A coal plant in southcentral Wisconsin is expected to receive $19 million in federal funding for a modernization project after the plant was originally scheduled to retire almost two years ago.
The post Trump administration announces $19M in funding to southcentral Wisconsin coal plant appeared first on WPR.
New federal dollars could extend the life of one of Wisconsin’s remaining coal power plants.
The Trump administration plans to spend $425 million to support operations at 13 coal plants in 10 states, arguing the move will help meet rising electricity demand and preserve thousands of jobs tied to the ailing coal industry. The White House will do so by invoking the Defense Production Act, a Cold War-era law that gives the president broad authority to accelerate American industrial output at times of crisis.
Some of that funding could go to Madison-based utility Alliant Energy, which told Wisconsin Watch that it applied for a $19 million grant to extend the life of coal-powered units it owns at the Columbia Energy Center near Portage in central Wisconsin. The utility previously planned to retire the plant’s coal units before the end of the decade.
President Donald Trump announced the action from the Oval Office Thursday, highlighting that the coal plants set to benefit are all in states he won during the 2024 election.
“Wisconsin put you over the edge,” U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., interjected, standing among the gaggle of Republican lawmakers and Cabinet officials behind the president.
“Our action will allow these facilities to invest in upgrades that will extend their operational lives for decades into the future, reinforce the reliability of our electrical grid … and keep electricity prices low for the American people,” Trump said, adding that the move may also bolster the nation’s artificial intelligence boom.
The administration will also distribute $200 million in Department of Energy grants to reopen a coal plant in Maryland and build the first new coal plants in the U.S. in over a decade: one in Alaska and another in West Virginia.
The Trump administration has already intervened to block the retirement of coal plants in Michigan, Indiana and elsewhere. But the White House did not pair those earlier orders with funding to support ongoing operations, so ratepayers across most of the Midwest — including in Wisconsin — will pick up the bill for those extensions.
Wisconsin’s Citizens Utility Board (CUB) and other Midwestern ratepayer advocacy groups have since filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit challenging federal orders blocking the closure of the Michigan and Indiana plants. The costs of extending aging coal plants’ operations “are adding to an affordability challenge customers are already experiencing in Wisconsin and nearby states,” said CUB Wisconsin Executive Director Tom Content.
Alliant has already pushed back the retirement dates for its coal-powered generators at the Columbia Energy Center and Edgewater Energy Center in Sheboygan. The company initially pledged to shut down the last coal generator at the Columbia plant by 2024; Alliant did not clarify the new expected life span of the plant.
The Edgewater plant is slated to transition to natural gas generation by 2029.
Coal generation accounts for a declining share of Wisconsin’s and the Midwest’s overall energy mix. Natural gas surpassed coal as the state’s primary fuel for generating electricity in 2022.
Wisconsin ratepayers owe at least $1 billion to pay off debts tied to retired coal plants, including We Energies’ now-shuttered Pleasant Prairie Power Plant in Kenosha County.
Extending operations at Alliant’s remaining coal plants could reduce the amount ratepayers will still owe when those facilities eventually close.
Wisconsin clean energy advocates reacted with alarm to the White House’s doubling down on coal generation.
“Burning coal in Wisconsin releases a long list of toxic chemicals and heavy metals, both into the air and water,” said Clean Wisconsin spokesperson Amy Barrilleaux. “No one in Wisconsin is asking for more mercury, arsenic, lead or soot. But we will be getting all of it, especially as the Trump administration dismantles pollution safeguards at coal plants, insisting more power is needed for the ‘AI data center revolution.’”
“It’s also important to note that burning coal is one of the most expensive ways to produce energy in Wisconsin — far more expensive than wind and solar farms, which are the cheapest,” she added. “So Wisconsinites will have higher energy costs and will be paying for the health costs, the longer we burn coal in this state.”
Alliant has scaled up investments in renewable energy generation in recent years, buoyed in part by clean energy tax credits extended by the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. The U.S. Department of Energy also agreed to back $3 billion in loans supporting Alliant’s wind generation and battery storage buildouts in the final days of the Biden administration.
The Trump administration has since largely reversed Biden-era tax incentives for renewable energy development. In its 2025 annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Alliant noted that the termination of clean energy tax credits could “adversely impact” the company’s finances.
The company did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the status of Department of Energy financing for its wind and battery storage projects.
U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum argued Thursday that clean energy tax incentives created a false impression of the viability of renewable energy sources. Wind energy developers, he said, “weren’t trying to generate electricity. They’re just trying to generate tax credits.”
“Energy shouldn’t need subsidy,” Trump responded.
Editor’s note: This story was updated on June 5, 2026 to include information from Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Wisconsin power plant could benefit from Trump’s $425 million coal push 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.
President Donald Trump speaks during a "Beautiful, Clean Coal" event in the Oval Office of the White House on June 4, 2026 in Washington, D.C. Behind him, left to right, are Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
The federal government will spend $700 million on building or refurbishing coal power infrastructure across the country in a boost to “clean, beautiful coal,” President Donald Trump said Thursday in the Oval Office.
Trump said he was invoking the Cold War-era Defense Production Act, which gives the president authority over domestic industry, to save 13 existing power plants and build two new ones. He said the move would save 14,000 coal jobs and lower energy costs, though the spending will not lower the price of gasoline or diesel fuel, which has spiked since Trump launched a war with Iran in February.
Trump criticized subsidies for wind power championed by Democrats, including his predecessor, Joe Biden, characterizing coal as the most important energy source to cultivate.
“It’s real power,” Trump said. “In terms of power, there’s really nothing like it. We have so many different alternatives. You talk about some, there’s no real alternative.”
New coal plants would be built in Alaska and West Virginia, Trump said. A defunct plant in Maryland would also be restarted. Those projects would be funded with $200 million in Department of Energy grants.
Coal plants receiving a combined $425 million in Defense Production Act funding are in West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Arizona, Oklahoma, North Dakota and Wisconsin, according to the White House.
Coal mines benefiting from the move are in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wyoming, North Dakota and New Mexico, according to the White House.
The administration would also spend $75 million, authorized by the Defense Production Act, to help open a long-delayed new coal export terminal in Oakland, California, the White House said.
Administration officials said Thursday’s announcement built on a record of the past 18 months in which the administration has saved dozens of coal production facilities.
“It is hard to overstate the magnitude of this,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said. “If you look at our efforts across the whole government, so far 45 coal plants are open today that would not be open.”
Trump Cabinet members, congressional Republicans and two governors, Wyoming’s Mark Gordon and West Virginia’s Patrick Morrissey, joined Trump for the Oval Office announcement, with several extolling the importance of the coal industry after Trump spoke.
Wright, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin praised Trump for intervening to help the industry and refocusing federal energy policy away from renewables.
Wright said Democratic policies were more responsible for high energy costs than the war in Iran, even though Republicans have held unified control of the federal government since January 2025 and the Trump administration has consistently touted its moves to encourage fossil fuel production.
“We wish they were lower, but gasoline prices in the U.S. are a little over $4. They’re $10 in Europe, they’re higher in Asia, they’re very high in California,” Wright said. The national average price for regular gasoline Thursday was $4.24 per gallon.
“The bigger threat to energy prices in the United States is Democratic green energy policies,” Wright continued. “They have driven up energy prices far more than a conflict in Iran.”
Burgum said the president was perhaps the strongest advocate for coal in the country’s history.
He echoed Trump’s statements that the coal industry needed to be reinvigorated after the Biden administration focused more on renewable energy production.
“The prior administration, under Biden, had gone so far down the path of pursuing the highly subsidized, intermittent, weather-dependent sources of electricity that our grid was at risk. You understood that and you understood how key coal is,” Burgum told Trump. “It’s the backbone of having affordable, reliable and secure American energy to power our country, our electric grid, power our competitiveness in AI, and power all the manufacturing that’s coming back.”
Morrissey said the moves would benefit his state.
“We believe your policies are going to allow America to compete and win,” Morrissey said. “West Virginia is going to supply the coal, the gas, the nuclear to help make that happen. So I’m very excited by everything you’re doing.”
