Photo by Gregory Conniff for Wisconsin Examiner

Wisconsin farms applied about 16 million pounds more nitrogen than necessary to their fields in 2022, according to a recently released report from Clean Wisconsin and Alliance for the Great Lakes. 

The excess application of fertilizer poses serious risks to public health, raises costs for people who get their water from public utilities or private wells and increases costs for farmers, the report found. 

Throughout the report, the environmental groups included input from residents who have had their health and wallets affected by nitrate pollution. 

“I own a daycare center, and the mental toll of just staying in business because I did not cause the contamination of my well and yet am expected to solve the problem is exhausting…” Kewaunee County resident Lisa Cochart says in the report. “This could put me out of business. I work hard to provide my community with a service that assures that each child is receiving the best care and it can be shut down because of a nitrate test that I cannot control.”

The report makes a number of recommendations to better track the amount of nitrogen spread on Wisconsin’s fields and in Wisconsin’s water systems while better enforcing regulations meant to protect drinking water. But agricultural industry representatives have said the report places too much burden on farmers — even though agriculture produces up to 90% of the nitrogen in the state’s groundwater. 

“Wisconsin cannot afford to delay. The cost of inaction — both financial and human — is rising,” the report states. “A coordinated, science-based policy response is essential to reduce nitrate pollution at its source, protect public health and ecosystems, and ensure clean, safe drinking water for future generations.”

The report recommends tougher state standards for nitrates, improved enforcement of nutrient management plans on individual farms, creating a statewide registration system for manure haulers and requiring regular groundwater monitoring for factory farms. It also proposes collecting data on the cost of nitrogen contamination to public water systems, expanding the state’s existing private well compensation program and increasing the state’s nitrogen fertilizer tonnage fees.

While the report’s recommendations are aimed at a wide range of policy areas and farming is the major source of nitrogen contamination, dairy industry representatives have pushed back on its findings. Tim Trotter, CEO of the Dairy Business Association, told Wisconsin Public Radio farmers are already doing enough voluntarily to address the problem. 

“Our work with solutions-minded environmental groups and other stakeholders through a statewide clean water initiative has resulted in tailored changes to programs and policies that open up more opportunities for on-farm innovation that addresses this important issue,” Trotter said. “Reports like this one do little to bring practical, achievable solutions to water quality challenges, and can be counterproductive to progress.”

In the past, the Dairy Business Association has sued state regulators to weaken the state’s ability to regulate pollution sources such as runoff. 

The report states that the state Legislature and the courts have limited the authorities of state agencies, including the Department of Natural Resources and Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, preventing them from doing all that is necessary to manage the contamination. 

“Because Wisconsin administrative agencies have been severely limited in their ability to establish new regulations, they have relied heavily on voluntary incentives, such as cost-sharing and price supports to incentivize farmers to implement conservation measures,” the report states. “However, it is clear that these voluntary incentives alone aren’t enough to solve Wisconsin’s nitrate problems.”

The report also found that in applying more nitrogen fertilizer than necessary, Wisconsin’s farmers are spending $8-$11 million more each year than they need to — “dollars that could be saved with more precise application.” 

More than one-third of the state’s residents get their drinking water from private wells, which are especially susceptible to nitrate contamination. The report recommends expanding the well compensation program, but adds that is just a band-aid solution. 

The program also limits participation to residents making less than $60,000 per year and includes a number of requirements that further restrict who is eligible, even if their wells exceed the state’s nitrate standard of 10 milligrams per liter, according to the report.  

Instead, the report argues, the state needs to better work to keep nitrates out of the groundwater in the first place. 

“Well compensation programs, while vital for near-term relief, are ultimately a stopgap,” the report states. “They do not address the root cause of nitrate pollution. Without stronger upstream controls on nitrate pollution, more families will face the high cost and growing scarcity of access to safe drinking water.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Members of the public attend a hearing over Enbridge Line 5. (Photo courtesy of Devon Young Cupery)

An administrative law judge in Madison heard arguments Wednesday in a case contesting Wisconsin’s approval of Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 pipeline reroute. Members of the  public testified, followed by an expert witness in geology and hydrology, who questioned aspects of the reroute plan. 

