Xcel Energy, owner of Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin, and American Transmission Company (ATC), which owns and operates transmission lines across much of Wisconsin. 

National and statewide ratepayer advocacy groups reacted with alarm, casting the utilities’ request as a recipe for higher electricity bills. 

“Utilities rushing to catch a ride on the AI investment gold rush need to slow down and think about the impact their proposals are having,” wrote Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board Executive Director Tom Content, as customers “wake up like Groundhog Day to rate hikes well above the cost of living.”

The complaint and the pushback it prompted mark the latest phase in a long-standing fight over the benefits of opening the transmission market to competition.

Stiff competition

FERC first introduced competitive bidding for regional transmission projects in 2011 after ratepayer advocates lobbied for change, arguing that the earlier process — allowing local monopolies to control all projects within their territories — all but guaranteed inflated costs.

The shift set off a race between developers angling for a piece of the action. When a developer wins a transmission project, it also picks up a new revenue stream: Regulators pre-approve developers’ “return on equity,” or profit on each dollar invested.

Dozens of developers have lined up to bid since the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), a nonprofit that manages the wholesale electricity market and grid for much of the Midwest, approved more than $10 billion in new transmission projects in 2022. A new round of projects approved in December 2024 added about $22 billion to the total, and the list of prospective bidders grew once again.

Some are local utilities hoping to maintain control of their territory; others are powerful national utilities venturing outside of their turf, international developers wading into the U.S. market, and startup transmission developers backed by private equity firms.  

While the data center rush had already begun in the Midwest by the time MISO approved the latest set of transmission projects in 2024, the approved projects often couldn’t account for the scale and breakneck pace of the data center developments that emerged in the region soon after. With the boom now in full swing, the tenor of competition for transmission projects is changing.

Debate over bidding benefits 

MISO, which is also responsible for picking a developer for each project, has favored lower-cost bids with more substantial “cost containment” measures designed to shield customers from budget overruns. Ratepayer advocates say the lower bids are proof the bidding requirements are working, pushing even major national utilities to underbid competitors.

In their complaint to FERC, the coalition of utilities — which calls itself the “Grid Acceleration Coalition” — argued the benefits of competition are “unproven.” 

Projects planned by utilities themselves aren’t subject to competitive bidding; non-competitive projects around the country routinely exceed initial budgets by millions of dollars. While cheaper bids tend to win competitive projects, the utility group argued that even those projects aren’t immune to budget overruns.

But the core of the utilities’ case is about time, not money. They argue the bidding process adds months to project timelines without clear benefits.

In their view, those delays harm customers, in part by slowing the construction of transmission lines that could expand access to cheaper electricity and prevent blackouts, and pose national security risks. 

“These projects — expressways for power — are as critical to meeting today’s challenges as the Eisenhower interstate highway system was to prevailing in the Cold War,” the coalition argued in its complaint. “China has devoted itself to overtaking America as the world’s AI leader and is just months behind.”

The utilities pointed to a recent example in Wisconsin: Last month, MISO reversed its decision to award three substations in Fond du Lac, Ozaukee and Sheboygan counties to private-equity-backed startup Viridon, instead handing the projects to ATC. 

ATC’s initial bid was more expensive than Viridon’s, but the company successfully argued it alone could build the substations in time to serve the nearby Vantage data center campus in Port Washington. 

MISO’s initial plans set a goal to complete the substations by 2033; the Port Washington data center plans to come online in early 2028. Though ATC emerged victorious, it told FERC that the 15-month delay between MISO’s initial approval of the substations and the reversal was “completely unnecessary.”

Ratepayer advocates and other observers, however, quickly pointed out that even noncompetitive projects run into delays. ATC’s Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission line in southwest Wisconsin, for instance, came online in 2024 — more than a decade after MISO approved it — following prolonged legal battles with conservation groups. 

“All developers can experience construction delays,” said Claire Wayner, a senior associate with the clean energy nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute. “It’s not like there’s a silver bullet.”

Opponents also underscored that two competitively bid projects in the Southwest met their in-service date goals last year. 