Environmental groups blasted the move, saying it propped up a failing industry and would have little long-term impact on energy prices or reliability.
Jesse Lee, a senior adviser with the advocacy group Climate Power, said the spending on coal projects would not lower utility prices, which he said have climbed 18% during Trump’s second term.
“He’s gaslighting the American people by claiming that this move will lower electricity prices in the middle of an energy affordability crisis that he created,” Lee said.
Environmental groups noted the coal industry heavily contributed to Trump’s 2024 campaign.
Several environmental advocates, including Lena Moffitt, the executive director of the climate group Evergreen Action, suggested that relationship drove Trump to promote coal at the expense of renewable energy sources.
“Spending $700 million to bail out the coal industry is like throwing a lifeline to a ship that has already sunk,” Moffitt wrote. “Trump is handing out taxpayer money to coal barons and leaving us with nothing but higher energy costs. … There’s no coal revival waiting around the corner—just polluters collecting a handout while their friends run the White House and Americans foot the bill.”
A dozen Wisconsin state lawmakers are urging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to reject a utility coalition’s request to pause competition for major electrical transmission projects in the Midwest.
The lawmakers — eight Assembly Republicans and four Senate Republicans — argued in a letter to the commission that competition for electrical transmission is a net positive for ratepayers, who stand to benefit from lower costs and increased innovation. That outcome, lawmakers wrote, “is even more urgent today given the rising issue of customer affordability.”
The utilities requesting a pause dispute whether competition truly lowers final costs for customers, but that argument is secondary to their primary concern: Powering the Midwest’s data center boom will require vast electrical transmission upgrades, and major regional utilities argue that competition only slows down projects needed to bring data centers online before international competitors overtake the U.S. in the artificial intelligence race.
Among the utilities behind the request are Xcel Energy, owner of Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin, and American Transmission Company (ATC), Wisconsin’s largest electrical transmission operator.
The state lawmakers cast the utilities’ request as the latest stage of a long-standing fight over transmission market competition — one that has unfolded in the Assembly over the last five years.
Ratepayer advocacy groups successfully lobbied FERC, which oversees utilities nationwide, to introduce competitive bidding for regional transmission projects in 2011, arguing that the previous model — allowing local monopolies to build all projects planned within their territories — all but guaranteed inflated costs.
The shift triggered a nationwide gold rush for transmission projects. Regulators pre-approve developers’ “return on equity,” or profit on each dollar invested, for transmission construction, so winning a project means picking up a reliable revenue stream.
Dozens of developers have since bid on transmission projects planned by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), the nonprofit that manages the wholesale electricity market for much of the Midwest. MISO has approved more than $32 billion in new transmission projects since 2022 — projects largely planned before the region’s data center boom reached full swing.
The rush to win projects has placed well-established local utilities like ATC in competition with powerful national utilities venturing outside of their traditional territory, international developers venturing into the U.S. market, and startups backed by private equity firms.
As data center developers rapidly scale up Midwest operations, the pace of transmission upgrades could become a choke point.
In March, MISO reversed its decision to award substations in Fond du Lac, Ozaukee and Sheboygan counties to private-equity-backed startup Viridon, instead handing the projects to ATC.
ATC’s initial bid was more expensive than Viridon’s, but the company successfully argued it alone could build the substations in time to serve the nearby Vantage data center campus in Port Washington. Viridon had not yet secured Public Service Commission permission to operate in Wisconsin — a hurdle ATC does not face.
MISO initially aimed to complete the substations by 2033; the Port Washington data center plans to come online in early 2028. Though ATC emerged victorious, it told FERC that the 15-month delay between MISO’s initial approval of the substations and the reversal was “completely unnecessary.”
In the utility coalition’s initial request to FERC, it cast competition-related delays as a national security threat.
“These projects — expressways for power — are as critical to meeting today’s challenges as the Eisenhower interstate highway system was to prevailing in the Cold War,” the utilities argued in their initial filing. “China has devoted itself to overtaking America as the world’s AI leader and is just months behind.”
The utility coalition proposed two options: Allow MISO, along with the grid operator for parts of the Great Plains and Southwest, to exempt transmission projects from competitive bidding on a case-by-case basis or suspend competition entirely for the next five years — “when our country must begin building the infrastructure that will decide which nation wins the AI race,” the utilities wrote.
Ratepayer advocacy groups immediately pushed back. Paul Cicio, chair of the nationwide Electricity Transmission Competition Coalition, called the request “tone deaf.”
“Suspending competition for five years,” he wrote in a press release, “would expose consumers in these regions to unchecked cost escalation for years, guaranteeing higher utility bills.”
In a protest filed with FERC in late May, Wisconsin’s Citizens Utility Board pointed to the Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission line in southern Wisconsin as an example: The 102-mile project was not subject to competitive bidding, and construction costs came in roughly 40% over budget by the time ATC, Dairyland Power Cooperative and ITC Midwest completed the line in fall 2024.
Opponents of the utilities’ request recognize that the data center boom complicates the playing field for transmission competition.
“Timelines are looking different than the industry is used to,” said Caitlin Marquis, managing director of Advanced Energy United, a trade group representing an array of clean energy and energy efficiency industries. “Transmission competition has been facing curveballs and challenges since it was introduced,” she added. Many challenges result from lobbying by incumbent utilities, and data centers’ speedy construction cycles are only the latest addition.
Her organization opposes the utilities’ request, arguing that incumbent utilities have a long track record of delaying non-competitive transmission projects — and that regulators should streamline the bidding process rather than forego competition entirely.
But utilities argue competitive bidding has yet to prove its worth. While MISO generally favors lower-cost bids, an ATC spokesperson wrote in an email to Wisconsin Watch, “evidence of a low bid is not evidence of cost savings.”
Bid prices often do not match the final project cost, they added, and substantial overruns are common, even on projects with competitive bidding.
As regional grid operators introduced competitive bidding for transmission projects a decade ago, utilities turned to state legislatures for right-of-first-refusal, or ROFR, laws.
Those laws give local utilities first dibs on transmission projects within their territories, including those planned by regional grid operators like MISO.
Michigan and Minnesota adopted such policies; Iowa’s Supreme Court struck down a ROFR law in 2023.
Utilities have backed similar proposals in Wisconsin each year since 2021, including a 2025 bill introduced by outgoing Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester.
Those proposals would have “insulat(ed) incumbents from market discipline” and left ratepayers holding the bag, the Wisconsin lawmakers argued to FERC.
“Having failed repeatedly to persuade the Wisconsin Legislature,” they continued, “the same incumbent entities are now pursuing an end-run at FERC.”
ATC maintains that options before FERC would “not operate as a substitute” for a ROFR law, “even temporarily.”
The utilities don’t stand alone before FERC. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a union representing the tradespeople who build and maintain transmission lines, also backs the request to pause competition.
Editor’s note: This story was updated June 4, 2026 to include comments from Caitlin Marquis, managing director of Advanced Energy United.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Wisconsin lawmakers oppose utility push to pause competition for power line projects is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
Wisconsin youth are appealing a recent decision to dismiss their legal challenge seeking to strike down state laws that they say worsen the climate crisis and violate their constitutional rights.
The post Wisconsin youth appeal ruling to dismiss climate lawsuit appeared first on WPR.
An Amazon Web Services data center is shown situated near single-family homes. Some local and state officials across the country want to halt development of the facilities. (Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images)
Hearing backlash from residents, cities and counties across the country in recent weeks have blocked planned data centers amid concerns over rising electricity prices and environmental harms.
The local actions come as state lawmakers also are looking to limit or repeal the incentives for the centers, which are sprawling campuses of computer servers that store and transmit the data behind apps and websites.
Supporters of the pauses say cities need rules before projects arrive, especially to answer residential concerns about electricity use, energy costs and nuisance issues. Industry supporters argue data centers bring jobs and tax revenue and are an essential part of the nation’s digital infrastructure. They warn that communities that block data centers are sacrificing those benefits.
