A Nonpartisan Comparison of Gubernatorial Candidates’ Energy Policies

Wisconsin is entering an important period of energy investment and transition.

Electricity demand is expected to grow as manufacturers expand, transportation becomes increasingly electrified, and data centers seek access to large amounts of power. At the same time, utilities must replace aging infrastructure, maintain dependable service, control costs, and decide which generation and grid resources should serve Wisconsin for decades.

The next governor will influence these decisions through appointments to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC), state budgets, administrative policy, economic-development agreements, and cooperation with the Legislature.

This voter-education guide summarizes and compares the gubernatorial candidates’ publicly stated positions on renewable energy and related electricity policy. It does not endorse, oppose, rank, rate, or assign grades to any candidate.

Candidates are presented alphabetically and evaluated through the same policy framework.

The Evaluation Framework

The comparison examines four characteristics of a modern Wisconsin energy system.

Clean

Renewable

Reliable

Independent

Cross-Cutting Policy Questions

Several issues affect all four areas and are therefore discussed throughout the comparison.

Affordability

Energy affordability includes more than the initial cost of constructing a power plant.

Coal and natural-gas facilities require ongoing fuel purchases, transportation, maintenance, and exposure to commodity price fluctuations. Wind and solar require significant upfront investment but do not incur continuing fuel expenses. Renewable integration may also require transmission, storage, grid controls, and other reliability resources.

A complete comparison must examine the cost of the entire electricity portfolio rather than the construction cost of one resource in isolation.

Land Use

Every large energy system has a physical footprint.

Wind and solar projects require land, roads, substations, and transmission. Conventional energy also requires generating stations, pipelines, rail infrastructure, fuel storage, transmission, and waste-management facilities. Nuclear power requires plant sites, cooling infrastructure, security areas, transmission, and long-term fuel and waste management.

The relevant questions include how much land is needed, whether compatible uses can continue, whether the use is temporary or permanent, how the community benefits, and what restoration or decommissioning requirements apply.

Public Service Commission Governance

The governor appoints members of the PSC, subject to Senate confirmation. Commissioners make consequential decisions concerning utility rates, power plants, transmission, customer programs, and long-term utility investments.

The candidates therefore differ not only on particular technologies but also on how Wisconsin’s regulatory system should make energy decisions.

Candidate Policy Summaries (Listed Alphabetically)

Joel Brennan

David Crowley

Francesca Hong

Andy Manske

Kelda Roys

Tom Tiffany

Areas of Agreement

Despite significant differences, several themes appear across multiple platforms.

Most candidates acknowledge that electricity affordability has become a serious public concern. Several support preventing data centers from transferring their costs to existing customers. Most recognize that Wisconsin will need additional electricity and infrastructure, although they disagree sharply over the technologies, ownership structures, regulations, and timelines involved.

There is also broad recognition that appointments to the PSC will influence Wisconsin’s energy future. The disagreement concerns what commissioners should prioritize and how those priorities should be measured.

Major Policy Differences

The clearest distinction is the role assigned to renewable energy.

Hong and Roys propose explicit long-term clean-energy objectives, with Hong also establishing a near-term renewable standard. Brennan emphasizes a planning process through which renewable resources would be compared with other options. Crowley emphasizes efficiency and clean-energy access but has published fewer generation-specific details.

Manske and Tiffany place much greater emphasis on nuclear or existing firm generation. Manske proposes a nuclear-led expansion of electricity supply, while Tiffany emphasizes retaining existing generating plants, limiting large wind and solar development, and pursuing advanced nuclear technology.

The candidates also differ over data centers. Their positions range from a temporary moratorium or possible prohibition to conditional approval, separate tariffs, self-generation, demand response, publicly owned clean infrastructure, and general protections against cost shifting.

Conclusion

Wisconsin’s gubernatorial candidates offer substantially different approaches to energy policy.

Some emphasize binding renewable-energy standards. Others focus on integrated planning, consumer protection, efficiency, nuclear development, or the preservation of existing firm generation. Their data-center proposals also differ in important ways, particularly regarding cost responsibility, clean-energy requirements, land use, and public ownership.