“Competitive transmission projects have been shown to have a better track record of adhering to cost containment and completion schedules than noncompetitive projects,” said Paul Cicio, chair of the national Electricity Transmission Competition Coalition. “A moratorium would move us backward at precisely the wrong time.”

The back-and-forth over the merits of competition is nothing new, Wayner noted. “The tricky thing with transmission competition is that there are stories of projects from both sides of the aisle that support their positions.” 

The push to pause competition

The utility group proposed two options to FERC: Allow MISO and a Southwestern regional grid operator to exempt projects from competitive bidding on a case-by-case basis or suspend competition entirely for the next five years — “a period pegged to when our country must begin building the infrastructure that will decide which nation wins the AI race.”

The utilities added that they don’t intend to “claw back” other projects already awarded or interrupt ongoing bidding processes.

During that five-year period, national forecasts estimate data center electricity demand could reach up to 25% of the country’s total energy use. MISO alone projects that it may need to double its current pace of generation growth to avoid shortfalls in the near future.

MISO’s territory, stretching from the Upper Midwest to Louisiana, has seen by far the most dramatic increase in data center capacity since 2020 relative to other regional grid networks.

The right of first refusal fight

After FERC introduced competitive bidding in 2011, utility groups turned to state legislatures. The result: right-of-first-refusal (ROFR) laws that give established local utilities first dibs on transmission projects in their territories, including those planned by regional grid operators like MISO.

Utilities prevailed in Minnesota and Michigan; Iowa’s Supreme Court struck down its ROFR law in 2023 after a national transmission developer challenged its constitutionality, and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker vetoed an ROFR bill the same year.

But similar efforts have failed in Wisconsin. State lawmakers have consistently rejected ROFR proposals, including a 2025 bill sponsored by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester.

Wisconsin ratepayer advocates see the FERC complaint as a work-around. “It is another effort by the utilities to defeat competition,” Todd Stuart, executive director of the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, wrote in an email to Wisconsin Watch. “When they lose in state legislatures and then lose out on competitive bids,” he added, “they go back to FERC.”

In the utilities’ complaint, Xcel Energy cited Wisconsin’s lack of an ROFR law, and the resulting bidding process for projects in the state, as posing a risk of delaying upgrades needed to serve a data center across the border in Minnesota. 

The company wouldn’t comment about the parallels between the options utilities suggested in the FERC complaint and ROFR laws. Instead, spokesman Kevin Coss pointed to permitting reforms in Minnesota — a 2024 law streamlining permitting for clean energy projects — as another example of the company’s efforts to “speed the buildout of critical infrastructure across our systems.” Xcel did not bid on any of the competitive projects in Wisconsin.

In a statement to Wisconsin Watch, ATC argued the options its coalition suggested to FERC “would not operate as a substitute” for an ROFR law, “even temporarily or on a case-by-case basis.”

Buildout costs fall to ratepayers

Regardless of who builds a transmission line, ratepayers cover the construction and maintenance costs through their electricity bills. We Energies estimates that transmission-related costs account for about 10% of customers’ bills. 

Customers across the Upper Midwest share the costs of MISO-designed projects across multiple states, spreading costs among a larger number of ratepayers.

But billing practices vary. In some cases, utilities can only bill ratepayers for the costs of building a transmission project after it comes online. When ATC builds a transmission line, FERC allows the developer to begin billing customers while the line is still under construction.

ATC says this approach saves customers money in the long term by reducing interest on construction costs.
Ratepayer advocates see it differently. “Consumers are paying for projects without receiving the benefits,” Cicio said. Transmission projects take years to complete, and short-term increases in monthly electricity bills don’t square well with concerns about affordability and the risk of stranded assets if the AI boom goes bust.

Adding to the frustration: a planned 9.2% electricity rate increase for We Energies customers in eastern Wisconsin over the next two years. That rate hike in part reflects the addition of generators, including new natural gas plants in Milwaukee and Kenosha counties, needed to meet data center demands.

Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission will soon decide how to divvy up costs of powering We Energies-served data centers — a decision that could set a statewide precedent.