The Denver City Council this month unanimously approved a one-year moratorium on data centers, halting new zoning permits and site development plans while the city drafts rules for future projects. In April, Oklahoma City approved a similar moratorium that will be in effect until the end of this year, or until the city updates its zoning code. Tulsa, Oklahoma, also approved a temporary stop on new data center construction, though major projects already in the pipeline will be allowed to proceed.
Smaller communities are taking similar steps.
In Illinois, both Bloomington and Normal earlier this month approved six-month moratoriums, and Morgan County took the same action in April. In Michigan, Huron County this week approved a three-year moratorium, joining roughly 20 other Michigan communities that have paused data center construction.
In Georgia, Camden County enacted a six-month moratorium earlier this month, becoming the first community on the state’s coast to do so. And a cluster of counties in North Carolina have hit pause, including Chatham County in February and Orange County (which includes Chapel Hill) in April.
But not all cities are souring on data centers: Cheyenne, Wyoming, this week opted not to proceed with a one-year moratorium after a lengthy public hearing.
A study released at the end of 2024 by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimated U.S. data centers used about 4.4% of U.S. electricity in 2023, with projected use rising to between 6.7% and 12% by 2028.
A March Gallup poll found that seven in 10 Americans would oppose the nearby construction of data centers for artificial intelligence (AI), higher than the 53% of respondents who said they would oppose living near a nuclear power plant.
Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
A Microsoft official said Tuesday the company doesn’t expect its data centers in the Great Lakes region will reach a threshold that would trigger greater review under the Great Lakes Compact.
The post Microsoft doesn’t expect its data centers will trigger review under Great Lakes Compact appeared first on WPR.
Fuel options at a Sioux Falls, South Dakota, gas station on Aug. 22, 2025. The nationwide average price of a gallon of gas was $4.55 May 22, 2026, up from $3.20 a year ago. The steep increase has turned some lawmakers' attention alternative fuels like ethanol. (Photo by John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight)
Proponents of ethanol, including lawmakers from corn-growing states, say year-round sales of a gasoline blend containing 15% of the biofuel would give consumers a less expensive alternative to fill their gas tanks, boost energy supplies and benefit agricultural interests.
So why hasn’t Congress allowed it?
There’s credible skepticism about those claims — and opposition from the strange bedfellows of environmental advocates and lawmakers from states where oil production and refining are major industries. As a result, expanding the availability of E15, as the blend is called, has become a congressional brawl with no predictable result.
The outcome of this debate, which will continue in June when Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess, largely depends on whether the push for year-round E15 use can get 60 U.S. Senate votes after the U.S. House this month passed legislation allowing it and the White House has signaled its support.
“I don’t know if it can get 60, to be honest with you,” Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia, said in an interview.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune offered some hope.
“We’re looking at ways to move it,” he told reporters. “We have people here who represent states that also have refineries, and that’s a factor in this conversation.”
Federal regulations have restricted E15 from being sold from June 1 to Sept. 15 because of its effects on air quality.
But the turmoil triggered by the war in Iran has been an important boost to Congress’ efforts to pass year-round E15 legislation.
AAA reported that the national average for a gallon of regular gasoline cost $4.55 a gallon Friday, up from $3.20 a year earlier.
The Environmental Protection Agency issued waivers this year to allow extended sales of the blend. E15, often sold at gas stations as Unleaded 88, will be widely available this summer as “the result of ongoing issues in the Middle East, among other events,” EPA said in a statement.
One’s view of the issue “depends on which study you look at,” Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican, said in an interview.
On one side is a historically influential coalition of agricultural, retail and petroleum interests.
“This legislation reflects a unique area of agreement across the fuel and agriculture supply chain,” organizations representing those industries said in a May 11 letter.
“While our industries do not always see eye to eye, we are united in the belief that these policy reforms provide needed certainty, preserve consumer choice, and support agriculture and energy economies alike,” they said.
The Renewable Fuels Association says E15 has been “fully approved for use in cars, pickups, vans and other light-duty vehicles” made after 2000.
Consumers can save 10 to 30 cents a gallon compared to 87-octane regular gasoline, industry members say. In Pennsylvania last weekend, Unleaded 88 was in some cases selling for 50 cents a gallon less.
Many environmental groups maintain production of ethanol costs more than regular gasoline, and those costs are passed on to consumers not only at the pump, but in various agricultural products.
“Expanding ethanol sales is a shortsighted approach that ignores the environmental costs of industrial agriculture,” said Patrick Drupp, Sierra Club’s director of climate policy.
He said much of the corn used to produce E15 is grown in Midwestern states “already facing severe aquifer depletion and water shortages, and expanding ethanol production would only intensify the strain on their water supplies, farmland, and ecosystems.”
Eight environmental groups wrote an open letter May 8, concerned that “We should not commit additional land, resources, or taxpayer dollars to policies that undermine our climate goals, strain our natural systems, and increase costs for American families.”
The groups, which include the World Resources Institute and the Sierra Club, countered the notion that consumers would benefit.
“Production expenses for corn ethanol typically exceed those of gasoline, except during periods of unusually high oil prices—and even then, ethanol prices tend to rise in tandem with global energy markets,” they said.
That would mean even higher prices not only for fuel but for food, the organizations wrote.
One analysis that takes neither side is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which said in a May 12 analysis that because E15 needs separate or specialized tanks and pumps, “retailers wanting to sell E15 would confront the additional expense of installing new equipment.”
And, it said, “some refiners will incur additional costs as they adjust their refinery processes to produce the appropriate gasoline to be blended into E15.”
The congressional coalitions for and against year-round E15 are as unusual as the outside groups supporting and opposing it.
The House’s 218-203 vote on May 13 saw 122 Republicans, 95 Democrats and one independent voting yes, while 113 Republicans and 90 Democrats voted no.
The yes coalition largely united rural lawmakers with more urban members who see the change as helping consumers.
“This debate is about much more than fuel,” Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, an Iowa Republican, said. “Agriculture is hurting right now,”
Joining her was New Jersey’s Rep. Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The bill “lowers prices for American drivers, supports farmers, and fosters investment in cleaner transportation fuel,” he said.
On the other side was Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas.
“If we need to do something to support farmers, let’s have a direct conversation about it. Expanding E15 is just the wrong direction to go,” he said.
The same sort of party split looms in the Senate.
After the House vote, Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., who’s fought for the change for years, hailed the approval as “a major step toward securing stability and certainty for American producers and consumers – without any government mandates.”
Thune, of South Dakota, has been sympathetic to year-round E15.
At a news conference this week he called E15 “a way of creating additional demand for agricultural commodities in this country and creating additional supply when it comes to fuels.
“And when that happens, at least in my part of the country, that means that when you buy ethanol at the pump, it’s significantly lower in price,” he said.
He faces a powerful skeptic in the Senate: Majority Whip John Barrasso of Wyoming, the Senate’s second-ranking Republican..
“Congress is currently discussing new mandates – mandates that would force more and more ethanol into our fuels,” he said in a Senate floor speech the day after the House vote.
“I oppose the year-round E15 mandate,” he said. “I oppose it because it hurts small oil refineries and all of the people who work at them.”
There are about 30 small refineries across the country, usually in inland areas, and about half could face problems under the House bill.
Small refineries are those that produce less than 75,000 barrels of oil per day, compared to 300,000 barrels or more at larger facilities.
The small refineries can petition for an EPA exemption from the annual renewable fuel obligations based on “disproportionate economic hardship.”
For 2025, there were 33 exemption petitions filed. Approximately 17 of those facilities would be ineligible under the proposed legislation because they are owned by companies with more than one refinery. Instead of focusing on the single facility, the bill requires aggregation of all facilities together.
The House bill would allow a 75% exemption instead of the current full exemption. It could also reduce the number of small refineries currently eligible for an exemption by half.
Most small refineries would find themselves operationally constrained without the ability to receive exemptions, as they would have to use much of their cash flow to comply with the annual mandates, said Peter Whitfield, partner at Sidley Austin, a law firm that represents the Small Refineries of America, in an interview
Many senators want assurances small refineries won’t be hurt.
“I’m interested in the small refinery piece,” Capito said.