No energy technology is free of costs, risks, or physical impacts. Sound policy requires careful consideration of affordability, reliability, environmental consequences, land use, implementation timelines, and Wisconsin’s continuing dependence on fuels purchased outside the state.

The purpose of this guide is not to tell readers which candidate to support. It is to identify the policy choices before Wisconsin and provide a consistent foundation for further public discussion.

*Methodology and Nonpartisanship Statement

This publication is intended solely for nonpartisan public education.

It summarizes publicly available candidate positions using the same subjects and general analytical framework for every candidate included. Candidate names are presented alphabetically. The publication does not endorse, oppose, rank, rate, grade, or recommend any candidate or political party.

The analysis distinguishes among documented policy proposals, general statements of support, and areas where detailed public positions were not identified. Inclusion or omission of a particular proposal reflects the publicly available materials reviewed and should not be interpreted as support for or opposition to any candidate.

Readers are encouraged to review each candidate’s complete platforms and reach their own conclusions.

Imagine Wisconsin is about to take the most ambitious road trip in its history.

The destination? A future where the lights stay on, electric bills are affordable, businesses have the power they need to grow, and the air is cleaner than it is today.

Three people walk up to the driver’s seat and say, “I know the best way.” But they all want to take a different route.

Mandela Barnes: “Let’s Build Opportunity.”

Barnes looks out the windshield and says, “This trip should help everyone.”

His path focuses on creating good-paying jobs, expanding clean energy, and making sure the benefits reach working families and communities that have often been left behind.

His message is simple: Wisconsin can grow its economy while building more renewable energy.

Francesca Hong: “Let’s Build the Highway of the Future.”

Hong unfolds what appears to be the largest map anyone has brought. She talks about adding more solar and wind farms, more battery storage, and a stronger electric grid. She also wants Wisconsin to plan ahead rather than wait until there’s a problem.

When giant new electricity users, like AI data centers, move into Wisconsin, she argues they should pay for the new power plants and transmission lines they need, rather than sending the bill to everyone else.

Her route is ambitious and detailed.

Tom Tiffany: “Don’t Fix What Isn’t Broken.”

Tiffany eases off the gas and says, “Slow down.” Tiffany wants to pump the brakes on utility-scale renewable energy projects. His alternative? Wisconsin should lean into fossil fuels and add more nuclear energy generation to the mix to meet our energy needs and keep prices low.

Renewable energy could have a place on his map, but he believes nuclear energy and fossil fuels are what’s needed to meet Wisconsin’s energy needs.

More on The Candidates’ Energy Plans

Though RENEW has a preference for a route that includes the most renewable energy possible, that doesn’t automatically make the plan we prefer the “best” plan for every voter.

Francesca Hong

Hong brings the most complete blueprint to the table. Her plan covers renewable energy from nearly every angle—expanding solar and wind power, adding battery storage, strengthening the electric grid, improving energy efficiency, and planning for Wisconsin’s future energy needs. She also explains who should help pay for new infrastructure.

 Mandela Barnes

Barnes strongly supports renewable energy and clean-energy jobs. His vision is optimistic and focuses on creating opportunities for working families. While his goals are clear, his publicly released energy strategy contains fewer specific details about how those goals would be achieved.

Tom Tiffany

Tiffany’s focus is different. He believes that expanding nuclear power and relying on fossil fuels will drive down energy prices. Renewable energy might be part of his approach, but it is certainly not the centerpiece of his energy strategy. Because this report card grades only renewable energy policy, he receives the lowest score.

The Destination

Every candidate agrees on one thing:

Wisconsin needs more energy.

Where they disagree is how to build it, who should pay for it, and how quickly the state should move toward renewable energy.

As with every road trip, there are different routes to the same destination, but it’s up to the people of Wisconsin to decide who gets the keys.

*This blog post is not a candidate endorsement and includes the top three polling candidates at the time of publication. We encourage everyone to research the policies of each candidate and make their own decision on who has the best plan for them.

Over the past week, millions of people across the Midwest and East Coast have stepped outside to hazy skies, smelled smoke in the air, and checked their weather apps—not for rain, but for the Air Quality Index (AQI).

