Reading Time: 5 minutes

How much should data centers pay for the massive amounts of new power infrastructure they require? Wisconsin’s largest utility, We Energies, has offered its answer to that question in what is the first major proposal before state regulators on the issue.

Under the proposal, currently open for public comment, data centers would pay most or all of the price to construct new power plants or renewables needed to serve them, and the utility says the benefits that other customers receive would outweigh any costs they shoulder for building and running this new generation.

But environmental and consumer advocates fear the utility’s plan will actually saddle customers with payments for generation, including polluting natural gas plants, that wouldn’t otherwise be needed.

States nationwide face similar dilemmas around data centers’ energy use. But who pays for the new power plants and transmission is an especially controversial question in Wisconsin and other ​“vertically integrated” energy markets, where utilities charge their customers for the investments they make in such infrastructure — with a profit, called ​“rate of return,” baked in. In states with competitive energy markets, like Illinois, by contrast, utilities buy power on the open market and don’t make a rate of return on building generation.

Although six big data center projects are underway in Wisconsin, the state has no laws governing how the computing facilities get their power.

Lawmakers in the Republican-controlled state Legislature are debating two bills this session. The Assembly passed the GOP-backed proposal on Jan. 20, which, even if it makes it through the Senate, is unlikely to get Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ signature. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a spokesperson for Evers said on Jan. 14 that ​“the one thing environmentalists, labor, utilities, and data center companies can all agree on right now is how bad Republican lawmakers’ data center bill is.” Until a measure is passed, individual decisions by the state Public Service Commission will determine how utilities supply energy to data centers.

The We Energies case is high stakes because two data centers proposed in the utility’s southeast Wisconsin territory promise to double its total demand. One of those facilities is a Microsoft complex that the tech giant says will be ​“the world’s most powerful AI datacenter.”

The utility’s proposal could also be precedent-setting as other Wisconsin utilities plan for data centers, said Bryan Rogers, environmental justice director for the Milwaukee community organization Walnut Way Conservation Corp.

“As goes We Energies,” Rogers said, ​“so goes the rest of the state.”

Building new power

We Energies’ proposal — first filed last spring — would let data centers choose between two options for paying for new generation infrastructure to ensure the utility has enough capacity to meet grid operator requirements that the added electricity demand doesn’t interfere with reliability.

In both cases, the utility will acquire that capacity through ​“bespoke resources” built specifically for the data center. The computing facilities technically would not get their energy directly from these power plants or renewables but rather from We Energies at market prices.

Under the first option, called ​“full benefits,” data centers would pay the full price of constructing, maintaining and operating the new generation and would cover the profit guaranteed to We Energies. The data centers would also get revenue from the sale of the electricity on the market as well as from renewable energy credits for solar and wind arrays; renewable energy credits are basically certificates that can be sold to other entities looking to meet sustainability goals.

The second option, called ​“capacity only,” would have data centers paying 75% of the cost of building the generation. Other customers would pick up the tab for the remaining 25% of the construction and pay for fuel and other costs. In this case, both data centers and other customers would pay for the profit guaranteed to We Energies as part of the project, though the data centers would pay a different — and possibly lower — rate than other customers.

Developers of both data centers being built in We Energies’ territory support the utility’s proposal, saying in testimony that it will help them get online faster and sufficiently protect other customers from unfair costs.

Consumer and environmental advocacy groups, however, are pushing back on the capacity-only option, arguing that it is unfair to make regular customers pay a quarter of the price for building new generation that might not have been necessary without data centers in the picture.

“Nobody asked for this,” said Rogers of Walnut Way. The Sierra Club told regulators to scrap the capacity-only option. The advocacy group Clean Wisconsin similarly opposes that option, as noted in testimony to regulators.

But We Energies says everyone will benefit from building more power sources.

“These capacity-only plants will serve all of our customers, especially on the hottest and coldest days of the year,” We Energies spokesperson Brendan Conway wrote in an email. ​“We expect that customers will receive benefits from these plants that exceed the costs that are proposed to be allocated to them.”

We Energies has offered no proof of this promise, according to testimony filed by the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, which represents factories and other large operations. The trade association’s energy adviser, Jeffry Pollock, told regulators that the utility’s own modeling of the capacity-only approach showed scenarios in which the costs borne by customers outweigh the benefits to them.

Clean energy is another sticking point. Clean Wisconsin and the Environmental Law and Policy Center want the utility’s plan to more explicitly encourage data centers to meet capacity requirements in part through their own on-site renewables and to participate in demand-response programs. Customers enrolled in such programs agree to dial down energy use during moments of peak demand, reducing the need for as many new power plants.

“It’s really important to make sure that this tariff contemplates as much clean energy and avoids using as much energy as possible, so we can avoid that incremental fossil fuel build-out that would otherwise potentially be needed to meet this demand,” said Clean Wisconsin staff attorney Brett Korte.

And advocates want the utility to include smaller data centers in its proposal, which in its current form would apply only to data centers requiring 500 megawatts of power or more.

We Energies’ response to stakeholder testimony was due on Jan. 28, and the utility and regulators will also consider public comments that are being submitted. After that, the regulatory commission may hold hearings, and advocates can file additional briefs. Eventually, the utility will reach an agreement with commissioners on how to charge data centers.

Risky business

Looming large over this debate is the mounting concern that the artificial intelligence boom is a bubble. If that bubble pops, it could mean far less power demand from data centers than utilities currently expect.

In November, We Energies announced plans to build almost 3 gigawatts of natural gas plants, renewables and battery storage. Conway said much of this new construction will be paid for by data centers as their bespoke resources.

But some worry that utility customers could be left paying too much for these investments if data centers don’t materialize or don’t use as much energy as predicted. Wisconsin consumers are already on the hook for almost $1 billion for ​“stranded assets,” mostly expensive coal plants that closed earlier than originally planned, as Wisconsin Watch recently tabulated.

“The reason we bring up the worst-case scenario is it’s not just theoretical,” said Tom Content, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin, the state’s primary consumer advocacy organization. ​“There’s been so many headlines about the AI bubble. Will business plans change? Will new AI chips require data centers to use a lot less energy?”

We Energies’ proposal has data centers paying promised costs even if they go out of business or otherwise prematurely curtail their demand. But developers do not have to put up collateral for this purpose if they have a positive credit rating. That means if such data center companies went bankrupt or otherwise couldn’t meet their financial obligations, utility customers may end up paying the bill.

Steven Kihm, the Citizens Utility Board’s regulatory strategist and chief economist, gave examples of companies that had stellar credit until they didn’t, in testimony to regulators. The company that made BlackBerry handheld devices saw its stock skyrocket in the mid-2000s, only to lose most of its value with the rise of smartphones, he noted. Energy company Enron, meanwhile, had a top credit rating until a month before its 2001 collapse, Kihm warned. He advised regulators that data center developers should have to put up adequate collateral regardless of their credit rating.

The Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group echoed concerns about risk if data centers struggle financially.

“The unprecedented growth in capital spending will subject (We Energies) to elevated financial and credit risks,” Pollock told regulators. ​“Customers will ultimately provide the financial backstop if (the utility) is unable to fully enforce the terms” of its tariff.

Jeremy Fisher, Sierra Club’s principal adviser on climate and energy, equated the risk to co-signing ​“a loan on a mansion next door, with just the vague assurance that the neighbors will almost certainly be able to cover their loan.”

A version of this article was first published by Canary Media.

Wisconsin debates how to pay for the power-hungry AI boom 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.

A Shorewood man is planning to appeal a municipal judge's decision that found him guilty of trespassing in hopes that the case will go to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and decide public versus private beach access in the state. 

The post Shorewood trespassing citation could decide future of beach access in Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

A Shorewood judge ruled Wednesday that a man who deliberately tested the boundaries of public access along Lake Michigan’s shoreline in late July trespassed on private property.

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professor Paul Florsheim grew up just a few houses away from where a Shorewood resident who lives in a prominent lakeside home recorded him walking on the beach adjacent to his house multiple times and called police. Florsheim was eventually fined $313 for trespassing after walking past signs marking private property north of the public beach and cordially ignoring warnings from the police.

He previously told Wisconsin Watch that, despite Wisconsin law, the stretch of beach along Lake Michigan just north of Milwaukee had long been treated by locals like a public right of way.

Municipal Court Judge Margo Kirchner found Florsheim guilty and ordered him to pay a $313 trespassing fine, citing Wisconsin precedent that limits public access along privately controlled Lake Michigan shorelines.

Unlike other states bordering Lake Michigan like Michigan and Indiana, Wisconsin law does not guarantee public access to the beach up to the point where sand typically meets vegetation.

Under a 1923 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling, private property owners adjacent to the shoreline are granted “exclusive” use of the beach, even though the land is publicly owned. The court held that Wisconsinites may walk along the shoreline only if they remain in the water.

Florsheim previously told Wisconsin Watch he hopes to appeal the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, where a favorable ruling could reshape public access along Wisconsin’s Lake Michigan shoreline.

Municipal judge rules against man challenging private beach access 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.

Wisconsin hunters will have a better chance to harvest black bears this fall due to a record number of licenses and higher quota approved Wednesday by the state’s Natural Resources Board.

The post Wisconsin will issue the most licenses ever recorded for this fall’s bear hunt appeared first on WPR.

The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board advanced PFAS limits that mirror federal standards, which the EPA is planning to weaken.

The post Wisconsin moves forward with PFAS limits that Trump EPA is rolling back appeared first on WPR.

Wisconsin and tribes would have less power to protect waterways under the Clean Water Act if the Environmental Protection Agency adopts proposed changes to how it treats energy and infrastructure projects.

The post Wisconsin, tribes would have less power to review projects under proposed water rule appeared first on WPR.

A paper company that’s been named responsible for PFAS contamination is launching a bottled water program for residents in the northern Wisconsin town of Stella.

The post Paper company named responsible for PFAS pollution offers bottled water to Stella appeared first on WPR.

During debate on the floor, Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah) said that the GOP Knowles-Nelson bill isn’t perfect but is a compromise that will allow the program to continue into the future. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner).

A pared-back proposal that will continue the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program, but without allowing for new land acquisition, passed the Assembly on Thursday, eliciting critical reactions from Democrats who said it won’t uphold the legacy of the program.

The Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship Program was initially created during the 1989-1990 legislative session and signed into law by former Gov. Tommy Thompson. With the goal of preserving wildlife habitat and expanding outdoor recreation opportunities throughout the state, the program has authorized state borrowing and spending for state land acquisition and for grants to local governments and nonprofit conservation organizations. It has traditionally received bipartisan support in Wisconsin as it has been reauthorized several times over the years.

Two GOP bills, coauthored by Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), passed the Assembly in a 53-44 vote along party lines. The bills would extend the program for an additional two years, but in a limited form.

Under the amended proposal, the Knowles-Nelson program would be reauthorized until 2028, but the money set aside would mostly be for maintaining land that has already been purchased under the program.

The program’s land acquisition provisions have been essentially stripped in the legislation. 

A previous version of the GOP bill would have authorized the program until fiscal year 2029–30. Gov. Tony Evers in his 2025-27 state budget proposal had called for investing over $1 billion and reauthorizing the program for another 10 years. Republicans rejected the proposal. 

Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) blamed the Wisconsin Supreme Court for the state of the proposal.

Wisconsin lawmakers for years exercised control over what Knowles-Nelson projects received funding through the state’s powerful Joint Finance Committee. Members of the committee could anonymously object to a project and have it upheld for an indeterminate amount of time.

The program and the power of the committee became the focus of a fight over the balance of power between the governor and lawmakers, with the state Supreme Court ruling in 2025 that the Joint Finance Committee did not have the authority to hold up spending through anonymous objections. 

Sortwell said that the DNR should not be able to buy land without oversight from lawmakers.

“I don’t support their ideas to turn our authority of the Legislature over to unelected people,” Sortwell said. “We can build this up and do more things with it but let’s make sure we don’t lose what we have today. We can maintain the program. We can go ahead and make sure that we can keep the lands that we already have in good condition and continue moving forward.” 

Under the amended version of AB 315, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would only be able to obligate $1 million for land acquisition — a cut from $16 million. The $1 million could only be used for the Ice Age Trail. The bill would also allow for DNR to obligate $9.25 million for property development and local assistance — a cut from $14.25 million. The program would also limit the amount that could be obligated for recreational boating aids to $3 million. 

The amended version of AB 612 reduces the amount that can be obligated each year to $13.25 million. It also includes $7.75 million for DNR property development and grants, $4 million for local assistance grants and $3 million for grants for wildlife habitat restoration. There would also be $250,000 set aside each year to be used for DNR land acquisitions, but acquisitions would be limited to parcels land that are 5 acres or less and meant to improve access to hunting, fishing, or trapping opportunities or is contiguous to state-owned land.

The bill would also require that large projects get approval from the full Legislature and limit grant or in-kind contributions for a project to 30%.

The DNR, under the bill, would also need to conduct a survey study of all of the land that has been acquired under the stewardship program including an inventory of all land acquired with money, proposed project boundaries and land acquisition priorities for the next two to five years, and proposed changes. The survey would need to be submitted to the Legislature in two years.

Recipients of a grant would also need to submit a report to the DNR on how the money was spent, and it would need to be publicly published. 

The program is set to expire on June 30, 2026, without a reauthorization from the Legislature and Gov. Tony Evers.

Ahead of the vote on Thursday, Team Knowles-Nelson, a coalition of Wisconsin environmental conservation organizations, fishing and hunting advocates, trail builders, bicycle enthusiasts and others, said in a letter urging lawmakers to vote against the bills on the Assembly floor that they don’t propose a “workable path forward.” 