That concern is yet another reason, at the moment, Capito said she is doubtful the House bill could get the 60 votes needed in the Senate.
Enbridge Line 5 reroute work north of Mellen, Wisconsin (Photo by Frank Zufall/Wisconsin Examiner)
A Bayfield County judge has issued a partial stay against the permits allowing Enbridge to construct its reroute of the Line 5 pipeline across northern Wisconsin. The stay only applies to construction at four waterway crossings.
The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, along with a group of environmental and civic organizations, filed the lawsuit in Iron County Circuit Court against Enbridge’s construction permit in February after an administrative law judge had previously upheld the Department of Natural Resource’s decision to grant the permits.
Enbridge is being forced to reroute the pipeline, which has crossed the state for decades, after a federal judge ruled in 2022 that it illegally crossed Bad River tribal land. The tribe and allied groups have opposed the reroute, arguing it still poses a threat to local waterways and Lake Superior while infringing on the tribe’s treaty rights to access public land.
In his ruling, issued Friday, Judge John Anderson wrote that the tribe must clear a high legal bar to be granted a stay because the administrative trial process already established the basic facts of the case. Comparing his role to that of an appellate court assessing a circuit court ruling, he wrote that he can’t give the petitioners an opportunity to a “fresh opportunity to relitigate those contested issues and facts” of the case.
“Considering the deference the Court must give the ALJ regarding its factual findings, it is very difficult to issue a full stay of permits primarily because petitioners disagree with the ALJ’s findings,” he wrote.
But he found that the administrative law judge had misinterpreted a previous case upon which Enbridge argued it had the right to conduct construction across waterways without permission from the person who owns the “riparian” area near those waterways.
“These are highly sensitive areas, not only for Bad River, which relies on these waters, but also for all the citizens of this state,” he wrote. “The Bad River and its headwaters and tributaries are a unique and special place. On this narrow legal issue, the irreparable harm near this waterway which cannot easily be rectified by other means or remedied at law is weighed against the need to show a strong likelihood of success.”
Anderson found that Enbridge will be required to obtain additional permits for its construction at the four waterways.
After the ruling, John Petoskey, the tribe’s attorney, said the halt to construction will protect the tribe from immediate harm.
“I’m relieved to have this partial construction freeze protecting the Band from further immediate harm,” said Earthjustice Senior Associate Attorney John Petoskey. “We trust the Court will agree that Wisconsin’s unlawful permitting decisions — which have ultimately put northern Wisconsin wetlands, waterways, and tribal nations at existential risk — deserve serious legal scrutiny.”
Enbridge spokesperson Juli Kellner said in a statement that the company is in the process of obtaining DNR permits to work on the relevant waterways, that the permits include conditions to mitigate environmental damage and that the ruling won’t delay construction.
“State permits include 250 conditions and mitigation plans which avoid, minimize, monitor, and remedy environmental impacts,” she said. “Line 5 is critical energy infrastructure serving 10 refineries and propane production facilities — and continues to operate safely and reliably delivering critical, affordable energy to the Midwest and Great Lakes regions.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce Fact Briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.
The 2025 total compensation of WEC Energy Group CEO Scott Lauber was $12 million.
That’s down from the $18 million paid in 2020 to WEC’s then-CEO, Kevin Fletcher.
WEC, the largest Wisconsin-based utility company, is the parent company of We Energies and other electric and gas utilities in Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota.
Former Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, one Democrat running for governor, said utility “CEO pay” had increased from $4 million to $12 million. His campaign said Barnes was referring to Lauber.
Lauber’s total compensation was $4 million in 2020. But he was senior executive vice president, not CEO.
Nationally, the average total compensation for utility CEOs in 2025 was $12 million, up 47% since 2017. The top earner was the CEO of Ohio-based American Electric Power, at $36 million. That $12 million, as a median, was the lowest among all industry sectors.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Did compensation for the CEO of Wisconsin’s largest utility company triple in five years to $12 million? 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.
Canadian energy firm Enbridge can keep building a new stretch of its Line 5 oil and gas pipeline in northern Wisconsin except in waterways where the company needs additional permits, a Bayfield County judge ruled Friday.
The post Judge halts some work on Enbridge’s Line 5 reroute in northern Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.
Despite regional variability in climate, electricity sources, congestion, and the wide variation in individual driving patterns, electric vehicles generate less greenhouse gas emissions and do not cost more than comparable gas-powered vehicles for drivers and vehicle fleet owners in most parts of the United States, according to a new study by MIT researchers.
The team’s approach captures many key factors that contribute to regional and individual differences in the life-cycle emissions and ownership cost of electric vehicles, including meteorological data, the distance and duration of trips, and fuel prices.
To paint a fuller picture of emissions and costs than was previously available, the researchers sourced data from thousands of U.S. zip codes and drilled down to the level of individual drivers within those locations. Their study considers time-averaged fuel prices so as not to be overly influenced by fluctuations in prices at any one point in time. They finalized their analysis at the end of 2024 and early 2025.
Their results indicate that a person’s driving behaviors can matter as much as regional factors like the local electricity mix when it comes to the emissions savings of an electric vehicle, compared to a similar gas-powered vehicle. In most locations, a battery-electric vehicle reduces emissions between 40 and 60 percent, with larger impacts in urban areas.
They also found that colder climates do not reduce overall emission benefits as much as some media reports assume.
The researchers utilized this detailed analysis to update a public tool they previously developed, carboncounter.com, which enables individuals to compare the life-cycle emissions and total ownership costs of nearly any car on the market. A new version of carboncounter.com is also being released today.
“There are a lot of statements being thrown around, like that electric vehicles don’t reduce emissions very much in cool climates, and we wanted to analyze these factors systematically and evaluate these statements against one another simultaneously. Rather than simply asking, ‘Are EVs better?’, this paper helps answer ‘better for whom, and under what conditions?’” says Marco Miotti PhD ’20, a senior researcher at ETH Zurich who completed this research while a graduate student in the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS) at MIT.
He is joined on the paper by senior author Jessika Trancik, a professor in IDSS. The research appears today in Environmental Research Letters.
A holistic approach
Many prior studies that compare emissions and costs of electric vehicles (EVs) to combustion-engine vehicles cover a few factors, like the amount of renewable energy in the grid and how gas prices impact affordability, Miotti says.
“To our knowledge, there have been few efforts so far that bring all these factors together. But if someone wants to buy a car and have a better understanding of the factors that affect emissions and costs, this holistic approach is important,” he adds.
The researchers focused on two types of EVs: battery-electric vehicles, which only operate on electricity, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, which also have a combustion engine that works in tandem with the battery to optimize fuel savings.
The team expanded and improved a set of previously developed vehicle cost and emissions models to incorporate a wider variety of factors and data types.
For instance, they refined an existing model that estimates energy use and gas mileage so it could capture more nuances of local climate variability.
“But the real effort was not just in extending these different models, but in bringing together all these different data and making them work with the models in a consistent manner,” Miotti says.
The team sourced data on a wide variety of factors for each U.S. zip code, such as typical drive cycles, the amount of traffic, local gas and electricity prices, makeup of the regional electricity mix, meteorological profiles, and more. They used statistical approaches to amalgamate different types of data.
For example, the team used a probabilistic matching technique to combine data on how often people drive, which was drawn from nationwide travel surveys, with more detailed GPS data that includes factors like drivers’ acceleration patterns and the distance they usually drive on each day of the week.
The researchers designed their analysis to focus on the spatial picture of emissions and costs, based on U.S. zip codes, while simultaneously considering the impact of the size and features of each specific vehicle model.
“At the end of the day, it’s the vehicle and fleet owners who make decisions about vehicle purchases. So, we wanted to make sure to consider their wide-ranging individual perspectives rather than simply performing a region-by-region comparison,” says Trancik.
Lower emissions, comparable costs
In the end, their modeling framework revealed that all factors they analyzed matter about equally in determining emissions-reduction potential of EVs compared to internal combustion vehicles.