For many communities, the AQI has climbed from “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups” to “Unhealthy” and even “hazardous” categories because of wildfire smoke drifting south from Canada.

The culprit is PM2.5—fine particulate matter measuring 2.5 micrometers or smaller. These particles are so small that they can travel deep into your lungs and even enter your bloodstream. They’re associated with increased asthma attacks, heart disease, strokes, respiratory illness, and other serious health concerns.

We often talk about building an economy and a clean energy future we can afford, focusing on the cost of producing energy and the size of people’s energy bills. In this case, the discussion shifts to what we can’t afford. We can’t afford to keep making the choices that have turned these smoky summer days into a new normal.

Those decisions have not only brought us to this moment, but have been producing the same type of pollution driving today’s air quality alerts. PM2.5 is also one of the primary pollutants produced when coal is burned to generate electricity. Coal-fired power plants also emit sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), which can react in the atmosphere to create even more fine particulate pollution.

To be clear, not every wildfire is directly caused by climate change, but our choice to rely on fuel sources like coal and natural gas makes it more common. What’s worse is that our continued reliance on coal plants continues to regularly expose nearby residents to fine particulate pollution that can harm our health. The same kind of air pollution that much of the country is being exposed to right now. 

Every time smoke fills our skies, we change our behavior. We keep our children indoors, cancel outdoor events, run air purifiers, and hope the wind shifts. Unfortunately, those who live near coal plants don’t have the benefit of waiting for the winds to change.

It reminds us of something we often take for granted: Clean air matters.

That is why RENEW Wisconsin works every day to expand renewable energy across our state.

Every new solar array, every wind project, every battery installation, every clean energy policy we advance is about more than electricity. It’s about protecting the air we breathe, strengthening our economy, creating jobs in Wisconsin, and building an energy system that doesn’t rely on harmful combustion to keep the lights on.

This work doesn’t happen by accident.

It happens because people like you believe Wisconsin deserves a cleaner, healthier, and more resilient energy future.

If you’ve ever wondered whether your support makes a difference, it does.

Your donation helps RENEW Wisconsin:

• Advocate for clean energy policies at the Capitol and before state agencies.
• Support the responsible development of wind, solar, and energy storage.
• Expand access to renewable energy for schools, nonprofits, and communities.
• Educate the public with trusted, fact-based information.
• Build a healthier energy future for every Wisconsin family.

The next time you look outside and see a hazy sky, remember that while we can’t stop every wildfire, we can choose how we generate the electricity that powers our lives and build the future we want to see.

If you believe, like us, that we can’t afford to continue to rely on the energy sources that got us into this mess, I invite you to support RENEW Wisconsin today.

Together, we can build a state where clean air isn’t something we hope for—it’s something we protect.

Donate today and help power Wisconsin’s clean energy future.

Ismaeel Chartier
Executive Director, RENEW Wisconsin

We’ve seen this history play out before.

Just as momentum for clean energy gains ground—projects rising, costs falling—a new decree arrives from above. The return of top-down, centralized energy policy isn’t just a debate; it’s an attempt to rule by rollback. It’s the old guard trying to reclaim power by stalling investment and clouding the future with uncertainty.

But here’s the thing about progress: it doesn’t belong to any single person. It belongs to the people building it on the ground, right here in Wisconsin.

The Decree vs. The Reality

When leadership tries to reign over the energy transition, we, the people, pay the price:

• Infrastructure is halted by royal red tape.
• Investment is chased away to more stable lands.
• Communities lose their independence to volatile, old-world costs.

We aren’t waiting for a coronation or a change of heart in a distant capital. At RENEW Wisconsin, we believe in a self-governing energy future. We move forward because the climate doesn’t care who sits in the Oval Office.

A Revolutionary Act for Your Individual Retirement Account (IRA)

You don’t have to be a spectator in this power struggle. If you are 70½ or older, you have a unique tool to help fund resistance to progress-killing policies: the Qualified Charitable Distribution (QCD).