The lawsuit, brought by Clean Wisconsin and Midwest Environmental Advocates (on behalf of the Sierra Club of Wisconsin, the League of Woman Voters of Wisconsin and 350 Wisconsin), challenges permits allowing the Canadian oil company to move forward with rerouting the Line 5 pipeline around the Bad River reservation in northern Wisconsin. Wednesday’s hearing followed the opening day of testimony in Ashland and was one of a series of hearings  scheduled through early October. The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is challenging Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources permits for a Line 5 reroute, which was designed to fix a legal problem with the existing pipeline after a federal court found that it trespasses on tribal land. Attorneys for the Band, environmental groups and Enbridge testified at the hearing. 

Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline has been a polarizing issue, with one side arguing that it’s crucial for energy independence and jobs in Wisconsin, while the other points to a history of leaky and ruptured Enbridge pipelines causing ecological damage, a national need to transition away from fossil fuels, and the company’s years-long trespass on the Bad River Band’s sovereign land. 

Public testimony Wednesday drew  people from both sides of the debate. “The loss of Line 5 would have devastating impacts on the propane industry,” said Connor Kaeb, an associate manager with GROWMARK, which Kaeb said is Wisconsin’s fifth largest provider of propane. Kaeb stressed that farmers and northern Wisconsin communities depend on affordable and easily accessible propane. Shutting down Line 5 could cause “immense strain on the entire propane system in the region,” he said. 

Tabitha Faber, who spoke against the pipeline, said that the reroute would cross more than 100 waterways, and that even though it avoids the Bad River Band’s reservation, that the pipeline remains in the Bad River watershed, continuing to endanger the Band’s natural resources. Faber recalled visiting sites along the reroute path and seeing bald eagles and wood turtle  habitats. Faber also said that the pipeline’s construction and operation could wash invasive species into new and sensitive habitats, including within the Bad River reservation. Steve Boas, a Madison resident, also spoke against the project, calling the more than 70-year-old pipeline “an accident waiting to happen.” 

The American Petroleum Institute called the relocation project “essential to maintaining Wisconsin’s energy reliability.” The Institute claimed that rerouting Line 5 will create more than 700 jobs, adding that the pipeline has heated homes and businesses, aided agriculture and enabled transportation for decades “without any issue.” In contrast, Third Act Wisconsin — a group of older Americans concerned about climate and democracy — echoed concerns that Line 5 would threaten high-quality wetlands, the Bad River watershed as a whole and even Lake Superior.

Access to clean water is a crucial asset for Wisconsin, environmental groups testified. Tourism generates $378 million in Bayfield, Ashland, Douglas, and Iron counties, while also supporting 2,846 jobs, all in the area near Line 5, according to Clean Wisconsin. 

“For decades, the Bad River Band has been sounding the alarm about the unprecedented risks posed by Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline,” Ellen Ferwerda, who leads Third Act Wisconsin’s work on Line 5, said in a statement. Despite “a myriad of scientists, economists, environmental groups, and citizens” who’ve spoken out against the pipeline, “the DNR summarily dismissed these concerns and issued a permit allowing Enbridge to begin construction of a reroute around the Bad River Reservation.” 

“It feels like the Bad River Band is being punished for standing up for their legal right to protect the watershed their culture and livelihood has relied on for centuries,” she added. Julia Issacs, co-facilitator of Third Act Wisconsin, said in a statement that “we should be decommissioning old and dangerous pipelines, not investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure.” 

Most of Wednesday’s hearing was dedicated to grilling William Joseph Bonin, a licensed senior geologist with Midwest Geological Consultants. He produced a report in May 2025 that pushed back on assessments made by experts from the DNR and Enbridge. 

Bonin raised a multitude of concerns, particularly around how construction of the pipeline could affect springs, aquifers and groundwater. He pointed to the presence of glacial sediments, which make it difficult to predict how water flow could be affected. Bonin recalled one 2018 project in Minnesota, where a gas pipeline was installed along a roadway near adjacent springs. The springs disappeared, and then other springs showed up in a parking lot on a private property, he said. Springs and aquifers that help feed nearby wetlands and other adjacent habitats could be affected by pipeline construction, he testified, and cutting trenches to construct the pipeline could also lead to increased erosion.

