The roof of the Hotel Verdant in Downtown Racine is topped with a green roof planted with sedum and covered with solar panels. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

A Wisconsin Senate Committee held a public hearing Tuesday on a bill that would allow private companies to construct small solar projects on underutilized farmland and commercial rooftops across the state. 

The bill, which would encroach on the monopoly the state’s existing utility companies are allowed to maintain under state law, is being considered while people across the country worry about rising energy costs amid a boom in the construction of data centers and the increased use of electric vehicles and appliances. 

Environmental groups in the state have also regularly complained that the utility companies aren’t constructing enough renewable energy projects or sunsetting existing coal and natural gas power plants quickly enough. 

The bill, authored by Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) and Rep. Scott Krug (R-Nekoosa), would allow people in Wisconsin to subscribe to get some of their power from a local “community solar” installation. The subscribers would receive credits they can put toward their utility bill. Because the power developed at the local solar installation will still need to travel through the utility company’s infrastructure, the bill includes a provision that all subscribers to the program would have to pay at least $20 per month on their electric bill. 

In the hearing of the Senate Committee on Transportation and Local Government, the bill’s authors said allowing community solar projects would increase people’s energy choices while allowing the expansion of solar power in the state that avoids the objections from local residents that often come with large, utility-scale solar projects. 

“This change will open a new market sector in a high energy industry, attract economic investments in Wisconsin, create local jobs, drive innovation and competition, and ultimately save consumers and small businesses money on their energy bills,” Testin said. 

But the authors also acknowledged there is still a lot of disagreement over the details and the bill is not yet in its final form. 

“We’re not exactly there yet. We’re not all agreeing on this being the best way forward just yet, but this public hearing is a really important step to vet that out a little bit more to get us closer to that answer,” Krug said. “So yes, there are still some kinks to work out between the utilities and individuals who want a more market-based approach to solar. I hope we can work through those issues here.”

Over the hearing’s three and a half hours, the testimony split among two groups — the utility companies who are opposed to the bill and a coalition of solar companies, economists, farmers and employers who are in favor. 

The utility companies accused the bill of creating a “shell game” that would lower the costs for the subscribers of a given project while raising electric bills for everyone else. Zack Hill, testifying on behalf of Alliant Energy, said the utility estimated that community solar would result in an additional $8.75 billion in costs for ratepayers over the next 25 years. 

“How does [the bill] pay for subscribers 10 to 20% energy savings? The short answer: It will shift costs to your other constituents,” Hill said. “Some have said this sounds like community solar voodoo economics, but all you have to remember is this, when a company promises you a discount, someone else has to pay for it.”

People in favor of the bill argued that the generation of more energy could only help lower energy costs while disputing the utility companies’ claims. Will Flanders, the research director at the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, also said the utilities’ estimates undervalue the benefits that community solar can add. 

“This is a model that expands energy choice without large subsidies, without mandates, without turning more power over to monopoly utilities,” Flanders said. “In fact, it introduces competition at a time when Wisconsin needs it the most.” 

“We argue that community solar can deliver net savings to the entire system,” he continued. “When we talk about a shell game, what we’re really saying is there’s no real additional resources being put into the system, but obviously there is additional resources being put in when we have these with these programs in place.” 

Karl Rabago, a Denver-based energy consultant who testified with Flanders, said that the Alliant $8.75 billion estimate amounted to a threat that if the utilities don’t get to sell the energy, they’ll charge consumers for that loss. 

“No one knows where this number comes from, but having seen how utilities make their case in other states, I am 99.9% confident they are basically saying, ‘If we don’t get to make the electricity and sell it, we could potentially lose $8.75 billion and and if we don’t make that money, we’re going to charge you for it anyway,’ and that’s how customer costs could go up,” Rabago said. “That’s the most likely explanation for a histrionic number. The utility position, to summarize, seems to sound a bit like ‘let us do it all and no one gets hurt.’ We’ve heard those kinds of exhortations. Monopolies do it particularly well.” 

Toward the end of the hearing, a number of Wisconsin property owners testified, touting the benefits they’ll receive if they’re able to allow solar projects to be constructed on their land. 

Duane Hinchley, a Cambridge dairy farmer, said community solar is an “innovative solution” that can give farmers a stable income to hedge against the risks in the agriculture business. Plus, he said, allowing farmers to participate will prevent land that has been farmed for generations from being developed into subdivisions. 

“With the right policies in place, our state’s proud agricultural heritage can be a cornerstone of Wisconsin’s clean energy future,” Hinchley said. 

But throughout the day, lawmakers from both parties appeared skeptical of the bill’s benefits. 

Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) said repeatedly he didn’t understand how the program would work for the utility companies. 