Think of it as a way that you can defund an agenda you don’t support and put those funds directly into the hands of those building the future.

With a QCD, you can:

• Move IRA funds to RENEW Wisconsin to protect local projects.
• Avoid increasing your taxable income.
• Satisfy your Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) on your own terms.
• Ensure your legacy builds local power, not political theater.

Let’s Democratize Energy

You’ve spent a lifetime building your own estate. You know that true stability isn’t granted by a leader—it’s built through hard work and foresight.

The window to act is open, but the gates can be slammed shut by the next administration. Don’t let your hard-earned resources be eroded by shifting political winds. Use a QCD to reinforce the progress we’ve made.

Wisconsin doesn’t answer to kings. We answer to the future we build.

There is an old story from the Mediterranean about an elderly man planting an olive tree. A passerby asks why he would plant something that takes decades to bear fruit. The man replies: “Because my children will need the olives.”

Transmission lines are much the same.

Across southwest Wisconsin, communities are hearing about the MariBell Transmission Project, a proposed high-voltage transmission line that would connect Marion, Minnesota, to Bell Center, Wisconsin. The project is part of an effort to strengthen the electric grid across the Upper Midwest.

When people first hear about a transmission project, the natural questions are: Why do we need it? And is it safe?

We can answer both.

Transmission Is Planned Generations Ahead

Transmission lines are not built for today’s electricity needs. They are planned decades ahead for our children’s future.

Much of the infrastructure we rely on today was planned decades ago. Engineers studied population growth and future electricity demand long before many of the businesses and technologies we rely on today even existed.

Regional grid operators like MISO (Midcontinent Independent System Operator) are responsible for conducting these long-range studies. From that work comes the Long Range Transmission Plan, which identifies major grid upgrades needed to maintain reliability across the region. The MariBell project is part of that effort.

Once a project appears on a planning map, it often takes 10 to 15 years before construction begins. Environmental studies, landowner discussions, engineering design, and regulatory approvals are all requirements for this long-term investment.

In other words, transmission is built for the future long before it arrives.

The Backbone of a Reliable Economy

Electricity demand across the Midwest is growing again.

Manufacturing is expanding. We’re electrifying our homes and transportation. At the same time, older power plants are retiring, and new energy sources are coming online across the region.

Transmission connects it all, allowing electricity to travel long distances, balancing supply and demand across states, and ensuring reliability during extreme weather or periods of high demand. It also allows new power generation, from solar to nuclear, to connect to the grid and reach the communities that need it.

Addressing the EMF Question

Another common concern raised during transmission discussions is electromagnetic fields, or EMF.

EMFs are produced whenever electricity flows through a wire, not just transmission lines. Household wiring, appliances, power tools, and TVs also create EMFs.

Because this issue has raised questions for decades, it has been studied extensively. Research conducted by the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization, and the National Cancer Institute has examined EMF exposure for more than 40 years.

The consistent scientific finding is that EMF from power lines has not been shown to cause adverse health effects from the levels of exposure typically experienced by the public.

Transmission lines are also designed to naturally reduce exposure. The height of structures and the distance they are placed from homes are both meant to take advantage of the fact that EMF levels drop rapidly the farther you move away from a line. In many cases, household appliances can expose people to stronger EMF levels at a very close range.

That doesn’t mean concerns should be dismissed. But decades of research provide strong reassurance that transmission infrastructure operates safely within established guidelines.

Thinking Like the Man With the Olive Tree

The conversation around the MariBell project is in its early stages. Maps show both proposed and optional corridors, and the final route will be determined through regulatory review and public input.

Those conversations matter. Communities deserve transparency, and landowners deserve to be heard.

The grid we rely on today exists because previous generations believed in planning for the future. They built the infrastructure that powers today’s homes, hospitals, farms, and businesses.

They planted the olive trees.

Now it’s our turn.

Transmission projects like MariBell are not just about meeting today’s electricity needs. They are about ensuring that our children inherit an infrastructure strong enough to support their future.

If we want them to enjoy the harvest, we have to start planting now.

The on-site renewable mandate in AB 840 is a grid reliability trap.