Bonin said the risk of aquifer breaches is higher than what had been assessed, and questioned how the presence of already fractured rock layers could be altered by the use of blasting in constructing the reroute. He also pointed to the possibility of “thermal impacts” to waterways, including high-quality trout streams which are sensitive to temperature changes. “Blasting is going to have a larger impact than the expert reports discussed and the reason for that is the already fractured bedrock was not taken into consideration in the reports,” Bonin said. “The effects of blasts, especially on fracture networks, may be permanent,” he added.  “The basted rock is never going to be restored.” This, in turn, could have a ripple effect on how water moves and behaves in the ground around the pipeline reroute, he testified. 

Attorneys representing the DNR and Enbridge took turns cross-examining Bonin. They discussed knowledge gaps Bonin had regarding the wetland aspects of the permits, and argued that methods like blasting and trenching are very common construction practices for all sorts of projects from pipelines to roads.  Enbridge’s attorney pointed out that, while  Bonin has reviewed and analyzed the effects of blasting, Bonin himself has not worked in the field. 

Another hearing in Madison is scheduled for Friday, Sept. 12, at the Hill Farms State Office Building. On Sept. 15 and 19, there will be  hearings in Ashland at the Northwood Technical College Conference Center, followed by more hearings in Madison on Sept. 22, Sept. 26, Sept. 29 and Oct. 3. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Cows at a Dunn County dairy farm. (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

A Wisconsin Court of Appeals on Wednesday ruled that the state Department of Natural Resources has the authority to require that factory farms obtain water pollution permits, affirming a previous Calumet County court decision. 

Two groups representing Wisconsin’s factory farms, known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, filed the lawsuit in 2023, arguing that the state did not have the authority to require permits under the DNR’s Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) program. The program requires any entity that discharges pollution into the state’s waterways to obtain a permit. 

The lobbying groups, Venture Dairy Cooperative and the Wisconsin Dairy Alliance, are themselves led by factory farm operators who have been cited by the DNR for contaminating the state’s water through manure spills. Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s largest business lobby, has also been involved in the lawsuit. 

State law requires an application for a WPDES permit must be made within 90 days of becoming a factory farm or expanding. The permits last for five years before they must be renewed. CAFOs — factory farms with more than 1,000 “animal units,” which is equivalent to about 700 milking cows — are also required to submit plans to the DNR for how they intend to manage the manure created on the farm. 

Over the last two decades, the number of CAFOs operating in Wisconsin has more than doubled, creating an increasing amount of manure that sits in lagoons, gets spread onto fields and potentially runs off into local waterways. 

If a manure spill occurs, the permit requires the owner to notify the agency and is responsible for the cleanup. The permits also need to be reapproved whenever an operation is planning to expand and every permit application is subject to a public comment period. 

A manure spill can cause harmful substances such as nitrates, E. coli and phosphorus to enter the state’s ground and surface waters — potentially making drinking water dangerous to consume and causing fish to die. 

Four years ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the DNR had the authority to use the WPDES permits to impose conditions on factory farms as a way to control their environmental effects. In recent years, WMC has filed several lawsuits seeking to weaken the DNR’s authority and undermine its ability to regulate water pollution across the state. 

The lawsuit argued that having to comply with the “time-consuming, costly process” of obtaining a permit that imposes “substantial costs and regulatory burdens” on the farms, is against the law because of two previous federal court decisions in 2005 and 2011 about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s own permit requirements for polluters.

On Wednesday, the District II Court of Appeals, which covers 12 counties in southeastern Wisconsin, found that the DNR does have the authority to create the rules the dairy groups challenged. 

“The challenged rules do not exceed the DNR’s statutory authority and do not conflict with state law,” the three judge panel, controlled by a conservative majority, wrote.

After the decision, advocates for the environment and smaller farms said it would help the state protect water quality. 

“This decision is a win for every rural community that depends on clean water,” Wisconsin Farmers Union President Darin Von Ruden said in a statement. “Family farmers understand that stewardship of the land and water is key to long-term success. Ensuring that large livestock operations follow commonsense permitting rules protects our shared resources and the future of farming in Wisconsin.”

“These large operations can produce as much waste as a small city, and the state must be able to monitor and control how, where, and in what quantities manure is stored and spread on the landscape,” said Clean Wisconsin attorney Evan Feinauer. “That’s why for nearly 40 years, the DNR has required large CAFOs to have permits to limit this dangerous pollution. Allowing large dairies to sidestep oversight would have been catastrophic for water protection in our state.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A PFAS advisory sign along Starkweather Creek. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Now that work on the state budget is complete, environmental groups and residents of communities affected by PFAS contamination believe progress can still be made on getting money out the door to help remediate water pollution across the state. 