“These bills include virtually no funding for land acquisition. Land trusts and local governments would have no dedicated ability to acquire land for either purpose — a fundamental departure from the program’s core mission,” Charles Carlin, the director of strategic initiatives at the nonprofit land trust organization Gathering Waters, said on behalf of the coalition. “While the bills provide habitat management grants to nonprofit conservation organizations, they impose an impractical framework. The grants are limited to habitat work on lands already owned by the state or local governments, excluding nonprofit-owned lands. This restriction undermines the collaborative conservation model that has made Knowles-Nelson successful for over three decades.” 

During debate on the two bills, Democratic lawmakers said the bills were inadequate and would not preserve the intent of the program. 

Rep. Vinnie Miresse (D-Stevens Point) declared that “every time Republicans amend the Knowles-Nelson proposal, it seems to get worse.” 

“Without land acquisition, Republicans have neutered this program and rendered it Knowles-Nelson in name only,” Miresse said. He added that lawmakers’ attitude of treating people with different opinions as a “threat” is how legislation that “ignores history, disregards broad public support and turns a shared legacy into just another talking point” gets a vote.

“They chose the extremes, and that choice will cost the state a program that Wisconsinites overwhelmingly support,” Miresse said. 

Rep. Angelito Tenorio (D-West Allis) said the bill is not a compromise, but is instead “table scraps.”

Rep. Supreme Moore Omokunde (D-Milwaukee) talked about being a “birder” — someone who watches and observes birds as a hobby.

“We had the option to do a cost to continue… and it was rejected, and that disheartens me because when I go to places like Horicon Marsh when the birds are coming in, are migrating in, and I get to see goldfinches — there’s nothing like watching a chimney swift swoop down and try to get some food, or when you’re out and just walking around and navigating a red-winged blackbird swoops down tries to peck you in the head because it thinks that you are a crane trying to steal its eggs,” Moore Omokunde said. “We need to provide these opportunities for so many people in the state of Wisconsin to enjoy this.”

Republican lawmakers argued that the proposal was better than the Knowles-Nelson program ceasing to exist.

Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah) said that the bill isn’t perfect but is a compromise that will allow the program to continue into the future. He added that it would “help preserve some of our beautiful natural areas” for future generations to enjoy.

“Sometimes we get caught up in partisan politics, but let’s not make this about partisan politics. This bill deserves strong, bipartisan support,” Kaufert said. 

“I would rather take half a cookie today, rather than no cookie today to make sure that we can continue the program,” Sortwell said. “You gotta vote yes today because if you vote no, you’re saying, you know, what? I’m not willing to compromise. It’s not good enough for me, and I’m going to vote no, because I’m going to be like a little kid and take my ball and go home.”

Evers told lawmakers in a letter earlier this month that he was “hopeful” they would be able to move forward on a reauthorization proposal for the Knowles-Nelson program.

“I would be glad to sign any reauthorization proposal that appropriately supports both land acquisition and property management of Wisconsin’s valuable natural resources and public lands to secure the future of this program that is so fundamental to Wisconsin’s proud and cherished tradition of conservation,” Evers said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Correction: This story has been updated to correctly state the amount of money the amended bills would dedicate to the program.

A gray wolf. (Wisconsin DNR photo)

Wisconsin Republicans on Thursday continued their yearslong effort to reverse the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource’s decision not to quantify a specific statewide goal for the state’s gray wolf population with a public hearing on a bill that would require the agency to set one. 

The bill, authored by Sen. Rob Stafsholt (R-New Richmond) and Rep. Chanz Green (R-Grand View), is unlikely to be signed into law by Gov. Tony Evers if it’s passed, but shows how the contentious politics around wolves continue to play a major role in the state’s natural resource policy debates — especially in an election year. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, seen as the frontrunner in the Republican primary for governor, was the author of a bill recently passed in the House that would remove the gray wolf from the federal endangered species list. 

State law in Wisconsin requires that whenever the wolf isn’t listed as endangered, the state must hold an annual wolf hunt. 

The state’s wolf management plan was updated for the first time in decades in 2023. The plan was established after a two and a half year process involving an advisory committee made up of 28 member organizations and thousands of public comments. 

Prior to the current plan’s adoption, Wisconsin was operating under a plan that was first approved in 1999 and then updated in 2007. That plan went into effect as the state was working to responsibly handle the animal’s return to the state after its extirpation in the 1960s. 

Initially, the state set a  population goal of 350 wolves. 

More than a quarter century after the 1999 plan’s adoption, the state’s wolf population is estimated to be about 1,200 wolves. The 350 number that was initially set as an aspiration for a healthy wolf population has come to be seen by some hunters and farmers as a wolf population ceiling. 

But under the current wolf management plan, the DNR opted to use an “adaptive management” system which forgoes setting a specific population number. Instead, the state gets divided into zones and in each zone the DNR annually assesses the local wolf population to decide if it needs to be kept stable, allowed to grow or reduced through a hunt. 

Adaptive management is the method used by the state for most other game species, including black bear, bobcat, coyote, white-tailed deer and wild turkey. But since the plan’s adoption, Republicans have been opposed to using the method for wolves. 

Rep. Green, the bill’s co-author, said that the growth of the wolf population in northern Wisconsin is causing a number of problems, including in the area’s deer population. 

“We’d like to see a wolf management goal in place where — most of these wolves are concentrated in northern Wisconsin and we’d like to see that reduced,” Green said. “It’s been heavily impacted on our deer populations and things like that.”

Research has shown that Wisconsin’s wolves have helped cause a noticeable decline in the number of vehicle-deer collisions that occur in the state. 

At the hearing, Chris Vaughan, Wisconsin director of the pro-hunting organization Hunter Nation, complained that the wolf management plan focuses too much on the social effects of the wolf population, putting too much weight on people’s personal views about wolves. Vaughan lamented how frequently Wisconsin’s plan uses the word “social” compared to other states

But representatives of the DNR said social carrying capacity is an important consideration for biologists when managing any species. 

“Dare I say the biological part of wolf management is the easy part,” Randy Johnson, the DNR’s large carnivore species specialist, said. ”We know how to have a pretty good system of monitoring the population. The science is pretty clear about how we can move the population up and down through harvest. It is the social side of this that continues to be the difficult part of it. Everybody knows it’s a contentious issue. Some people see it different ways, some people want more, some people want less and it’s our job to try to balance that.” 

Proponents of a hard limit on the wolf population also cast their argument in social terms.

Brad Olson, president of the Wisconsin Farm Bureau, said the state should have a specific population number to assuage the feelings of farmers who are traumatized by losing livestock to wolves. 