EVs reduce emissions the most in areas with a cleaner electricity mix, denser traffic, higher annual travel distances, and a mild climate, in decreasing order of importance. In each area, emission reductions increase for drivers who drive more often, drive larger vehicles, and are more frequently stuck in traffic.
In a colder area like North Dakota, fuel economy of battery-electric vehicles might be reduced by as much as 50 percent on a particularly frigid night, but the effect on annual emission benefits is minimal.
“We even did a sensitivity study to see if the range is reduced in very cold climates, and we found that, even in the most unfavorable conditions, EVs still reduce emissions by a substantial amount,” Miotti says.
On the cost side, the models show that, in most places across the U.S., EVs are competitive with comparable combustion-engine vehicles in terms of lifetime ownership cost, even without clean vehicle tax credits. And in areas where electricity is relatively affordable, battery-electric vehicles tend to cost less than their plug-in hybrid or combustion-engine counterparts.
In the future, the researchers want to expand this analysis to include a temporal dimension, so the framework also considers how changes in vehicle, fuel, and electricity prices affect emissions and costs over time.
“While we found that the electricity mix is a big driver of the spatial variation in emissions savings of EVs, the electricity grid is decarbonizing everywhere. As that happens, emissions savings across space will become more homogenous for EVs, but the differences across one driver to another will remain,” Miotti says.
They could also use the framework to explore regions outside the United States or incorporate data on hybrid-electric vehicles that cannot be plugged in.
This work was funded, in part, by the MIT Martin Family Society of Fellows for Sustainability.
© Credit: iStock
As power-hungry data centers proliferate, states are searching for ways to protect utility customers from the steep costs of upgrading the electrical grid, trying instead to shift the cost to AI-driven tech companies. (Dana DiFilippo/New Jersey Monitor)
All three members of the Public Service Commission criticized the lack of transparency from Meta and Alliant Energy during a meeting Thursday in which the body approved a contract for the social media giant to obtain power for its planned data center in Beaver Dam.
Meta is in the process of spending more than $1 billion to construct a hyperscale data center campus that, when completed, would use six to eight times more power than the city of Beaver Dam’s current energy load.
Like similar massive data center projects across the state, Meta’s Beaver Dam project has drawn opposition from local residents. For months, the project was shrouded in secrecy with Meta operating under the name Degas LLC. Opponents have complained about the lack of openness, the massive use of energy and the impact the construction and operation of the center could have on the community.
PSC Chair Summer Strand said in her opening remarks she didn’t understand “why it needed to be this difficult” to achieve a transparent process.
“To me, transparency is not a cliche, feel good, bare minimum, check the box concept,” Strand said. “If there’s one takeaway from our discussion and decisions today I want it to be clear that, whether you’re a large load customer coming into Wisconsin for the first time, or regulated entity familiar with our process, transparency — and by that I mean actual and real transparency — is the foundational expectation and a necessity.”
Commissioner Kristy Nieto said in her opening remarks Thursday morning that the case is one of the “most consequential” decisions the PSC has seen.
“It bears repeating, existing Wisconsin customers should not pay a single cent to subsidize the service of data centers, not now and not decades from now,” Nieto said. “This means these very large customers must bear the full cost of the infrastructure required to serve them — generation, transmission and distribution — and that those costs must be fully and transparently assigned.”
The three members of the commission lamented the redactions that had initially been made to the documents submitted in the case — which were later removed after objections from outside parties including members of the public, Clean Wisconsin and the Citizens Utility Board.
The commissioners also decided that moving forward, hyperscale data centers constructed within Alliant’s territory must pay for and receive energy through a standardized tariff, rather than a one-off contract negotiated without public scrutiny. Late last month, the PSC made a similar ruling for large customers in WE Energies territory.
Under the PSC order, Alliant will have to develop a tariff that applies for any data centers using more than 100 megawatts of energy. The Meta campus is expected to use 220 megawatts.
“This is not going to be the last data center contract we see from this utility, and I will say Alliant needs standard guidelines and rules for its data center customers,” Nieto said. “A clear public tariff would create consistent, transparent rates and rules for future data centers, instead of handling each one through separate, confidential negotiations.”
While Alliant was ordered to develop a tariff rate for large customers, the PSC on Thursday approved the contract negotiated between Meta and Alliant with some modifications meant to insulate regular customers from bearing the costs of Meta’s energy use and any related infrastructure upgrades by Alliant. Nieto said denying the agreement while the tariff rate is developed would have allowed Meta to operate for up to a year without any guardrails, an outcome she said didn’t think would benefit anyone.
Brett Korte, a staff attorney with Clean Wisconsin, said the PSC putting a halt to the development of a case-by-case patchwork of data center energy deals in Alliant’s territory — which covers parts of more than a dozen Wisconsin counties — will protect Wisconsinites.
“Tariffs create a consistent, transparent framework that helps protect the public interest,” Korte said in a statement. “Without them, Wisconsin risks a patchwork system where costs and responsibilities are unclear and potentially shifted onto other utility customers.”
After the meeting, consumer advocacy and environmental groups were complimentary of the PSC’s actions.
“Today, the Public Service Commission highlighted the importance of transparency and oversight: accountability is a must, and it cannot be bypassed,” Britnie Remer, organizing director of climate advocacy group 350 Wisconsin. “The Commission also recognized that protecting Wisconsinites from subsidizing billion-dollar data centers needs to be front and center when it comes to these massive projects. With more data center proposals inevitable, requiring tariff filings in the future will ensure large energy customers pay for their costs, not our families and small businesses.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Wisconsin regulators on Thursday approved a one-off contract between Alliant Energy and the Meta subsidiary building a data center campus in Beaver Dam, but with a major caveat: Alliant must return with a standardized plan to power future data centers — and shield other customers from resulting costs.
The agreement bears little resemblance to the model We Energies proposed for its hyperscale data center customers in Mount Pleasant and Port Washington. That model covers all future We Energies data center customers and was approved last month with major modifications by the three-member Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC).
Both the PSC and ratepayer advocates expressed reservations about allowing Alliant to proceed without a standardized payment structure for data center customers. Negotiating contracts one-by-one, Commission Chair Summer Strand argued, would undermine the public’s interest in transparency and consistency.
Strand and fellow commissioners Kristy Nieto and Marcus Hawkins approved a modified version of the agreement, acknowledging that the Beaver Dam campus will open in 2027 with or without a tailored contract with Alliant. Sending the utility back to the drawing board for another year, they reasoned, could expose other customers to greater financial risk. The commissioners directed Alliant to propose a standardized payment structure for large data center customers similar to the We Energies arrangement approved last month.
Wisconsin Power and Light, an Alliant subsidiary, filed its case with the PSC last spring, months before Meta joined state and local officials in announcig its Beaver Dam data center campus.
The Beaver Dam facility, the first of its kind in Alliant’s Wisconsin service territory, is smaller than the soon-to-open Microsoft and Vantage data centers. Meta projects the facility will use 220 megawatts at peak, less than half the projected use of the Mount Pleasant and Port Washington campuses. But even that comparatively modest demand would be six to eight times the current peak for all of Beaver Dam.
In testimony to the PSC in November, Rebecca Valcq, Alliant’s assistant vice president for regulatory affairs and data center services, said the Beaver Dam campus would benefit other customers by “making more efficient use of existing infrastructure” and “spreading fixed costs” across a larger base. She also urged commissioners to consider the data center’s projected $2.1 million in annual local, state and federal tax revenue, among other economic benefits.
Alliant is a founding member of the Wisconsin Data Center Coalition, which promotes the state as a destination for data center developers.
Unlike We Energies, Alliant says it does not expect to immediately build new power plants to serve the Beaver Dam campus. Instead, Meta would purchase electricity from the same generators as the rest of Alliant’s customers. Hawkins noted on Thursday that even if the new data center doesn’t immediately require new generators, it might change the retirement timelines for Alliant’s existing power plants.
The utility negotiated its contract with Meta behind closed doors. When it approached the PSC, it asked for approval without changes and requested extensive redactions, hiding many contract terms from the public. Alliant argued that the contract’s specific terms, and the surrounding secrecy, were needed to “attract and accommodate” Meta — and to compete with other states or utility territories courting data center development.
The redactions spurred pushback from ratepayer advocates and the PSC itself, which made more details of the contract available as the case progressed. In Thursday’s hearing, Strand drew parallels with the nondisclosure agreements some data center developers seek from local governments in Wisconsin, including Meta in Beaver Dam, which Wisconsin Watch first reported on in January.
“For some of these new private sector, big tech data center customers that are used to operating confidentially, coming into our state or coming into this process might be a shock to the system,” Strand said. “There is still this black-box approach that includes nondisclosure agreements, heavily redacted filings, corporate pseudonyms and negotiations shrouded in secrecy… This lack of transparency is hurting, not helping.”
The nonprofit law center Midwest Environmental Advocates in December sued the PSC to obtain unredacted documents from the Alliant case. That lawsuit is ongoing.
Alliant proposed some protections for itself and non-data center customers. It set a floor for Alliant’s revenues from Meta, protecting the utility in a scenario in which the data center uses less electricity than initially anticipated.
That minimum covers the cost of building transmission lines to serve the data center. The American Transmission Company, the largest transmission operator in Wisconsin, is currently building a $200 million line to plug in the Beaver Dam campus.
Alliant also proposed requiring Meta to reimburse the utility for the costs of transmission infrastructure if the tech giant backs out of the Beaver Dam project before the new line is complete — and requiring Meta to put up collateral in case its credit rating falls.
The PSC agreed with those terms and added further protections, including requiring Alliant to regularly report on the costs of serving the Beaver Dam campus and leaving the door open for the commission to adjust the cost-sharing to shield other customers from unanticipated expenses.
Commissioners identified some ratepayer protections beyond what it has authority to require. The transmission buildout needed to serve data centers is largely outside of PSC jurisdiction. Much of that authority instead rests with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which oversees transmission utilities nationwide, and the Midcontinent Independent Systems Operator (MISO), a nonprofit that manages much of the Midwest’s electrical grid.
MISO awarded the transmission line project that will serve the Beaver Dam data center to ATC, which spreads construction costs across all its Wisconsin customers, most of whom are outside Alliant’s territory. While Alliant’s new contract requires Meta to pay a minimum transmission fee to shield other Alliant customers from unexpected costs, those protections don’t extend to customers of other utilities using ATC’s transmission lines.
Alliant’s customers will also pick up “tens of millions of dollars” in transmission costs tied to data centers in other Wisconsin electrical utility territories, Hawkins said. “Whether or not that is appropriate — or something that we are being open-eyed about — is a concern of mine,” he added.
Commissioners on Thursday urged Alliant to begin discussions with ATC on a fairer method for distributing costs — one of the few options within commission authority.
The commission directed Alliant to produce a standardized plan before making agreements with new data center customers.
The PSC is aware that more data centers could come to Alliant’s turf.
“Evidence indicates there are 12 other potential data centers in this utility’s territory that are potentially in the works,” Nieto said. Given that future, she added, Alliant must “establish clear rates, terms and protections and provide transparency, regulatory clarity and public accountability as required when serving loads capable of reshaping a utility’s entire system.”
Ratepayer advocates welcomed Thursday’s decision while emphasizing the importance of the directive to outline a standardized payment structure for future data centers.
“While the PSC approved Alliant’s contract, with modifications, for Meta’s Beaver Dam data
center, the Commissioners recognized that continued one-off, bilateral contract
negotiations are not sufficiently protective of Wisconsin families and small businesses,” Brett Korte, a staff attorney with Clean Wisconsin, said in a press release.
“Today’s PSC decision requiring Alliant to develop a tariff for future data centers will result in a consistent, transparent framework that helps protect the public interest.”
Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board Executive Director Tom Content echoed commissioners’ hopes that Alliant and other electrical utilities will reach an agreement with ATC to protect non-data center customers from transmission-related cost shifts.
“We’re calling on ATC to protect customers across Wisconsin and Michigan to make sure people who aren’t even (customers of) these utilities aren’t on the hook,” he told Wisconsin Watch.
Alliant raised no immediate objections to the PSC’s changes.
“Protecting our customers while allowing communities to grow is central to our commitment at Alliant Energy, and that’s exactly what this contract is designed to do,” a spokesperson wrote in a statement on Thursday afternoon. “It maintains reliability, supports meaningful local economic benefits, and delivers benefits that help keep rates stable for all customers.”
In a quarterly earnings call last week, the company announced plans for a 370-megawatt electric service agreement with a data center customer in Iowa. Unlike Wisconsin’s PSC, Iowa’s utility regulator has been more open to one-off contracts between utilities and data centers.
By removing that option for Alliant’s future arrangements with data center customers, Content said, the PSC’s latest ruling could set a new standard for other utilities in the state.
“They’re sending a message,” he added. “None of this individual contract stuff.”
PSC approves Alliant-Meta data center power deal while criticizing ‘black box’ approach 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 utility regulators blasted Alliant Energy and Meta Thursday for a lack of transparency as they approved changes to custom electric rates for the tech company’s plans to build a $1 billion data center campus in Beaver Dam.
The post Wisconsin regulators approve rates for Meta’s Beaver Dam data center, with sharp criticism appeared first on WPR.
The head of the company that owns Wisconsin’s largest utility said it’s discussing the addition of more hyperscale data centers with very large customers.
The post Wisconsin utility company executive says more data centers could be on the horizon appeared first on WPR.
Heliox, A Siemens Business, a leader in EV charging solutions, is proud to highlight its VersiCharge Blue 80A, engineered for the most demanding fleet and commercial vehicle charging environments. Designed to deliver up to 80A AC (19.2 kW) power output, the VersiCharge Blue 80A ensures that fleet operators can keep vehicles moving efficiently and reduce operational downtime. With Level 2 charging capability via a J1772 connector and a 24-foot cable, this solution is compatible with most standard EVs, E-Trucks and School Buses, and streamlines installation and daily operation for maximum flexibility and reach.
This charger exemplifies robust quality, featuring Buy America compliance to meet government procurement requirements and ENERGY STAR certification to support lower operational costs and high energy efficiency. Safety remains paramount, as the VersiCharge Blue 80A holds multiple UL listings and carries a NEMA 4 and IK10 rating to ensure exceptional resilience against extreme temperatures, humidity, and physical impact. Backed by a 3-year warranty, customers gain peace of mind knowing their investment is safeguarded for the long haul.
Connectivity is central to the VersiCharge Blue 80A’s design, with cellular and Wi-Fi networking providing easy remote monitoring and flexible network-sharing in commercial deployments. Site safety and aesthetics are prioritized thanks to retractable cable management, reducing trip hazards and maintaining a clean, professional appearance. State-of-the-art smart charging features, including ISO15118-2 hardware readiness and OCPP 1.6J support, enable advanced load management, authentication, security, and future compatibility, while Sifinity Setup mobile app configuration simplifies multi-charger installations.
Precise energy tracking is guaranteed by embedded metering, helping operators optimize usage and manage costs. Built for resilient operation, the unit withstands wide temperature swings from -40°C to 50°C (>50°C with derating) and functions reliably in up to 98% humidity, making it ideal for harsh climates and challenging locations. Wall or post mounting options offer flexible installation for any site layout, and over-the-air (OTA) software upgrades future-proof investments by delivering remote updates and new capabilities.
Engineered for versatility, VersiCharge Blue 80A features rated current settings from 12A to 80A to easily accommodate varying power needs across fleet and facility applications. Its recommended wire cross section of 3 AWG with a 90°C minimum ensures safe, high-capacity wiring and consistent performance even under heavy usage. Built-in ground fault and overvoltage protection shield both users and vehicles against electrical risks, while multicolor LED indicators provide instant feedback on charging status, connectivity, and fault diagnostics to streamline site management.
Advanced OCPP and ISO15118-2 user authentication deliver enterprise-grade security and fleet management capability. The charger operates at altitudes up to 6,562 feet, expanding site possibilities in high-elevation regions, and customizable mounting options ensure seamless integration in diverse venues.
With VersiCharge Blue 80A, Heliox, A Siemens Business, is bringing a powerful blend of reliability, safety, and intelligent connectivity to the heart of fleet and commercial EV operations, enabling customers to scale with confidence as electrification demands grow.
About Heliox, A Siemens Business
Heliox, A Siemens Business, delivers world class EV charging equipment, EV charger maintenance and support services, and robust solutions for a broad range of EV fleets. Our portfolio encompasses all aspects of smart and efficient AC and DC charging infrastructure, including IoT-connected hardware, software, and a comprehensive service offering. Heliox manufactures UL compliant products that meet Buy America Act (BAA) and Build America Buy America (BABA) standards. Heliox’s high-quality, field-proven charging products are now backed by Siemens’ financial strength, global reach, and long-term stability—delivering the best of both worlds.
The post Heliox, A Siemens Business, Highlights VersiCharge Blue 80A for Fleet and Commercial EV Charging appeared first on School Transportation News.
LAS VEGAS, Nev. — Now in its seventh year, the State of Sustainable Fleets 2026 Market Brief, released today, delivers a comprehensive, technology-neutral assessment of an industry building resilience through powertrain and fuel diversification amid an extended period of uncertainty. The Market Brief was unveiled at ACT Expo in Las Vegas, Nevada — North America’s largest fleet technology conference and expo, now in its 16th year. It was authored by TRC Companies, a WSP member company and leading construction, engineering, and consulting firm.
The Market Brief arrives as commercial fleets face a convergence of pressures that industry analysts are calling the most complex operating environment in modern trucking history. A prolonged freight recession now in its third consecutive year has been compounded by sweeping federal policy reversals, tariff-driven cost increases of up to $35,000 per new truck, and geopolitical volatility affecting global supply chains and energy markets. The rollback of federal greenhouse gas (GHG) vehicle standards, the expiration of zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) tax credits worth up to $40,000 per eligible medium- and heavy-duty (MD/HD) vehicle, the cancellation of federal clean transportation funding, and the nullification of California’s clean truck regulations have restructured the policy landscape from a federally driven system to a decentralized patchwork of state policies and market-driven factors.
Yet across all this disruption, the data reveals a picture of an industry in structural adaptation rather than retreat. TRC estimates that more than $5 billion in state, local, and utility program funding remains available annually through 2028 supporting clean fleet investment. Fleet technology markets are maturing across nearly every fuel and drivetrain type. Artificial intelligence has moved from pilot projects to mainstream fleet operations. And the central strategic finding of this year’s Market Brief is clear: fleets managing total cost of ownership (TCO) across a portfolio of powertrain technologies rather than concentrating on a single solution or waiting out the uncertainty are demonstrating measurably greater resilience. In a freight economy where external shocks can rapidly change the economics of any single technology, including conventional diesel, powertrain diversification has become both a financial strategy and a risk management imperative.
Penske Transportation Solutions and Volvo Trucks North America serve as title sponsors of the 2026 State of Sustainable Fleets Market Brief. Exelon Companies and S&P Global Mobility serve as supporting sponsors. Each sponsor contributes expertise and data that enhances credibility of the findings.
The 2026 Market Brief identifies key findings shaping the sustainable fleets landscape:
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Trucking: From Pilot Projects to Commercial Operations
AI-powered fleet management has moved from experimentation to mainstream operations: approximately half of fleets in the annual survey report using AI for route optimization, dispatching, predictive maintenance, and maintenance diagnostics with users reporting measurable cost savings, greater vehicle uptime, and improved fleet utilization.
Fleet AI adoption is expected to accelerate rapidly: survey respondents project that 35% of their fleets will be AI-enabled by 2027, nearly doubling from an estimated 20% across the fleet in 2025. Among respondents, 49% reported that none of their fleet had been AI-enabled as of 2025, signaling a significant near-term adoption runway.
Autonomous freight is advancing from Sun Belt pilots to commercial-scale operations: driverless light-duty vehicles have logged millions of miles, and HD autonomous trucks entered commercial freight service in 2025. Broader heavy-duty rollouts across more routes and regions are expected by end of 2026.
Policy and Funding: Federal Cuts Reshape the Landscape; States, Markets, and New Biofuel Mandates Take the Lead
Federal clean transportation funding has been substantially reduced: zero-emission tax credits of up to $40,000 for eligible MD/HD vehicles expired; DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Office budget was cut approximately 90%; $2.2 billion in hydrogen R&D funding was rescinded, including so-called “Hydrogen Hubs”; and the DOT’s National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program was suspended for six months.
Despite federal cuts, available funding for clean fleet projects remains well above pre-2022 levels: more than $5 billion in state, local, and utility programs is estimated annually through 2028. California maintained over $1 billion in active grant funding for on-road trucks and buses in 2025. Low-carbon fuel standards (LCFS) in California, Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico continue generating meaningful revenue streams supporting multiple clean technology pathways.
The EPA finalized record-high Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volume obligations for 2026 and 2027 in April 2026, requiring approximately a 60% increase in biodiesel and renewable diesel production and use compared to 2025 levels — a major structural tailwind for renewable fuel adoption. Regulatory responsibility for GHG and criteria pollutant standards is also increasingly shifting to the state level, though significant questions remain for fleets and their partners.
Diesel Vehicles: Efficiency Gains and Drop-In Renewable Fuels Displace Conventional Diesel at Scale
New Class 8 tractor registrations declined 16% in 2025 according to S&P Global Mobility data amid the prolonged freight recession, tariff-driven cost increases, and economic uncertainty. Fleets and OEMs have focused on diesel fuel efficiency: more than one-third of survey respondents reported using efficiency technologies, with leading heavy-duty adopters in the logistics sector achieving 8.5+ mpg and best-in-class operations demonstrating 11.5 mpg or higher.
Renewable diesel (RD) and biodiesel (BD) drop-in fuels that work in existing diesel engines and infrastructure are displacing conventional diesel at scale: the two fuels combined to replace 74% of conventional diesel used in California transportation in 2024 and 71% in the first three quarters of 2025. More than half of annual fleet survey respondents now report using RD or BD, with near-100% B99 biodiesel adoption expanding in 2025.
The EPA’s Clean Trucks Plan establishing MY 2027 NOx and particulate matter (PM) standards for MD/HD vehicles remains on track, with incremental per-vehicle costs expected to range from $8,000 to $18,000. Final warranty and useful-life provisions are still pending.
Natural Gas Vehicles: 15-Liter Engine Delivers Diesel-Equivalent Performance; RNG Enables Carbon-Negative Fleet Operations
The Cummins X15N 15-liter natural gas engine completed its first full year of commercial availability in 2025 and delivered diesel-equivalent performance, range, and payload capacity alongside compelling fuel cost savings. The U.S. leads the world in commercial use of compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) for trucking — a competitive advantage built on years of fleet adoption and infrastructure investment that no other market has matched.
Total MD/HD natural gas vehicle (NGV) registrations fell 15% in 2025, driven in part by the freight recession and the fleet transition period as the market shifted to 15-liter platform deliveries. Straight trucks comprised 82% of 2025 NGV registrations, followed by transit buses (10%) and tractor trucks (7%) according to S&P Global Mobility data.
Renewable natural gas (RNG) sourced from organic waste enables carbon-negative fleet operations and continues to grow: RNG accounted for 97% of all natural gas fuel used in California transportation in 2025. Among NGV-using fleets in the survey, 65% report RNG use, which they estimate accounts for 78% of their total fueling volume.
Propane Vehicles: Cost Savings Drive Steady Growth; New Role as EV Charging Power Source Expands Market
The propane vehicle fleet grew 3.1% in 2025, with school bus and upfitter markets continuing as key adoption sectors. The fuel delivered operational cost savings for 39% of propane fleet operators compared to the vehicles they replaced, reinforcing propane’s role as a cost-effective, practical option in a diversified powertrain portfolio.
Renewable propane use surged: 32% of propane-using fleets reported using it in 2025, up from just 10% in 2023 — a nearly threefold increase that reflects fleet demand for low-carbon, drop-in fuel options requiring no vehicle modifications.
Propane is expanding into a new application as a power source for EV charging infrastructure, offering fleets an alternative to or temporary solution while awaiting utility grid connections with installation cost savings of up to 75% — a development that may accelerate BEV adoption in segments where grid access and utility timelines have been barriers to uptake at scale.
Battery-Electric Vehicles: MD Registrations Set Records as Cost Benefits Demonstrated; HD Vehicles Show Signs of 2026 Growth
MD/HD BEV registrations increased in 2025, led by pickup trucks and delivery vans that set a new record in the MD segment. Fleets operating MD BEVs and HD yard electric tractors reported total cost of ownership benefits compared to the vehicles they replaced, confirming that fleet electrification is delivering financial returns in duty cycles where range and infrastructure align.
Global market signals point to long-term BEV competitiveness in heavy-duty applications: BEVs now represent 22% of China’s HD truck market, and battery costs in that market have fallen to $90/kWh — a level widely cited as cost-competitive with conventional powertrains. Battery costs have fallen below $100/kWh in some markets, a leading indicator for future U.S. fleet economics.
Near-term U.S. growth faces headwinds from the expiration of EV tax credits and manufacturer production pivots. However, data from a California funding program and other signals show that Class 8 truck deployments should exceed the 1,000 annual deployments mark for the first time.
Hydrogen Vehicles: Funding Cuts Cloud Long-Term Outlook; Duty-Cycle Fit for Long-Haul and Heavy Payloads Remains Promising
The hydrogen vehicle sector faced its most challenging year in 2025: hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle registrations dropped 12%, the cancellation of much of the Hydrogen Hub funding removed a critical development resource, and two prominent Class 8 FCEV manufacturers exited the market.
Despite these setbacks, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, and Cummins continue advancing fuel cell modules and vehicle programs. Real-world fleet operations continue to confirm hydrogen’s operational fit for long-haul, heavy-payload duty cycles where truck weight and range constraints are most acute, with some deployments achieving 400+ miles per day with faster refueling times than EVs.
Long-term hydrogen sector viability for heavy-duty transportation is expected to depend on sustained federal investment in research, development, and fueling infrastructure that private capital alone will not provide at scale. Coordinated government investment remains the defining variable for hydrogen’s commercial future in freight.
“This year’s Market Brief accurately captures the continuing use of AI in fleet technology and how it allows for fleets to drive enhanced fleet and MPG performance and ultimately sustainability.”
— Paul Rosa, Senior Vice President Procurement and Fleet Planning, Penske Truck Leasing
“Volvo Trucks has been clear and consistent in our commitment towards zero emissions,” said Peter Voorhoeve, president, Volvo Trucks North America. “We continue to invest across a broad range of technologies because we believe meaningful progress requires more than a single solution. By investing in multiple solutions, we’re giving fleets the confidence that they can reduce emissions with the solution that makes the most sense for their business.”
— Peter Voorhoeve, president, Volvo Trucks North America
“In a very short time we’ve moved from ‘what’s the best AI-enabled drivetrain’ to ‘how do I utilize each where it works best’ to manage cost and uncertainty. Adoption of multiple advanced, clean technologies for medium- and heavy-duty fleets has emerged as the defining strategy instead of the retreat that many had predicted.”
— Nate Springer, Vice President, Market Development, TRC Companies
To access the full 2026 Market Brief and receive ongoing updates and analysis from State of Sustainable Fleets, visit www.StateofSustainableFleets.com.
About State of Sustainable Fleets
The State of Sustainable Fleets Market Brief is the foremost authority on sustainable technology adoption within America’s on-road fleets. This annual analysis compiles real-world data from early adopter fleets nationwide, offering sector-specific insights into the uptake of battery-electric vehicles, natural gas, propane, and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles, alongside renewable fuels, benchmarked against diesel and gasoline vehicles. The annual Market Brief provides essential data and analysis for year-round education on the rapidly developing market via regular webinars, Academy webinar series, fleet guides, and trend briefs. State of Sustainable Fleets is authored by the Clean Transportation Solutions group of TRC Companies.
About Penske Transportation Solutions
Penske Transportation Solutions is the universal brand for Penske Truck Leasing, Penske Logistics, Epes Transport Systems, Penske Vehicle Services, and related businesses. Our businesses provide innovative transportation, supply chain, and technology solutions to keep the world moving forward. Visit GoPenske.com to learn more.
About Volvo Trucks North America
Volvo Trucks North America, headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina, is one of the leading heavy-duty truck manufacturers in North America. Its Uptime Services commitment is delivered by a network of nearly 400 authorized dealers across North America and the 24/7 Volvo Trucks Uptime Center. Every Volvo truck is assembled in the Volvo Trucks New River Valley manufacturing facility in Dublin, Virginia. Volvo Trucks North America provides complete transport solutions for its customers, offering a full range of diesel, alternative-fuel, and all-electric vehicles, and is part of the Volvo Trucks global organization.
About ACT Expo
ACT Expo is North America’s largest fleet technology conference and expo, bringing together more than 12,000 fleet operators, OEMs, shippers, technology providers, infrastructure developers, energy companies, and policymakers for four days of peer-to-peer education, real-world case studies, and direct
access to the solutions shaping the industry. Now in its 16th year, ACT Expo 2026 takes place May 4–7 at the Las Vegas Convention Center. The 2026 program expands on ACT Expo’s long-standing leadership in clean transportation with increased focus on the digital frontier, including AI, autonomy, connectivity, and software-defined vehicles. More than 500 exhibitors will showcase the advanced vehicles, charging and fueling solutions, equipment, software platforms, and digital tools redefining commercial transportation. For more information, visit www.actexpo.com.
The post State of Sustainable Fleets: As Freight Economy Recession Enters Third Year, Powertrain and Energy Diversification Defines Fleet Resilience Strategy appeared first on School Transportation News.
Jute Lake in Wisconsin's Northern Highland-American Legion National Forest. The children who brought the lawsuit argued they were being deprived of their constitutional right to enjoy Wisconsin's natural areas. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
A Dane County judge dismissed a lawsuit from 15 Wisconsin children who had challenged laws they argued made climate change worse and violated their constitutional rights.
The lawsuit was filed in August by the groups Our Children’s Trust and Midwest Environmental Advocates against the state Public Service Commission and Legislature.
The suit argued that state lawmakers have made a number of declarations that the state’s energy production should be decarbonized and the greenhouse gas emissions of that production should be reduced, but state laws prevent that from happening.
The state’s law for siting power plants requires that the state Public Service Commission determine that “[t]he proposed facility will not have undue adverse impact on other environmental values such as, but not limited to, ecological balance, public health and welfare, historic sites, geological formations, the aesthetics of land and water and recreational use.” However the law also prohibits the PSC from considering air pollution, including from greenhouse gas emissions, in that determination.
Additionally, the state set a goal in 2005 that 10% of Wisconsin’s energy come from renewable sources by 2015. That goal was met in 2013. However, now that the goal has been met, state law treats it as a ceiling on renewable energy the PSC can require.
In a decision issued last week, Judge Julie Genovese said she’s sympathetic to the children’s argument but that the lawsuit was asking her to weigh in on a fundamentally political, not legal, question.
“While the court is sympathetic to the youths and admires their willingness to access the courts in their quest to protect the planet, I conclude that the case must be dismissed because environmental policy is a nonjusticiable political question,” she wrote.
Attorneys for the Legislature had also argued that the children didn’t have standing to bring the case, pointing to a federal court decision in a similar case in California.
But in other states similar cases have had more success. A group of Montana children successfully sued to protect their right to a clean environment in 2024.
Tony Wilkin Gibart, MEA’s executive director, told Wisconsin Public Radio he believes there’s a strong case for the ruling to be appealed.
“Youth plaintiffs are frustrated,” he said. “They’re also incredibly determined and have expressed a lot of resolve to continue this fight.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Designed to lure data centers, the sales tax break is now drawing scrutiny. But some say the development boom will boost other types of revenue.
The post Wisconsin data center tax break to cost state more than $2B appeared first on WPR.
Login