Since the last biennial budget was passed, $125 million in funds meant to help with cleaning up contamination of water from PFAS has been sitting untouched with no legislative mechanism for getting that money out to communities.

PFAS, a family of man-made chemical compounds known as “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down in the environment, have been connected to cancer and other diseases. The chemicals have been used in products such as firefighting foam and household goods such as non-stick pans and fast food wrappers. Communities across the state have found PFAS contamination in their water. 

During the last legislative session, early hopes of compromise crumbled after Democrats and Republicans failed to reach agreement on a provision aimed at protecting “innocent landowners” from being subject to enforcement actions for PFAS contamination under the state’s toxic spills law by the Department of Natural Resources. 

Republicans, including the bill’s author, Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) argued the bill had to include language that protected people who have PFAS contamination on their property through no fault of their own. Democrats said the language in the bill defining innocent landowners was so broad that it would exempt property owners responsible for pollution from being held responsible. 

Ultimately, Gov. Tony Evers vetoed the bill. 

Wimberger and Rep. Tim Mursau (R-Crivitz) authored legislation this year to get the $125 million earmarked for PFAS remediation out the door. 

Sara Walling, Clean Wisconsin’s water and agriculture program director, says she’s “hopeful” that discussions between the Republican bill authors, Evers and affected residents have been productive. 

“There is opportunity now I think that the budget is done for Wimberger and others, of course, to pay attention, put a little energy into this, and really sit down and hash out the provisions in there, and get to a point that there’s something hopefully that we can all live with, and that will get the money to impacted communities and private well owners and all the things that the money is intended to be used for,” Walling says. 

While people see progress being made, there are still objections to the legislation. Wimberger and Mursau have proposed two bills, one of which exempts certain groups of people from enforcement under the spills law. 

Exempting ‘innocent landowners’

The exemptions include anyone who spread biosolids or wastewater contaminated with PFAS onto a field while in compliance with a DNR permit; owns land on which contaminated biosolids were spread under a permit; a fire department, public airport or municipality that used PFAS-contaminated firefighting foam to train for or respond to emergencies; solid waste disposal facilities that accepted PFAS and anyone that owns, leases, manages, or contracts for property on which PFAS has moved through the groundwater (unless they caused the contamination on another piece of property). 

Earlier this year, Evers suggested he’d support exempting farmers and residents from being held financially responsible for cleaning up PFAS contamination if they unknowingly caused it by spreading contaminated biosolids. 

But Walling says she’d like to see that language tightened further to make sure it does not create a loophole for responsible parties. 

“The provisions that are laid on that out there now just provide far too big of a loophole for who would be considered an innocent landowner in the current bill language,” she said. “And we really want to see that tightened so that truly innocent landowners, the passive receivers, the farmers out there who unknowingly were accepting municipal biosolids … those are the innocent landowners that I know that the authors are trying to protect.” 

What’s an allowable level of PFAS?

The other bill creates the mechanisms and grant programs through which the $125 million would be awarded to affected communities. 

Doug Oitzinger is the former mayor and a current city councilmember of Marinette and a founder of a group of community members fighting to clean up PFAS pollution in his area from the manufacture of fire suppression technologies by Tyco/Johnson Controls. 

Oitzinger says he’s wary of a provision in the bill that exempts private property owners who don’t qualify as innocent landowners from enforcement under the spills law unless the level of PFAS present violates an existing state or federal standard. The federal government doesn’t regulate groundwater and for years the state Department of Natural Resources has been unable to promulgate an administrative rule that sets the allowable amount of PFAS in groundwater. 

The DNR failed once because of a deadlocked vote on the state Natural Resources Board and a second time because the proposed rule had a potential economic impact greater than $10 million and therefore required approval of the full Legislature under a law known as the REINS Act. 

The DNR is currently working on the economic impact analysis of another proposed groundwater standard. Oitzinger says he’s doubtful that proposal will stay clear of the REINS Act. So, he says, he’s working with Mursau to include a groundwater standard in the bill. 

The most significant amendment Oitzinger is fighting for in the legislation is the creation of a temporary standard for the regulation of PFAS in Wisconsin’s groundwater. 