“For those of us who live in wolf country and deal with wolves on a day in, day out basis, at times, I think the number is very important to those of us in wolf country who have these issues,” Olson said. “You haven’t been on the farms like I have where, where the mule has been killed by a pack of wolves … and I think in all of this, what we’re really missing from the legislative side, from the DNR side, is we’re missing the impact of the mental health on rural ag and those in rural Wisconsin.” 

“When compared to other species where adaptive management works, wolves sit at a completely different intersection of biology, social politics and law, where this vague management tool is impossible to apply,” Vaughan said.

Democrats on the committee questioned the prudence of changing the DNR’s management plan before the wolf has been delisted and the plan has a chance to be put to the test when a hunt must be held. 

“So if we actually could accomplish [a healthy wolf population] utilizing the tools and the science that the DNR has provided, would that or would that not actually accomplish the goal?” Sen. Kristin Dassler-Alfheim (D-Appleton) asked.

With Wisconsin’s decades-old land conservation program due to expire this summer, Assembly Republicans passed legislation Thursday to keep it afloat through 2028.

The post Assembly Republicans approve stewardship reauthorization, with less money and more oversight appeared first on WPR.

At least 100,000 gallons of manure spilled at a large dairy farm in central Wisconsin, flowing into an unnamed tributary of Black Creek.

The post Around 100K gallons of manure spilled from large farm in central Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.

Data centers are mushrooming all over the country, with many planned projects on deck in Wisconsin. We need to get ahead of them by putting in place protections for the state's energy and water resources. (Photo by Dana DiFilippo/New Jersey Monitor)

Wisconsin stands at a pivotal moment.

Artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and hyperscale data centers are arriving quickly, bringing enormous demand for electricity and water. The real question is not whether these investments will come, but how we manage them and who pays the costs if we get it wrong.

Families want affordable bills. Businesses want reliable power. Communities want clean water and economic opportunity. We need a  common-sense approach to guide how we respond to rapid data center growth.

An unprecedented load and a real affordability risk

The scale of proposed data centers is unlike anything Wisconsin has seen.

Just two projects, one in Port Washington and another in Mount Pleasant, have requested nearly four gigawatts of electricity combined. That is more power than all Wisconsin households use today.

Meeting this demand will require massive investments in power plants, transmission lines, substations, pipelines and water infrastructure. But under Wisconsin’s current utility model, these costs are not paid only by the companies driving demand. They are instead spread across all of us who pay electric bills, including families, farms, and small businesses that won’t benefit from data center power.

For small businesses operating on thin margins, even modest increases in electric or water rates affect hiring, pricing and long-term viability. In rural communities with fewer customers sharing infrastructure costs, the impact can be even more severe.

This concern is already becoming real. Utilities are citing data center demand to justify new methane gas plants and delaying coal plant retirements. Utilities doubling down on fossil fuels should give every one of us pause.

Why costly gas is the wrong answer

Building new methane gas plants for data centers would lock customers into decades of fuel price volatility, even though cleaner options have become cheaper and faster to deploy.

Wind, solar and battery storage can come online far more quickly than fossil fuel plants and without exposing families and businesses to unpredictable fuel costs. Battery storage costs alone have fallen nearly 90% over the past decade. 

Across the country, these tools are replacing methane gas plants in states as different as Texas and California.

There is also a serious risk that we will pay higher bills for decades, even when data centers stop using those methane gas plants. In Nevada, a major utility has acknowledged that only about 15% of proposed data centers are likely to be built. When speculative projects fall through, all of us are left to pay for infrastructure we actually never needed.

This is not ideology. It is basic financial risk management, and basic fairness.

Clean energy is the lowest-cost path

Wisconsin policymakers and elected officials need to put guardrails in place to protect everyday residents from the AI bubble that’s threatening the state. The core principle should be that data centers operate on 100% clean energy, not as a slogan, but because it is the lowest-cost and lowest-risk option over time.

A smart framework would require developers to:

• Supply at least 30% of their power from on-site and Wisconsin-based renewable energy
• Offset additional demand through energy efficiency, demand response – at least 25% of peak capacity and smart grid flexibility
• Participate fully in utility efficiency and renewable energy programs rather than opting out
• Each data center project should require a legally binding Community Benefit Agreement that clearly defines community protections and benefits, negotiated among developers, local governments, neighborhood-based organizations and underserved communities

This approach reduces peak demand, lowers infrastructure costs and protects existing customers while allowing data centers to advance.

Major companies like Microsoft, Google and Meta have already publicly committed to operating on carbon-free energy. We need to hold them to that. Wisconsin risks losing our competitive advantage if we default to gas-heavy solutions instead of offering clean, flexible grids.

Water is a non-negotiable constraint

Energy is not the only concern. Water matters just as much.

A single hyperscale data center can use millions of gallons of water per day, either directly for cooling or indirectly through power generation. In communities with limited water systems, that can crowd out agricultural use and raise residents’ water bills.

Wisconsin should require closed-loop cooling systems, full accounting of direct and indirect water use, and ongoing public reporting to ensure local water supplies are protected.

A practical path forward

Wisconsin does not have to choose between economic growth and affordability. We can do both if we insist on clear guardrails.

That means requiring data centers to pay the full cost of service, powering growth with clean energy first, and protecting water resources and ratepayers from unnecessary risk.

Data centers are coming. The question is whether Wisconsin families and small businesses will be partners in that growth or be left paying higher bills for decades to come.

If we choose smart clean power over costly gas, Wisconsin can lead.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Ensign Lake in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. (Photo by Zach Spindler-Krage)

A proposal to repeal a ban on mining in northeastern Minnesota’s Superior National Forest is headed to the U.S. Senate following approval in the House, reigniting a long-simmering fight between environmentalists and pro-mining interests.

The reaction of outdoors and environmental groups was swift Wednesday.

“Congress just tossed aside years of scientific study and local input about how to conserve the headwaters of this wilderness for future generations, allowing the threat of toxic mining to return,” Jordan Schreiber, director of government relations at The Wilderness Society, said in a statement. He called on the Senate to “reject this attack and the precedent it sets to arbitrarily strike down” public land protections.

House Republicans voted Wednesday to undo former President Joe Biden’s 20-year moratorium on the extraction of copper, nickel and other minerals across more than 225,000 acres near the popular Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. If approved by the Republican-controlled Senate, the resolution would next go to President Donald Trump, who has indicated he would sign it into law. 

The resolution requires only a simple majority vote to pass the Senate, rather than a filibuster-proof majority.

Republican Congressman Pete Stauber, whose Duluth-based district covers the area, introduced the resolution last year. It uses an obscure but increasingly popular procedural tool that allows Congress to void certain Executive Branch actions.

In a statement Wednesday, Stauber hailed the resolution’s passage as a win for the regional economy, national security and congressional prerogatives. The resolution would prevent future administrations from imposing similar bans in the future.

“Reversing Biden’s mining ban will protect Northern Minnesota jobs, strengthen national security through domestic production, and prevent future overreaches from happening again,” Stauber said.

Organized labor cheered the move, too, albeit in terms more palatable to the Democratic base.

“One of the most important contributions Minnesota can make to the fight against climate change is leading the world in setting the highest bar for labor and environmental protections in the responsible production of copper, nickel and other critical minerals,” Joel Smith, president and business manager of LIUNA Minnesota and North Dakota, said in a statement, also mentioning the promise of “family-supporting careers” for union members and “community-supporting jobs at schools, hospitals, public and private sector employers.”

Environmental and outdoor recreation groups have long opposed mining near the Boundary Waters, a remote section of Superior National Forest along the border with Canada. The groups say it would disturb critical habitats and pollute a pristine watershed enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of visitors each year. 

In a statement describing the resolution as an unprecedented use of congressional power over public land use, Save the Boundary Waters urged voters to contact their senators and push for a “no” vote on the resolution. Save the Boundary Waters is pushing for a permanent ban on copper-ore sulfide mining in the boundary watershed. Citing peer-reviewed scientific research, the group says mining for copper and other heavy metals inevitably leaches sulfuric acid, toxic metals and other pollutants into surrounding water systems, harming the natural environment and imperiling tourism.

Northeast Minnesota sits atop the Duluth Complex, one of the world’s richest deposits of copper and nickel. Twin Metals, a subsidiary of the Chilean mining conglomerate Antofagasta, wants to extract both minerals — along with cobalt and other precious metals — from underground veins near Ely and Babbitt, about a dozen miles from the wilderness area.

It would be the first copper-nickel mine in Minnesota, which produces most of the United States’ domestic iron but few other metals. Regional and state officials have sought for years to reduce northeastern Minnesota’s economic dependence on volatile global markets for iron and steel. Its rich deposits of higher-value metals, along with elusive gases like helium and possibly hydrogen, could offer a lifeline.

The Twin Metals project has been in development for more than 15 years amid an arduous state and federal permitting process. It suffered a severe setback in early 2023 when the Biden administration announced a 20-year moratorium on mining across 350 square miles of the Superior National Forest, though Minnesota has issued new mineral exploration permits in the years since.  

Copper, nickel, cobalt and some precious metals are key inputs for a bevy of medical, automotive and industrial products. They’re also needed to produce wind turbines, solar panels, rechargeable batteries and other electrical technologies that scientists say are crucial for mitigating local air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Environmentalists say the the demand can be met with more robust recycling. 

Mining companies and their allies say it’s better for everyone’s sake to extract them in the United States rather than countries with lax environmental and human health protections, such as China or the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Removing the 20-year moratorium allows “proposed developments to proceed through the world’s strictest state and federal regulatory and permitting processes,” Stauber said on Wednesday.

Wisconsin DNR Secretary Karen Hyun testifies to an Assembly committee about legislation to address PFAS contamination. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

A Wisconsin Assembly committee held a hearing Wednesday on a pair of bills to help mitigate and clean up water contamination caused by PFAS — a class of compounds also known as “forever chemicals” that has been tied to cancer and developmental diseases in children. 

For two and a half years, $125 million set aside in the state’s 2023-25 biennial budget to fund the cleanup of PFAS contamination has sat untouched as the Republican-controlled Legislature, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and a collection of interest groups were unable to reach agreement on how to structure the program and who should be held responsible for the pollution. 

After initial optimism, the first legislative effort died after Democrats and environmental groups complained that the proposal let polluters off the hook. 

While the debate in Madison has dragged on, communities including French Island near La Crosse, the town of Stella near Rhinelander, Wausau and Marinette have continued to face the harms of PFAS-contaminated water. 

When the legislation was introduced again at the beginning of this legislative session, legislators again expressed hope that a compromise could be reached. Earlier this week, the bill’s authors, Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) and Rep. Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz), released a proposed amendment to the legislation. One of the bills directs how the money in the trust fund will be directed and the other creates the programs through which the money will flow.

At the hearing Wednesday, the duo emphasized how important it was for them to get the money out the door into affected communities and the need for compromise on the issue. 

“The 2023-2025 budget included $125 million to address PFAS contamination and support cleanup efforts across the state,” Mursau said. “Unfortunately, those funds are sitting idle because we have failed to pass the legislation necessary to put them to work. Progress will require compromise. There are stakeholders on both sides of the aisle who may not like these amendments, but that is the reality of divided government, and it is not an excuse for inaction.” 

The pair said the latest version of the legislation is the result of months of negotiations with the Department of Natural Resources and the Evers administration. 

While the legislation still includes the “innocent landowner” provisions that have been at the heart of the dispute, the amended version tightens the definition of who qualifies. Wimberger said the new definition would still allow the DNR to bring enforcement actions against industries including paper companies and airports, but that the current version represents a lot of movement from the DNR and Evers.

“There was quite a bit of coming off the ledge on the governor’s side regarding innocent landowners,” Wimberger said. 

Additionally, the bill creates a number of programs to test for PFAS and fund mitigation efforts by helping individual landowners dig new wells, helping communities upgrade water treatment systems and funding more comprehensive testing efforts. 

But the language of the proposed amendments shows how difficult it has been for legislators to adjust the dial on Wisconsin’s PFAS policy. The bills now have the support of Evers, the DNR and some of the state’s leading environmental organizations, but industry groups including the state’s largest business lobby, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, and the Wisconsin Paper Council argued at the hearing that the bill would single out certain types of industry for enforcement actions. 

“Substitute Amendment One takes a huge step backwards in terms of protecting truly innocent landowners and passive receivers,” Adam Jordahl, WMC’s director of environmental and energy policy, said, referring to a particular provision of the bill.

WMC in recent years brought and lost a lawsuit that would have prevented the state’s spills law from being applied to entities responsible for PFAS pollution. 

Several industry representatives also threatened that if the amended bills are signed into law, they could invite legal challenges because of “constitutional concerns.” Jordahl said that one of the bills treats municipal facilities such as landfills and water treatment plants differently than private businesses conducting similar activities, which could make the law vulnerable to a lawsuit. 

“This discrimination raises a significant constitutional concern under the concept of equal protection,” he said. “A successful lawsuit raising an equal protection claim could result in the invalidation of those unfairly applied exemptions. Second, as a policy matter, we feel this simply makes no sense. What is the policy justification for treating commercial and industrial or manufacturing facilities differently when they’re conducting the same activities and operating under the same laws and regulations?” 

Paper industry representatives said at the hearing it’s unfair for the bill to single them out because the industry will be subjected to increased scrutiny despite their claims that the business does not cause most PFAS pollution.

Last year, the DNR named a paper mill as the responsible party for the PFAS contamination in Stella, which has seen some of the highest concentrations of the chemicals in the state.

Despite the skepticism from the business community about the latest version of the legislation, lawmakers throughout the Capitol appeared confident that it could finally get across the finish line. 

“I met with Republican lawmakers and the DNR last week about critical PFAS bill changes that will be necessary to garner my support, and I’m really optimistic we’re finally going to be able to get something good done here after months of successful and productive negotiations,” Evers said in a statement. “I’m grateful Republican lawmakers have formally introduced an amendment that reflects the changes we’ve agreed to so far as a sign of good faith. We still have some important details to iron out to make sure DNR has the resources they need, but we’ve made a lot of progress. So, I’m really hopeful.”

Both Evers and Wimberger noted that the only remaining sticking point in the negotiations is how many staff members the DNR will be authorized to hire to support the responsibilities required under the bill. The current version of the amendment authorizes 10 positions while Evers is requesting 13. 

Republican leaders in the Legislature have also signaled that the bill is likely to move forward. 

“I think it’s a move in the right direction,” Senate Majority Leader Devin Lemahieu (R-Oostburg) said. “I think it’s a bill that hopefully our caucus can get behind and maybe finally get that money out the door.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 6 minutes

A debate playing out in Wisconsin underscores just how challenging it is for U.S. states to set policies governing data centers, even as tech giants speed ahead with plans to build the energy-gobbling computing facilities.

Wisconsin’s state legislators are eager to pass a law that prevents the data center boom from spiking households’ energy bills. The problem is, Democrats and Republicans have starkly different visions for what that measure should look like — especially when it comes to rules around hyperscalers’ renewable energy use.

Republican state legislators this month introduced a bill that orders utility regulators to ensure that regular customers do not pay any costs of constructing the electric infrastructure needed to serve data centers. It also requires data centers to recycle the water used to cool servers and to restore the site if construction isn’t completed.

Those are key protections sought by decision-makers across the political spectrum as opposition to data centers in Wisconsin and beyond reaches a fever pitch.

But the bill will likely be doomed by a ​“poison pill,” as consumer advocates and manufacturing industry sources describe it, that says all renewable energy used to power data centers must be built on-site.

Republican lawmakers argue this provision is necessary to prevent new solar farms and transmission lines from sprawling across the state.

“Sometimes these data centers attempt to say that they are environmentally friendly by saying we’re going to have all renewable electricity, but that requires lots of transmission from other places, either around the state or around the region,” said state Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, a Republican, at a press conference. ​“So this bill actually says that if you are going to do renewable energy, and we would encourage them to do that, it has to be done on-site.”

This effectively means that data centers would have to rely largely on fossil fuels, given the limited size of their sites and the relative paucity of renewable energy in the state thus far.

Gov. Tony Evers and his fellow Democrats in the state Legislature are unlikely to agree to this scenario, Wisconsin consumer and clean energy advocates say.

Democrats introduced their own data center bill late last year, some of which aligns closely with the Republican measure: The Democratic bill would similarly block utilities from shifting data center costs onto residents, by creating a separate billing class for very large energy customers. It would require that data centers pay an annual fee to fund public benefits such as energy upgrades for low-income households and to support the state’s green bank.

But that proposal may also prove impossible to pass, advocates say, because of its mandate that data centers get 70% of their energy from renewables in order to qualify for state tax breaks and a requirement that workers constructing and overhauling data centers be paid a prevailing wage for the area. This labor provision is deeply polarizing in Wisconsin. Former Republican Gov. Scott Walker and lawmakers in his party famously repealed the state’s prevailing wage law for public construction projects in 2017, and multiple Democratic efforts to reinstate it have failed.

The result of the political division around renewables and other issues is that Wisconsin may accomplish little around data center regulation in the near term.

“If we could combine the two and make it a better bill, that would be ideal,” said Beata Wierzba, government affairs director for the nonprofit clean energy advocacy group Renew Wisconsin. ​“It’s hard to see where this will go ultimately. I don’t foresee the Democratic bill passing, and I also don’t know how the governor can sign the Republican bill.”

Urgent need

Wisconsin’s consumer and clean energy advocates are frustrated about the absence of promising legislation at a time when they say regulation of data centers is badly needed. The environmental advocacy group Clean Wisconsin has received thousands of signatures on a petition calling for a moratorium on data center approvals until a comprehensive state plan is in place.

At least five new major data centers are planned in the state, which is considered attractive for the industry because of its ample fresh water and open land, skilled workers, robust electric grid, and generous tax breaks. The Wisconsin Policy Forum estimated that data centers will drive the state’s peak electricity demand to 17.1 gigawatts by 2030, up from 14.6 gigawatts in 2024.

Absent special treatment for data centers, utilities will pass the costs on to customers for the new power needed to meet the rising demand.

Two Wisconsin utilities — We Energies and Alliant Energy — are proposing special tariffs that would determine the rates they charge data centers. Allowing utilities in the same state to have different policies for serving data centers could lead to these projects being located wherever utilities offer them the cheapest rates and result in a patchwork of regulations and protections, consumer advocates argue. They say legislation should be passed soon, to standardize the process and enshrine protections statewide before utilities move forward on their own.

Some of Wisconsin’s neighbors have already taken that step, said Tom Content, executive director of Wisconsin’s Citizens Utility Board, a consumer advocacy group.

He pointed to Minnesota, where a law passed in June mandates that data centers and other customers be placed in separate categories for utility billing, eliminating the risk of data center costs being passed on to residents. The Minnesota law also protects customers from paying for ​“stranded costs” if a data center doesn’t end up needing the infrastructure that was built to serve it.

Ohio, by contrast, provides a cautionary tale, Content said. After state regulators enshrined provisions that protected customers of the utility AEP Ohio from data center costs, developers simply looked elsewhere in the state.

“Much of the data center demand in Ohio shifted to a different utility where no such protections were in place,” Content said. ​“We’re in a race to the bottom. Wisconsin needs a statewide framework to help guide data center development and ensure customers who aren’t tech companies don’t pick up the tab for these massive projects.”

Clean energy quandary

Limiting clean energy construction to data center sites could be especially problematic as data center developers often demand renewable energy to meet their own sustainability goals.

For example, the Lighthouse data center — being developed by OpenAI, Oracle and Vantage near Milwaukee — will subsidize 179 megawatts of new wind generation, 1,266 megawatts of new solar generation and 505 megawatts of new battery storage capacity, according to testimony from one of the developers in the We Energies tariff proceeding.

But Lighthouse covers 672 acres. It takes about 5 to 7 acres of land to generate 1 megawatt of solar energy, meaning the whole campus would have room for only about a tenth of the solar the developers promise.

We Energies is already developing the renewable generation intended to serve that data center, a utility spokesperson said, but the numbers show how future clean energy could be stymied by the on-site requirement.

“It’s unclear why lawmakers would want to discriminate against the two cheapest ways to produce energy in our state at a time when energy bills are already on the rise,” said Chelsea Chandler, the climate, energy and air program director at Clean Wisconsin.

Renew Wisconsin’s Wierzba said the Democrats’ 70% renewable energy mandate for receiving tax breaks could likewise be problematic for tech firms.

“We want data centers to use renewable energy, and companies I’m aware of prefer that,” she said. ​“The way the Republican bill addresses that is negative and would deter that possibility. But the Democratic bill almost goes too far — 70%. That’s a prescribed amount, too much of a hook and not enough carrot.”

Alex Beld, Renew Wisconsin’s communications director, said the Republican bill might have a hope of passing if the poison pill about on-site renewable energy were removed.

“I don’t know if there’s a will on the Republican side to remove that piece,” he said. ​“One thing is obvious: No matter what side of the political aisle you’re on, there are concerns about the rapid development of these data centers. Some kind of legislation should be put forward that will pass.”

Bryan Rogers, environmental director of the Milwaukee community organization Walnut Way Conservation Corp, said elected officials shouldn’t be afraid to demand more of data centers, including more public benefit payments.

“We know what the data centers want and how fast they want it,” he said. ​“We can extract more concessions from data centers. They should be paying not just their full way — bringing their own energy, covering transmission, generation. We also know there are going to be social impacts, public health, environmental impacts. Someone has to be responsible for that.”

Utility representatives expressed less urgency around legislation.

William Skewes, executive director of the Wisconsin Utilities Association, said the trade group ​“appreciates and agrees with the desire by policymakers and customers to make sure they’re not paying for costs that they did not cause.”

But, he said, the state’s utility regulators already do ​“a very thorough job reviewing cases and making sure that doesn’t happen. Wisconsin utilities are aligned in the view that data centers must pay their full share of costs.”

If Wisconsin legislators do manage to pass data center legislation this session, it will head to the desk of Evers. The governor is a longtime advocate for renewables, creating the state’s first clean energy plan in 2022, and he has expressed support for attracting more data centers to Wisconsin.

“I personally believe that we need to make sure that we’re creating jobs for the future in the state of Wisconsin,” Evers said at a press conference, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. ​“But we have to balance that with my belief that we have to keep climate change in check. I think that can happen.”

A version of this article was first published by Canary Media.

Disputes over clean energy may doom Wisconsin data center bills 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.

After the closure of Northland College in Ashland last year, a newly formed nonprofit group is exploring creation of a microcollege to continue its mission.

The post Former Northland College faculty explore creation of a microcollege appeared first on WPR.

A new project seeks to expand access to a vast collection of aquatic insects that can be used to track the health of waterways across Wisconsin.

The post New bug-tracking project aims to help monitor health of Wisconsin waterways appeared first on WPR.

Tribes in Wisconsin and beyond are opposing the Trump administration’s proposal to end protections for millions of acres of roadless areas on national forest land.

The post Wisconsin tribes oppose ending protections for roadless areas on national forests appeared first on WPR.

Reading Time: 8 minutes

Rick Bieber reached into the soil, pulled out a handful and took a sniff.

Around him stretched fields of green — an unusual sight for late October in Wisconsin, when harvest is ending and farmers are preparing for winter. Oat and barley grasses, sunflowers, purple top turnip and radish plants blew under a gentle breeze. In the soil in his palm, an earthworm wriggled.

Bieber is the soil adviser for Fields of Sinsinawa, a project intended to help farmers understand what’s happening below the surface and why it matters for the health of people and the planet. The fields are owned by the Dominican Sisters of Sinsinawa, a congregation of Catholic sisters who have lived for more than 175 years in southwestern Wisconsin at Sinsinawa Mound, overlooking the Mississippi River.

Written into the sisters’ guiding principles is a commitment to share their land for ecological and educational programs to help preserve it for future generations.

As Bieber puts it, “We plant with a purpose.”

Their vision of caring for the Earth as they believe God instructs them is in step with a larger movement happening across the state — and the world — in which faith drives people’s concern for the environment.

Religion can be a powerful motivator for people to pursue environmental stewardship: In a Pew Research Center study from 2022, four in five religiously affiliated Americans completely or mostly agreed that God gave humans a duty to protect and care for the Earth.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a partner of the Mississippi River Basin Ag & Water Desk, is profiling five people or groups in Wisconsin whose environmental actions are driven by their faith. They’re connected by a desire to do good for the Earth, following the writings in their religious texts or the teachings of their spiritual leaders. Importantly, the people drawn into this effort come from different sides of the political spectrum and from many different faiths. That suggests it could be an approach to environmental stewardship that bridges a complicated divide, something especially important as the U.S. government seeks to aggressively roll back environmental protections.

Take the soil, for instance, that Dominican Sister Julie Schwab and the others at Sinsinawa hold so precious.

“Soil is literally the common ground,” Schwab said.

Fields of Sinsinawa

Agriculture is a calling card of the Dominican Sisters of Sinsinawa. They once farmed the land themselves and are now hosting an organic farming collective and two father-son teams of dairy farmers who produce milk for Organic Valley.

The idea for Fields of Sinsinawa arose from an Ohio farmer named David Brandt, an influential figure in the regenerative farming movement, who was exploring the idea of creating a farmer-led learning center at Sinsinawa Mound. After his death in 2023, a group of like-minded people made it a reality.

The principles of soil health are simple to understand but can be challenging to achieve because our economic system places emphasis on big crop yields. Those at Fields of Sinsinawa believe that soil should be filled with diverse, living roots year-round, which prevents runoff that pollutes waterways and feeds microscopic organisms that can make the soil better suited to support plant life. They want to minimize practices like tilling, which disturb the soil, and encourage grazing livestock on pastures that have time to rest and regrow.

Demonstration fields at the mound are meant to be a “living classroom” that farmers can visit to learn how such regenerative practices work, and more important, why. They host visitors from the next town over and from across the globe, including at their annualSoul of the Soil conference. The on-site dairy farmers work closely with Bieber to try practices out at minimal risk to their business.

“What impresses me most is the deep, deep spirituality of these farmers. They know they’re working with something sacred,” said Sister Sheila Fitzgerald, part of Fields of Sinsinawa’s administrative support team. “It’s a gift, and it’s up to us to keep this gift for the next generation. We do that by learning about this whole sacred environment — the whole blessing of the life that’s in the soil.”

The sisters are also following teachings they see carefully laid out by the late Pope Francis in his 2015 encyclical letter, “Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home.” Earth “cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use,” Francis wrote. “We have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the earth.”

Bieber puts it another way.

“We were formed from the soil, and we’ll go back to the soil,” he said. “Why would you beat it up if it’s going to be your resting place?”

Wisconsin Green Muslims

The same year Francis released his letter, Muslim leaders from around the world published the Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change, which calls for a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels and directs Muslims worldwide to tackle climate change and environmental degradation.

Huda Alkaff was already hard at work. Alkaff founded Wisconsin Green Muslims in 2005 to educate people about Islamic teachings of environmental justice and apply those teachings in real life.

The Earth is mentioned more than 450 times in the Quran, Alkaff said, instructing Muslims to maintain its balance and not upset the order of creation.