This story was updated to clarify which transmission projects are subject to competitive bidding.

Utilities seek federal pause on grid bidding amid AI-driven power demand is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 8 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• A big shift in Wisconsin’s power grid fight: The regional grid operator pulled a key project from a Blackstone-backed developer and gave it to ATC — the latest twist in who gets to build (and profit from) the data center boom.

• Surging power demand is fueling billions in grid upgrades and intensifying competition between utilities and investors. The data center boom has amped up demand and competition even further. Ratepayers will ultimately cover the costs through their utility bills.

• The decision isn’t final. Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission still has to weigh in.

The Midwest’s data center boom requires a vast electrical transmission buildout to keep servers online, and transmission developers are clamoring for a share of the action.

An example of that tug-of-war played out last week, when the regional grid operator for much of the Upper Midwest reversed its earlier decision to allow a developer backed by the investment firm Blackstone to build a series of substations in eastern Wisconsin.

Instead, the operator handed the substations to the American Transmission Company (ATC), which owns and operates most transmission lines in eastern and central Wisconsin. The company argues it’s better-positioned to complete the project before a new Port Washington data center comes online by early 2028, five years ahead of the transmission project’s original deadline.

The about-face is a win for Wisconsin’s largest transmission developer after a series of losses in Wisconsin’s Assembly, where lawmakers have repeatedly rejected a proposal to give regionally established developers like ATC a monopoly over portions of multistate transmission projects within Wisconsin, leaving the door open for competition. 

The new arrangement itself likely won’t drive up costs for Wisconsin ratepayers. But ATC will now fold the substations into a larger $1.3 billion buildout to serve the Port Washington campus — another phase in the ongoing fight over who will pay to supply power for new data centers.

How the Midwest’s grid is planned and paid for

The North American grid is an ever-evolving network of transmission lines and substations that carry electricity from generators to customers.

In much of the country, nonprofit “independent system operators” coordinate regional power grids, managing a wholesale electricity market and interstate transmission projects. Wisconsin is within the territory of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), which spans from the Upper Midwest to Louisiana. 

MISO has approved roughly $32 billion in transmission upgrades for the Upper Midwest since 2022, including new “backbone” power lines capable of carrying a higher voltage than existing lines in the region.

Among the latest round of projects: a series of transmission lines and substations in eastern Wisconsin. 

Just months after MISO’s board approved the eastern Wisconsin buildout in 2024, Port Washington’s city council approved a $15 billion data center on the city’s northern edge. Three new substations outlined in MISO’s plans are within easy reach of the campus.

Blackstone-backed developer takes the lead

Four transmission developers bid on the eastern Wisconsin upgrades, including ATC, which submitted a joint bid with Dairyland Power Cooperative and the nonprofit WPPI Energy, owned by municipal utilities in Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

MISO initially awarded the project to Viridon, owned by Blackstone Energy Transition Partners — a private equity fund under the umbrella of Blackstone, the world’s largest alternative asset management firm.

Viridon’s roughly $350 million bid was by far the lowest — just over half of MISO’s estimate and more than $100 million below the next-cheapest bid. In its January announcement, MISO acknowledged the budget “may not be achievable” but cited Viridon’s promises to limit cost overruns and profits as reasons to pick the company over its competitors. 

Who pays for transmission depends on who builds it

When MISO awards a long-range transmission project, the developer spreads costs across customers in multiple states, meaning each customer pays less.

When a developer plans a transmission project within its own territory, that developer’s customers bear the costs alone.

Transmission developers pass costs along to customers through electrical utility bills. We Energies, for instance, estimates that transmission-related costs account for about 10% of customers’ bills. 

Those fees include a “return on equity” for shareholders: profits generated for each dollar invested. As of 2025, ATC collects a 10.48% return.

Competitive bidding for multistate projects is relatively new. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which oversees regional grid operators like MISO, began requiring competitive bidding for regional projects in 2011, following criticism that monopoly developers were driving up ratepayer costs. 