“We’ve been working to see if legislatively, we can get something that does not undermine the spills law to get the $125 million out the door, that the governor would sign, that we would be in support of and, at the same time, establish some kind of interim groundwater standard for PFAS,” Oitzinger says. 

As someone fighting for a community that’s been heavily polluted with PFAS, Oitzinger says his goal is to find a compromise that helps people get clean water, even if environmental and industry groups aren’t fully satisfied. 

“It doesn’t do us any good to get into our respective camps and not find common ground,” he says. “And then the bill reaches the governor’s office and he vetoes it. That’s not helping anybody, so we’ve got to find compromise. Some of the environmental groups won’t like it, and certainly I think some of the industry lobbying groups won’t like it, but this is what we’ve got to do.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Advocates for LGBTQ people and for the environment praised a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling Tuesday that bars the Legislature's Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules from blocking a rule that bans therapists from trying to "convert" a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. (Getty Images)

Gov. Tony Evers along with advocates for the environment and for LGBTQ people as well as Democratic Party lawmakers hailed Tuesday’s state Supreme Court ruling that strips a Wisconsin legislative committee’s power to block state regulations.

Republican leaders in the Legislature — who’ve deployed that power successfully against the Evers administration for the last six years — condemned the Court’s action as consolidating power in the executive branch.

Tuesday’s ruling, written by Chief Justice Jill Karofsky for the Court’s four-member liberal majority, found that state laws giving the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) the power to block state regulations were unconstitutional.

The ruling said that in doing so, the committee was rewriting state laws that affected the rights and duties authorized for executive branch officials.

JCRAR has repeatedly thwarted Evers administration rules since the governor first took office in 2019. Tuesday’s ruling was the result of a lawsuit Evers filed in 2023 challenging the committee’s actions in suspending a rule that bans conversion therapy and indefinitely blocking an update to the state building code.

“The people of Wisconsin expect state government to work — and work better — for them,” Evers said in a statement Tuesday applauding the ruling.

“For years, a small group of Republican lawmakers overstepped their power, holding rules hostage without explanation or action and causing gridlock across state government,” Evers said.

“Today’s Wisconsin Supreme Court decision ensures that no small group of lawmakers has the sole power to stymie the work of state government and go unchecked,” the governor said. “This is an incredibly important decision that will ensure state government can do our important work efficiently and effectively to serve Wisconsinites across our state.”

Conversion therapy ban maintained

The ruling ensured that a rule will continue barring therapists treating LGBTQ people from using conversion therapy to try to change sexual orientation or gender identity.

JCRAR suspended the rule in early 2023 after it was last promulgated. The professional board that had enacted the rule reinstated it in April 2024 after the Legislature concluded its 2023-24 session. Tuesday’s ruling will prevent JCRAR from blocking the rule again.

“The continuous suspensions of the rule represented legislative overreach in the rule-making process and threatened the ability of professions in Wisconsin to create their standards,” said the National Association of Social Workers Wisconsin Chapter (NASW-Wisconsin) in a statement welcoming the Court’s ruling.

The association has sought the conversion therapy ban since 2018.

“After seven and a half years of trying to ban the harmful, discredited and unethical practice of conversion therapy and having the rule repeatedly blocked by the Joint Committee on the Review of Administrative Rules, I am thrilled by this ruling,” said Marc Herstand, the social worker association’s executive director. “Professions have the right to establish their own conduct code, and no social worker should ever engage in the practice of conversion therapy.”

Republicans attack ruling

Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater), chair of the committee, criticized the Court’s ruling.

“Today the liberal majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court ended nearly 7 decades of shared governance between the legislature and executive branch agencies aimed at protecting the rights of individuals, families and businesses from the excessive actions of bureaucrats,” Nass said in a statement.

“The liberal junta on the state supreme court has in essence given Evers the powers of a King,” he said.

Nass also attacked Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, charging that in the budget that lawmakers passed on the evening of July 2 and Evers signed shortly after midnight, Vos “gave away the power-of-the-purse-string for the next two years, so our options of defunding bureaucrats are now off the table.”

Vos also released a statement attacking the ruling.

“For decades, case law has upheld the constitutionality of the legislative rules committee to serve as a legitimate check on the powers of the Governor and the overreach of the bureaucracy,” Vos said. “The absence of oversight from elected representatives grows government and allows unelected bureaucrats to increase red-tape behind closed doors.”