Wisconsin is at the front edge of a new electricity boom. Data centers, especially those powering artificial intelligence, are arriving with power demands greater than those of many towns and cities. This can be an opportunity for economic growth and long-term energy strength. But only if we write the rules correctly.

That’s why one provision in Assembly Bill 840 (AB 840) should be rejected outright:

“Any renewable energy facility that primarily serves the load of a data center shall be located at the site of the data center.”

On the surface, it sounds reasonable. If a data center claims it will use renewable energy, then the renewable energy should be “right there,” on-site. Simple. But energy policy isn’t made in slogans. It’s made in engineering and economics. And this provision is not a renewable energy policy at all.

It’s a natural gas mandate in disguise. Wisconsin should demand clean power at scale,  not performative compliance. Large data centers can draw hundreds of megawatts around the clock. That kind of demand can’t realistically be met with on-site renewables alone. At least in most locations in Wisconsin. Wind and solar require significant acreage, and the best renewable resources aren’t always near data-center sites.

So what happens when lawmakers require renewables to be built in a confined or impractical space? Renewables can’t meet demand. And when renewables can’t be deployed effectively, the market defaults to the only thing left — fossil fuels.

That means AB 840’s on-site rule doesn’t “ensure renewables.” It blocks renewables and guarantees fossil fuel generation, exactly the opposite of what Wisconsin needs for long-term energy security and economic resilience.

Grid reliability comes from flexibility, not forced geography. Here’s the core problem: the electric grid is not designed around one-to-one power matching. Wisconsin’s power system works because it is a network. We build generation where it makes sense, where the renewable resource is strongest, where land is available, where interconnection is possible, and where transmission can support it. Then electricity flows across the system.

This is not a partisan argument. It’s how modern power systems are built. Requiring renewable energy facilities to be located only on-site at data centers ignores the basic physics of the grid and forces the wrong kind of infrastructure in the wrong place.

Even worse, it undermines reliability. Concentrating generation and load at the same node can create congestion and interconnection bottlenecks. Reliability improves when generation is diversified and distributed geographically, wind in one region, solar in another, storage where it helps most, and transmission planned intentionally.

AB 840’s location requirement is the opposite of that. It is central planning, not grid planning.

If Wisconsin wants ratepayer protection, fine, but we can’t sabotage the growth of clean energy. There’s a lot in AB 840 worth serious discussion. Wisconsin absolutely must prevent large private loads from shifting costs onto families, farmers, and small businesses. That’s non-negotiable.

But if lawmakers are serious about protecting Wisconsinites, they should also consider what happens when natural gas becomes the default fuel for powering the new economy. Gas plants lock in decades of fuel dependence. And fuel dependence means price volatility. Families don’t just pay for the plant — they pay for the fuel, forever. That’s not energy security, that’s vulnerability.

Wisconsin should not build its economic future on imported fuel with prices set by national and global markets. We should build it on resources we can produce right here: wind and solar, paired with storage, demand response, transmission planning, and other grid reliability tools.

There’s a better way, and it’s common sense.

If lawmakers want data centers to contribute to Wisconsin’s energy future, the bill should do three things:

• Require meaningful renewable procurement at scale, not token projects
• Allow off-site renewable development connected to the Wisconsin grid
• Require data centers to pay for the upgrades they drive, generation, interconnection, transmission, and firming

That approach accomplishes everything policymakers say they want:

• reliability
• competitiveness
• long-term price stability
• grid modernization
• and no cost shift to ratepayers

And it does it without forcing Wisconsin into a wave of fossil buildout. Wisconsin gets one shot at this data center expansion will reshape our grid for the next generation. The decisions we make now will determine whether Wisconsin becomes:

• a national model for modern, resilient power growth, or
• a cautionary tale of rushing headfirst into natural gas dependence

AB 840’s on-site renewable mandate is not a guardrail. It’s a trap. If we want energy security and grid reliability, renewable energy provisions must be strong—and they must be real. That means allowing off-site renewables and requiring data centers to add new clean power to the grid at scale.

Wisconsin can welcome economic growth. But we should not do it by writing fossil dependence into law.