Competition for Midwestern projects escalated after MISO’s board approved billions of dollars in grid upgrades in 2022. MISO was “ahead of the game in terms of how much regional transmission it was planning” compared to other regional grid operators, said Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School.

Grid expansion draws new competitors and investors

MISO’s transmission buildout plans offered utilities a golden opportunity to pick up new, dependable revenue streams. “I would have said generational,” Peskoe said, “but then we have the data center rush starting shortly thereafter.” 

Dozens of utilities, including some of the nation’s largest, have since lined up to bid for MISO transmission projects.

Also competing for a share of the buildout: newly formed developers financed by powerful investment firms.

Blackstone sponsored Viridon’s launch in 2023, and the new developer soon threw its hat into the ring for Midwestern transmission projects. Stonepeak, a smaller private equity firm, entered in 2025, backing startup developer Longview Infrastructure.

Well-established utilities have their own ties to multinational investment firms. 

As of December 2025, investment giants BlackRock and the Vanguard Group both owned more than 10% of shares in Wisconsin’s four largest investor-owned utility companies: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Xcel Energy, Alliant Energy and Madison Gas and Electric Company. 

State Street, another powerful investment firm, owns more than 5% of shares in each utility. 

The four major utilities collectively own a majority of ATC.

Duluth-based utility ALLETE, also an ATC investor, belongs to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The board’s purchase of ALLETE last year gave more than 22 million Canadians a chance to shore up their retirement savings through the Midwest’s grid buildout. 

A fight over competition

ATC and its peers have criticized competitive bidding from the outset. As MISO set up the new bidding process, Peskoe said, utilities fought the change in federal court and urged state legislatures to pass right-of-first-refusal (ROFR) laws.

ROFR laws give local utilities first dibs on transmission projects within their territory, including those planned by regional grid operators. 

In the view of Wisconsin’s utilities, ROFR laws ensure that utilities with local experience lead transmission projects, avoiding delays and missteps newcomers might face. “Out-of-state single-project developers lack local connection,” an ATC spokesperson wrote in an email to Wisconsin Watch. “We maintain relationships with our regulators that go beyond a single project.” 

But a coalition of critics, including many Midwestern ratepayer advocacy groups, argue that ROFR laws drive up consumer costs by stifling competition and preserving local monopolies. “We firmly believe that competitive bidding makes sense,” said Tom Content, executive director of Wisconsin’s Citizens Utility Board.

MISO has favored lower-cost bids thus far, but ATC argues that celebrating the cost savings from competitive bidding is premature. “Evidence of a low bid is not evidence of cost savings,” the company spokesperson wrote, because bid prices often do not match final project cost. Substantial overruns are common, even in projects without competitive bidding.

The two sides have battled in state legislatures and courts across the Midwest for more than a decade. Utilities prevailed in Minnesota and Michigan; Iowa’s Supreme Court struck down a ROFR law in 2023 after a national developer challenged its constitutionality.

Despite extensive lobbying, ROFR bills have repeatedly failed in Wisconsin’s Assembly, including one introduced in 2025 by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester.

That leaves ATC to compete for the MISO-planned transmission upgrades, including the plans for eastern Wisconsin.

Data center complicates planning

Shortly after MISO began soliciting bids for the project in February 2025, ATC alerted the grid operator to a complication. The Port Washington data center would need to connect to the grid by the end of 2027, and ATC would be responsible for making the plug-in possible with new substations designed to support the campus’ vast energy needs.

ATC jointly bid on MISO’s eastern Wisconsin grid upgrades in July 2025.

Two months later, the company filed an application with Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission (PSC) to build substations and transmission lines to serve the new data center campus. ATC projected a price tag of at least $1.3 billion for its broader project, which includes infrastructure not in MISO’s reliability-focused plan for eastern Wisconsin. Both proposals called for three substations — albeit at different scales, on different timelines and for different purposes — in roughly the same locations. 

From ATC’s perspective, at least one set of substations would need to be built in time for the Port Washington data center’s opening day. If MISO awarded its project to ATC, the company could address regional grid reliability concerns and serve the data center in one fell swoop, spreading some costs across the Upper Midwest to ease ratepayer burdens. Even if MISO didn’t award the project to ATC, the utility said it would still seek state approval to build the necessary substations. 

But others saw the overlap as an attempt to sidestep competition.

“We have concerns that attempts are being made to circumvent competitive bidding,” Content said.

MISO soon raised concerns of its own with the Wisconsin PSC. In early January, the grid operator argued that ATC was effectively applying to build the “same substations” as those outlined in its own eastern Wisconsin project. Because MISO had not yet selected a winning bidder for its transmission upgrades, it urged regulators to “consider this uncertainty” before allowing ATC to move forward.

After MISO selected its bid, Viridon also raised objections.

“Put simply, if ATC constructs the substations, Viridon cannot, and ATC will have circumvented MISO’s planning processes,” the developer’s attorneys wrote in a motion filed with the PSC. Allowing ATC to build the substations, they added, would prevent costs from being distributed across multiple states, “potentially requir(ing) Wisconsin customers to pay more.”

ATC pushed back, arguing the projects serve different purposes. The project MISO envisioned aims to improve regional grid reliability and did not require a rapid turnaround, ATC attorney Amy Miller wrote in filings with the PSC. The project under consideration by the PSC, on the other hand, was tied to a specific customer with a firm deadline.

ATC emphasized that Viridon is not yet certified as a public utility in Wisconsin — a process that could take a year or more. That timeline, ATC argued, makes it impossible for Viridon to complete the substations in time. “MISO cannot cause Wisconsin customers to go without timely access to power,” Miller wrote.

Vantage Data Centers echoed the urgency, telling regulators it had “a considerable amount to lose” if the substations aren’t ready by the time the Port Washington campus opens.

MISO changes course — benefiting ATC

Behind the scenes, the timeline began to shift.

Shortly before filing its PSC application last fall, ATC asked MISO to expedite a review of its eastern Wisconsin upgrades in light of the data center’s plans.

MISO adjusted its schedule in February, setting a new in-service date of Dec. 1, 2027. Viridon submitted a plan to meet that deadline, Jeff Dodd, president of Viridon’s Midwestern subsidiary, told Wisconsin Watch.

The grid operator wasn’t persuaded. 

In a revision released quietly on Thursday, MISO reassigned the substations to ATC, noting its “uncertainty” that Viridon could clear administrative hurdles in time. 

The reassignment is a first for MISO. The grid operator has previously worked with developers to update plans when problems arose, with the exception of a 2023 case in which MISO canceled a project because of Texas’ right of first refusal law. 

Viridon retains a fraction of MISO’s original project: a set of transmission lines and one substation scheduled for completion by 2033. 

Under the new arrangement, Midwestern customers will collectively cover the costs of Viridon’s project and about $40 million of ATC’s substation upgrades. 

The regional cost sharing of the substations is a small relief for ratepayer advocates. ATC now plans to fold the substations into the larger grid buildout it brought to the PSC last September, which includes transmission lines needed to serve the Port Washington data center. Wisconsin ratepayers alone are set to cover the remainder of the project’s more than $1 billion budget. 

“Now that the dispute over ownership of the substations is resolved,” Content wrote in an email to Wisconsin Watch, “our overriding concern is over the costs of the transmission line itself that ATC has proposed. Critical changes are needed to prevent utility customers across Wisconsin as well as customers in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula from footing the bill for this project and other data center-feeding power lines that should be paid for by the tech companies.”

The final outcome for the Wisconsin transmission projects still hinges on state regulators. Neither Viridon nor ATC can begin construction on their respective substations or transmission lines without approval from the PSC. The commission is reviewing ATC’s application and weighing where the infrastructure will be built.

For now, construction crews are racing to bring the Port Washington data center online by the end of next year. The PSC will soon decide who pays for the power to run it.

Competition intensifies over who builds Wisconsin’s grid as data centers drive power demand 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.

The post PSC Approves Rate Case Settlement with Alliant appeared first on RENEW Wisconsin.