Praise for the decision

Democrats, LGBTQ allies and environmental advocates said it was JCRAR’s practices, often shrouded in secrecy — not the rule-making process — that interfered with democracy.

“Today’s court decision is a victory for Wisconsinites, who deserve the freedom to have a government responsive to everyday people, not special interests and right-wing extremists,” said Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison). “This decision sends a clear message: We are working toward making Wisconsin a place where everyone can build a better life.”

State Supreme Court curtails legislative committee’s right to stop regulations

Abigail Swetz, executive director of the LGBTQ+ advocacy group Fair Wisconsin,  called the outcome “a powerful step in the right direction towards ending the harmful practice of conversion therapy,” and credited the advocacy of NASW-Wisconsin and other community members and partner groups.

Swetz also urged lawmakers and the governor to take “an even more powerful step” by passing SB 324, legislation banning conversion therapy in all licensed professions.

In a joint statement the Legislature’s LGBTQ+ caucus called the ruling “a victory against the abusive and discredited practice of ‘conversion therapy’ and a victory for LGBTQ+ people who want to live as their authentic selves.”

Environmental impact

Environmental rules were not at the heart of the Court’s ruling Tuesday, but environmental groups said the outcome would strengthen efforts to enact stronger environmental protections.

“The bottom line is that good environmental rules now face a much easier path to getting to the finish line and becoming law—which is good for the environment and public health,” said Evan Feinauer, an attorney for Clean Wisconsin, in a statement the organization issued.

Clean Wisconsin said JCRAR has  blocked regulations on PFAS contamination, nitrates, surface water pollution and remediating contaminated lands.         

“Far too often in recent years JCRAR’s ability to object to any proposed rule, for almost any reason, or no stated reason at all, prevented agencies like DNR from doing their jobs,” Feinauer said. “That political gridlock prevented our government from being responsive to environmental and public health challenges.”

In a statement from Midwest Environmental Advocates, executive director Tony Wilkins Gibart said that through JCRAR’s control of the rulemaking process, “small groups of legislators have been able to block the implementation of popular environmental protections passed by the full legislature and signed by the governor.”

MEA filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Wisconsin Conservation Voters and Save Our Water, a group of residents affected by PFAS contamination in and around Marinette and Peshtigo.

When JCRAR blocked a rule in December 2020 that regulated firefighting foam containing PFAS, it perpetuated the discharge of PFAS-contaminated wastewater in the Marinette wastewater treatment plant, MEA said Tuesday.

“Committee vetoes were anti-democratic because they allowed a handful of legislators to make decisions that affect the entire state,” said Jennifer Giegerich, government affairs director of Wisconsin Conservation Voters, said in the MEA statement. “We’re pleased this ruling restores constitutional balance and strengthens accountability for environmental decisions that impact all Wisconsinites.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The roof of the Hotel Verdant in Downtown Racine received federal tax credits for installing solar panels. Labor and environmental advocates are attacking the Congressional Republicans' tax cut megabill for rolling back clean energy programs enacted in the Biden administration. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

The tax cut megabill in Congress with a historic rollback on Medicaid also includes provisions reversing U.S. clean energy policies, advocates warned Wednesday, harming not only the environment but the economy.

“This legislation will kill economic growth and jobs, raise energy prices, and cede clean energy technology manufacturing to other countries,” said Carly Ebben Eaton, Wisconsin Policy Manager for the Blue Green Alliance, a coalition of labor unions and environmental groups.

Eaton took part in two online news conferences Wednesday to draw attention to the federal budget reconciliation bill and its repeal of key portions of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.

The budget bill has been the top priority of the Republican majority in Congress as well as the administration of President Donald Trump. It was drawn up to extend tax cuts enacted in 2017 during Trump’s first term that will expire at the end of 2025.

The package returned to the U.S. House for final action after a tied vote in the U.S. Senate that required Vice President JD Vance to pass the measure on Tuesday.

Steep cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition programs have drawn the most attention during debate on the bill, along with the Congressional Budget Office finding that the wealthiest taxpayers will benefit most from its tax cuts.

The bill also includes measures that would undo several provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), one of the signature pieces of legislation enacted during President Joe Biden’s four years in office. After its passage the act was lauded by environmental advocates for provisions to address climate change by encouraging clean energy through tax credits as well as federal investments.