“The true practice of Islam really means living simply, treading lightly on Earth, caring for our neighbors and all creatures, standing up for justice, and collaborating with others to care for our shared home,” she said.

Now in its 20th year, Wisconsin Green Muslims has pushed for action on a wide range of environmental issues, including clean drinking water and air, renewable energy, waste reduction and healthy food, with a focus on helping marginalized communities that are disproportionately impacted by environmental problems. The group rotates through these issues monthly, Alkaff said, bringing new people into the fold based on their interests.

Since its beginning, the group has promoted Green Ramadan during the Islamic holy month, encouraging small daily actions to care for the environment such as switching to e-billing or biking to the mosque. Green Ramadan has spread to at least 20 states, Alkaff said.

Alkaff also leads two interfaith organizations: Wisconsin Faith and Solar, which aims to help faith congregations across the state to implement solar energy, and Faithful Rainwater Harvesting for sustainable water collection.

“We see sunlight and water as the commons — everyone should have access to them,” she said. “We need to appreciate them and welcome them responsibly into our homes, congregations and lives.”

Calvin DeWitt

Calvin DeWitt is a household name at the cross section of Christianity and the environment. He lists as friends Al Gore and environmentalist and author Bill McKibben, tells of having given a speech at the ranch of the late Robert Redford, a stalwart environmental advocate, and has been a leading voice for  “greening up” the Christian right.

DeWitt’s story started in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where he cared for a pet turtle. For 25 years, he led the Au Sable Institute in Michigan, which offers environmental science courses to students from dozens of Christian colleges. He also taught environmental studies classes at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Now 90, he lives in the Waubesa Wetlands outside Madison, which he helped establish as a nature preserve.

He’s still publishing papers, running field trips and otherwise speaking loudly about caring for the Earth because, as he puts it, “I can’t think of anything more pleasurable to do.”

DeWitt has become a master at tailoring his message to make the most impact. Some of his most storied work is with evangelical Christians, fewer of whom believe climate change is a serious problem compared with other major religions, according to the2022 Pew study. He was a founding member of the Evangelical Environmental Network, which promotes evangelicals “rediscovering and reclaiming the biblical mandate to care for creation.”

“Someone’s twiddling with the thermostat” is a phrase he might say to enter into a conversation about the world heating up with someone who’d get turned off by the term global warming. In other scenarios, “if you come up with a religious point of view, you’re actually asking for trouble,” he said.

Most often, though, DeWitt tries to boil it down to the development of community, which he said is central to overcoming differences.

Several years ago, a neighbor turned to him while leaving a town hall and said, “Cal, this is just like going to church,” DeWitt recalled. A real community is about love, he said, which extends to love for the land.

“It’s contagious,” he said.

Dekila Chungyalpa and the Loka Initiative

Dekila Chungyalpa once felt like she was living two different lives. By day, she worked as an environmental scientist in the U.S. By night, she was a practicing Tibetan Buddhist. She didn’t know how to bring the two together, and it hurt.

Chungyalpa decided to return to the Himalayas, where she was born, to work with the 17th karmapa, head of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. In 2007, she watched him speak to thousands of Buddhists, citing a Buddhist prayer to alleviate the suffering of all beings in his call for those watching to become vegetarians. Livestock production makes up about 14.5% of human-driven greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change.

“That was my moment of awakening. My hand was rising along with all these people,” Chungyalpa said. “People were not doing it because of science or policy, but because a faith leader told them to live up to their faith value.”

The idea that religious leaders could shepherd people toward environmental stewardship sparked something in her. The spark was there when she helped found Khoryug, an association of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and nunneries working on environmental protection and resilience to climate change. It also was there when she began the Loka Initiative inside UW-Madison’s Center for Healthy Minds.

Today, the Loka Initiative has two goals. One is working with faith and Indigenous leaders to bring home environmental solutions that feel authentic to them. The other is developing courses that teach contemplative practices, like meditation, somatic healing and even singing, to combat grief and anxiety over the effects of environmental degradation. One recent course, “Psychology of Deep Resilience,” was taken by more than 1,550 students in 70-plus countries, she said.

Chungyalpa sees the immense power in religiously affiliated people to take action for the good of the Earth.More than 75% of people around the world identify with a religion. And religious groups, as major owners of land and buildings, can do so much, from adopting soil health practices to adding solar panels.

“They reach parts of the population scientists never can,” she said.

North Shore Interfaith Green Team

The group of people who gathered at Congregation Emanu-El B’ne Jeshurun in River Hills Nov. 3 had many differences: different cities, different political persuasions and different faiths.

What unites the North Shore Interfaith Green Team is a belief that religious people have a duty to care for creation and a desire to make that happen. Reenie Kavalar, of Congregation Emanu-El B’ne Jeshurun, began the meeting with a reading from the Talmud, a foundational Jewish text.

“‘See My creations, how beautiful and exemplary they are. Everything I created, I created for you. Make certain that you do not ruin and destroy My world, as if you destroy it, there will be no one to mend it after you,'” Kavalar read. 

She paused and reflected, “I’m thinking – if it’s not up to us, who’s it going to be up to?”

The Green Team’s members are from Conservative and Reform Jewish synagogues, Catholic parishes, and Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran and Presbyterian churches.

Although the group is new, it is ambitious: In April they hosted an electronics recycling drive, which they said saved 20,000 pounds of electronics from the landfill, and they split the money they made among congregations to pursue other environmental projects. For example, Fox Point Lutheran is working on expanding its pollinator garden, said member Anne Noyes. It also spawned conversations about other types of potential efforts, such as clothes recycling and composting.

In 2026, the group will hold two more electronics recycling drives in April and will begin a partnership with Schlitz Audubon Nature Center involving volunteer conservation days. Members hope that by working together, they can come up with new ideas and tackle projects that might be impossible alone.

Susan Toman, of Christ Church Episcopal in Whitefish Bay, said she joined the Green Team in part because she sees it as a way to overcome polarization.

In many respects, her sentiment reflects the movement connecting faith and the environment, whether it’s on Milwaukee’s busy North Shore or across the state on the rural farm fields at Sinsinawa Mound.

“This is a model for how people who could be drawing a line in the sand about our differences instead are saying, ‘Let’s talk about the things that we all agree upon,'” Toman said, “something that comes from the depths of our hearts.”

This story is a product of the Mississippi River Basin Ag & Water Desk, an independent reporting network based at the University of Missouri in partnership with Report for America, with major funding from the Walton Family Foundation.

Wisconsin Watch is a member of the Ag & Water Desk network. Sign up for our newsletters to get our news straight to your inbox.

For these faithful, nurturing the Earth is rooted in spiritual beliefs 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.

More drilling for copper, gold and other metals in northern Wisconsin could begin next month under a mining company’s plans.

The post More drilling for copper and gold in northern Wisconsin may begin next month appeared first on WPR.