“It sounds like a shell game to me,” he said. “I just, I’m really having a challenge with trying to figure out how that would work, because it would seem to me that the energy company, the regulated company, is the one that’s going to be footing the bill for this.” 

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) questioned how the program wouldn’t eventually raise energy costs for non-participants, but said one selling point for the bill was that it would encourage the increased development of renewable energy. 

“I heard you say this is going to force more solar to be built, whether or not you need it,” Spreitzer said to a utility company representative. “And I guess that, to me, is the one selling point of the bill. Is that I look at where we’ve been in the landscape lately, where we have, unfortunately, federal incentives for solar that are going away. We have increasing demand for power from data centers. We’re seeing new natural gas plants get built. We’re seeing coal plants not being retired, when we hoped they would. To me, there’s plenty of need for solar.” 

If the utility companies won’t support a community solar proposal, Spreitzer wondered, what do they need from the Legislature to encourage more solar development? 

“And so if we’re not going to go down this route, what are the incentives that you all need to make sure that we can continue to drive solar development without increasing rates for customers and without saying, ‘let’s go build a natural gas plant instead?” he asked. 

Anti-rights of nature bill 

Also on Tuesday, the committee heard testimony on a bill from Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) that would prohibit local governments in Wisconsin from enacting “rights of nature” ordinances, which grant natural elements legal rights that can be protected in court. 

Nass said in his testimony that the idea is anti-American and is contrary to the values of the U.S. Constitution.

“This is a radical departure from our current law. Rights are something that human beings have,” Nass said. “This concept of granting nature rights is something that has been done primarily in foreign countries … and many of these countries lean dramatically towards socialism and communism, and their attitude is not compatible with private property rights in our country.”

But proponents of rights of nature resolutions frequently point to the fact that corporations are granted rights under U.S. law. Communities including Green Bay and Milwaukee have passed or begun drafting rights of nature ordinances and some Democratic lawmakers have introduced a bill that would grant Devil’s Lake State Park some rights that can be protected in court. 

In a statement after the hearing, Rep. Vincent Miresse (D-Stevens Point), one of the co-authors of the Democratic proposal, wrote, “As we heard from advocates today, Rights of Nature is one of the strongest tools local governments have to protect clean air, clean water and healthy soil for future generations — so that our grandchildren, and their children after them, can drink our waters, eat food grown in our soils, and hunt in our forests.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A view of medical marijuana products at a New York medical marijuana cultivation facility. Wisconsin Assembly Republicans have proposed a bill to legalize medical cannabis in the state under strict conditions. (Drew Angerer | Getty Images)

“Illness does not discriminate,” said Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) during a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health on Wednesday. “It affects people from all walks of life. There is no doubt that each and every one of us knows someone that has suffered through an illness and struggles to find ways to make it through each day.” 

Testin was speaking in favor of SB 534, a bill introduced by Republicans to legalize medical cannabis in Wisconsin. If passed, the bill would allow registered patients to have cannabis in a non-smokeable form such as a concentrate, oil, tincture, edible, pill, cream or vapor. The bill would also create an Office of Medical Cannabis Regulation attached to the state health department and tasked with overseeing the budding program. 

Testin shared a story about his grandfather, whom he described as his role model and as “the reason I decided to take a life of public service.” Back in the 1990s, Testin’s grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer, which then metastasized to bone cancer. 

The senator recalled watching his grandfather undergo chemotherapy. The man “was a big guy,” Testin said, “and we watched him wither away.” At that moment, over 25 years ago, “my family made the very difficult decision to go outside the law to get him marijuana,” Testin said. “It gave him his appetite back, and it gave him time that we probably otherwise would not have had.”

Testin said his story was not unique. Although other medications exist, he said that many “come with side effects that can make living a normal life much more difficult.” He noted that 40 states, including Wisconsin’s neighbors Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, give patients access to medical cannabis when recommended by doctors. Texas is the most recent state to legalize medical cannabis, he noted

“So both red and blue states alike have been able to come together and recognize that this is a viable option,” Testin said. “Medicine is never a one size fits all, and it’s time for Wisconsin to join the majority of the country and add another option which may help patients find relief they need.”

Legislation’s provisions

Under the proposed bill, medical cannabis sales would be tracked through the state’s prescription drug monitoring program. Pharmacists would also be required to be on-site at dispensaries. The legislation would only cover certain conditions: cancer, seizures or epilepsy, glaucoma, severe chronic pain, severe muscle spasms, severe chronic nausea, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, and any terminal illness, including patients with a life expectancy of less than a year. 

Patients must be at least 18 years old. Minors could have access if there is  written consent “from all” of their parents or guardians. Patients would be given registration cards and would be charged $20 a year to remain on the registry. 

The bill also prohibits dispensaries or their staff “from claiming that medical cannabis may cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent any disease or medical condition.” Dispensaries would also be prohibited from “advertising their services to the general public, with certain exceptions.” 

The bill includes a provision preventing courts from considering  lawful use or possession of cannabis, or being registered as a patient, when determining  custody or placement of a child, except where the child has access to the cannabis. Unlawful possession or use could still be used against parents in court, however. The bill also protects people who lawfully possess cannabis against housing discrimination, and prevents local governments from regulating legal medical cannabis programs or using zoning laws to restrict the location or operation of a legal cannabis operation. 

Support and opposition

Earlier this year, two-thirds of registered voters polled by Marquette Law School said that cannabis should be legalized in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Wellness Coalition has registered with the Wisconsin Ethics Commission in support of the legislation and the Wisconsin Medical Society against it, The Alzheimer’s Association, Outdoor Advertising Association, and Pharmacy Society have all registered their positions as “other.” 

People from a variety of backgrounds also spoke during the public hearing. Many supported legalizing cannabis, but had concerns about restrictions in the bill. 

“This should not be a partisan issue,” said Testin. “It is clear that we as a state need to begin having a real discussion about medical cannabis legalization, and it is our hope that this bill will be the first step. It’s time for Wisconsin to provide our citizens with another option in their health care.” 

Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk), who has proposed  medical cannabis legislation for years, echoed that sentiment. 

“Wisconsin is on an island surrounded by neighboring states that allow the use of medical cannabis products,” Felzkowski said during the Wednesday hearing. “Someone who suffers from a serious health condition should not have to make the choice to travel to another state or break the law so that they can try an alternative medicine for relief.”

Felzkowski recounted her battles with breast cancer, first when she was 40 years old, which resulted in a double mastectomy, and then a stage 4 diagnosis a decade later. She described the side effects of opioids that doctors prescribed to control her pain as “something nobody should have to live through.” 

She said her oncologist called medical cannabis  “another tool in the toolbox, and it could help a lot of people.” 

 “Here we are sitting in our Ivory Tower, denying that for people that really need it, and it’s wrong that we’re doing that,” Felzkowski said.

Legislators are divided

Lawmakers hope to get more colleagues behind the bill. Yet, despite lagging behind many other states, Wisconsin’s Legislature still struggles with just talking about cannabis. “We are not going to be talking about overall legalization for cannabis products,” said Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevera (R-Appleton), as she chaired a meeting of the Senate Committee on Health on Wednesday. “So, if you’re here to testify on how this should be 100% legal, this is not the spot for you today.” 

The Legislature held its first public hearing on legalizing cannabis in 2022 in the Senate. Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston), who also spoke during Wednesday’s hearing, said in an interview with the Wisconsin Examiner that he’s optimistic that the new bill will survive the Senate. “My goal this time,” Snyder told Wisconsin Examiner, “is something we haven’t done yet since I’ve been here and that is to have a hearing in the Assembly, where people I talk to can come down and explain their situations.”

Snyder said he hears from constituents who want the state to legalize medical cannabis. When he talks to Republicans who oppose the bill, he said, “I try to tell them first of all, this is something that helps a person. This is something that is going to be focused on folks that really need it.” 

Snyder stressed that “these are people not looking for shortcuts to get marijuana, I mean they could do that without [legalized medical cannabis].” Rather, his constituents are people who often don’t want to travel so far north or south to get their medicine, or who would prefer going to a local farmer or dispensary instead.

The bill’s critics include Republicans who feel medical cannabis would only lead to legalizing recreational use, which they don’t want, as well as Democrats who criticize the bill’s restrictive framework and want Wisconsin to legalize recreational use of cannabis. 

Even with the Republican bill’s restrictions on the form in which cannabis can be used and its system of rigorous licensing, testing and enforcement, Snyder said there are “far right” Republicans in the Assembly who need to be won over. 

Felzkowski said of the 24 states that allow recreational marijuana, 15 did so through ballot measures, which aren’t available in Wisconsin. “So that’s never going to happen in the state,” she said. 

Nine states that have legalized recreational  marijuana after legalizing medical cannabis “are solid blue states like Illinois, New York, and Connecticut,” she said. “Wisconsin is not a solid blue state.”  

Another 16 states have only legalized medical cannabis. Hawaii, the first state to pass a comprehensive medical cannabis program in 2000, still does not allow recreational cannabis, she said.  

“Fortunately, Wisconsin is able to learn from the experience of other states,” said Felzkowski. “We can create an effective program with safeguards, so patients and small businesses can benefit from medical cannabis products, while preventing abuse, or those without medical need from gaining access.”