The House version of the GOP bill “already dealt a serious blow to clean energy tax credits and investments,” Eaton said Wednesday, “but the Senate took it even further, doubling down on cuts that will cost jobs, stall progress and raise energy costs.”

Consumer, business renewable energy incentives

The IRA’s tax breaks were designed to encourage consumers to move to energy-efficient and clean energy appliances and vehicles and encourage utilities and other businesses to increase their use of renewable resources such as solar energy and wind power.

Eaton said Wednesday that clean energy tax credits are supporting more than $8.6 billion in private investments in Wisconsin.

Garrik Harwick, assistant business manager of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union Local 890 in Janesville, said that over the past three years more than 300 members have worked on solar projects in Southern Wisconsin. He spoke at a news conference with Eaton and several other union leaders.

The IRA tax breaks have encouraged those developments, Harwick said, and the investments have included increased apprenticeship slots, bringing in new trainees.

“These investments don’t just deliver clean energy,” Harwick added. “They create good paying union jobs that strengthen our local communities.”

He warned that repealing the tax credit will likely reduce the use of clean energy technologies and increase energy costs by 6% for homeowners and more than 9% for business customers.

The IRA’s provisions that encouraged apprenticeships helped “open doors that many didn’t even know existed,” said Andy Buck, government affairs director for the Wisconsin and Upper Michigan district of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades.

He said the union has added a number of jobs, including apprentices, installing energy-efficient glass in buildings on projects that were facilitated by the Inflation Reduction Act.

“When someone enters a registered apprenticeship program, they aren’t just learning a trade,” Buck said. “They’re building a career, gaining self-respect, and finding a path to a better life.”

Another provision of the 2022 law opened up tax credits for renewable energy to nonprofit organizations and government agencies, allowing them to receive direct payments to the federal government comparable to the value they’d receive from the tax credit if they paid taxes.

A new middle school being built in Menasha will include solar panels and energy storage, said Matt VanderPuy, a business agent for the Sheet Metal workers union in Sheboygan. The direct pay program will reimburse the district $3 million, he said, while the energy savings is projected at $190,000 per year.

“This is money that they can reinvest into the students, the teachers and the school district,” while saving on property taxes, VanderPuy said.

‘Very ugly impacts,’ says advocate

At another news conference, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes observed that more than 90% of the jobs that IRA incentives helped create are in Republican congressional districts — although no Republicans in the state delegation voted for the bill. Barnes leads Forward Wisconsin, a nonprofit established during Biden’s term in the White House to inform people about the Biden administration’s infrastructure and climate investments and to defend them.

But business uncertainty this year, which Barnes blamed on GOP positions including Trump’s tariff executive orders, has led nationally to the cancellation of projects worth $15.5 billion, he said.

“The so-called big beautiful bill is going to have some very ugly impacts in Wisconsin, ripping away tax incentives for wind and solar farms, for rooftop solar, for farm sustainability programs, for clean cars and school buses,” said Amy Barrilleaux, communications director for Clean Wisconsin, at the event with Barnes. “And giving more tax breaks to big oil and gas companies does absolutely nothing to create jobs here or any opportunities here — it’s a gift to big oil at the expense of Wisconsin families and at the expense of our environment.”

Heather Allen, policy director for Elevate, an energy efficiency nonprofit, said as many as 11,000 clean energy and manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin could be at risk.

Plans for a $2.5 billion network of electric vehicle charging stations in the state have stalled, Allen said, and Wisconsin manufacturers that would have supplied components “are going to lose that opportunity now.”

“This legislation is going to strangle our solar businesses with red tape,” Allen said. “What you have here is an attack on small businesses that are delivering clean energy solutions to help families save money on their energy bills. And that includes solar installers, but it also includes other home energy contractors, other construction jobs.”

In four recent polls, a majority of those surveyed disapproved of the Republicans’  megabill — making it “more unpopular than any piece of major legislation that’s been passed since at least 1990,” Barnes said.

At the labor news conference, Emily Pritzkow, the Wisconsin Building Trades Council executive director, said advocates are urging people to contact their members of Congress.

“The polling on this is abysmal, and as long as people continue to call and deliver that message , that is what we need to do right now,” Pritzkow said. “Now is the time to weigh in, not once it’s coming to your front door, impacting you, your community, and people you care about.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE