In response to the United States Department of Agriculture’s decision to cut solar out of the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). On behalf of our members, RENEW has joined a lawsuit against the Trump Administration for the harmful actions it has taken. We are one of several plaintiffs, represented by Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC) with Earthjustice as co-counsel.

This is the first of several efforts by RENEW to represent the legal interests of our members as we expand the ways in which we are fighting against policies that restrict Americans from accessing or owning renewable energy.

The lawsuit, filed today, challenges the USDA’s new eligibility rules that block solar projects from REAP. Created in 2002, this program has received funding for more than two decades with a goal of helping farmers and rural small businesses save money through investments in energy efficiency and achieve self-reliance through renewable energy, with solar being one of the best options to accomplish this goal. 

The USDA’s updated criteria effectively cut solar from a bipartisan program built by Congress. As a result, cash-strapped rural communities have been denied access to affordable, reliable, and environmentally beneficial solar power during a period when energy prices have reached historic highs.

Making matters worse, the USDA has also decided to apply this new policy retroactively, affecting applications submitted under the USDA’s old rules. REAP applications can take months to prepare, and many applicants have already spent tens of thousands of dollars on equipment, engineering, and other costs that did and still should qualify for reimbursement. This abrupt, retroactive policy change leaves many holding expenses they likely cannot afford.

The lawsuit we’ve joined asks the court to:

1. Invalidate USDA’s new anti-solar eligibility criteria.
2. Order USDA to process REAP applications under the rules that were in place when USDA received them.

As finances get tighter and margins thinner, we cannot pull the rug out from the people who grow our food. REAP is supposed to help farmers keep their energy costs low. It is our hope that we can reverse this decision by the Trump Administration to protect farmers and rural business owners from the direct financial harm this rule change will cause.

This Action Alert might seem similar to one we sent earlier this month. We are, in fact, working to make it easier to pair batteries with residential solar across multiple utility territories!

Batteries are a great option for energy resiliency as they provide power during grid service outages. As they become more cost-effective, more people are hoping to pair them with solar. Unfortunately, utilities have been throwing hurdles in the way, preventing customers from storing and using the energy they create with their own rooftop solar array.

In WPS’ current rate case before the PSC, RENEW has addressed this issue head-on and is asking the PSC to step in and regulate utility interconnection practices.

When installing a solar array, utilities often factor in the size of a rooftop solar array when they determine the cost to connect the system to the electrical grid. WPS adds the capacity of batteries intended to store energy at home (non-exporting) to the solar capacity in order to increase these costs and also make it so customers can’t benefit from net metering.

This utility practice has effectively blocked all non-exporting batteries from being installed in WPS’ service territory. To solve this, we need the PSC to officially tell WPS to stop this unreasonable practice and allow customers to install batteries that they can pair with their rooftop solar arrays.

Join us in telling the PSC to regulate WPS and require the utility to allow customers to pair batteries with their own rooftop solar. The deadline to file public comments with the PSC is October 5th.

Sample comment:

WPS is blocking customers from adding batteries to their solar systems, but the PSC can remove this unreasonable hurdle and enable customers to invest in their own energy resilience. Certified, non-exporting batteries help customers store their own solar power for when the grid goes down.

Yet WPS has made it impossible for customers to add these batteries by increasing interconnection costs and pushing solar customers out of net metering. I urge the PSC to do the right thing and allow customers to add batteries to their rooftop solar!

As batteries have become more cost-effective, they have also become more in demand, in part, for the energy resiliency they provide during grid service outages. But as more homeowners and businesses attempt to add batteries to their solar systems, utilities have been throwing hurdles in the way, preventing customers from storing and using the energy they create with their own rooftop solar array.

In WE Energies’ current rate case before the PSC, RENEW has addressed this issue head-on and is asking the PSC to step in and regulate utility interconnection practices. 

When installing a solar array, utilities often factor in the size of a rooftop solar array when they determine the cost to connect the system to the electrical grid. WE Energies adds the capacity of batteries intended to store energy at home (non-exporting) to the solar capacity in order to increase these costs and also make it so customers can’t benefit from net metering.

This utility practice has effectively blocked all non-exporting batteries from being installed in WE Energies’ service territory. To solve this, we need the PSC to officially tell WE Energies to stop this unreasonable practice and allow customers to install batteries that they can pair with their rooftop solar arrays.

Join us in telling the PSC to regulate WE Energies and require the utility to allow customers to pair batteries with their own rooftop solar. The deadline to file public comments with the PSC is September 18.

*The deadline has passed for this comment period

Every fiscal year, the RENEW Wisconsin Board of Directors starts things off with a vote to determine who among them will take on the additional responsibility of leading the board. Last week, the Board of Directors held its first meeting of the year, where, among other things, members voted on its leadership team for the 2026-27 fiscal year, selecting the following members for officer positions: Isaiah Ness (President), Mackenzie Mindel (Vice President), Eric Callisto (Treasurer), and Matt Dannenberg (Secretary).

Thank you to our outgoing officers, Josh Arnold (President) and Josh Stolzenburg (Treasurer). Josh Arnold continues to serve on the RENEW Board as an at-large member, while Josh Stolzenburg steps down from the board after two terms and remains engaged with RENEW as an Individual member. We can’t thank them enough for all the time, effort, and knowledge they have shared with us over the years.

Our officers play a vital role in guiding the organization, and our volunteer board members dedicate their personal time to help RENEW succeed. The expertise and passion of our board members, especially our officers, are a big part of how we are able to pursue our mission so effectively.

This August, the RENEW Wisconsin board of directors voted to fill two vacant mid-term seats. Joining our board are Barrett Lione-Seaton, Business Development Lead and Partner at Midwest Solar Power, and Matt Dannenberg, Head of Partnerships at Alliance for Tribal Clean Energy. Each of them brings their own unique background and perspectives to the board, helping to make sure RENEW Wisconsin is guided by a diverse group of professionals invested in our mission.

With our vacant seats filled, we will not have full elections this year. In 2027, we will return to our regular voting schedule and have competitive elections for all RENEW members to participate in.

Meet Our Newly Appointed Board Members

Barrett Lione-Seaton

Barrett brings a uniquely broad perspective to the renewable industry shaped by a geology degree, careers in craft brewing and food manufacturing, and life experience across six countries. He first connected with solar in 2020 through a non-profit he helps lead, driven by a passion for energy access and environmental impact. That work led him to join Midwest Solar Power in 2022, where he now applies his background in systems thinking, finance, and construction to help the company grow while staying true to its commitment to employees, community, and customers.

Matt Dannenberg

Matt Dannenberg is a proud citizen of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. He most recently served as Head of Tribal Engagement here at the Alliance, where he led relationship-building efforts with Tribal Nations and partners to advance Tribal energy sovereignty. He now serves as Head of Partnerships, stewarding the Alliance’s external collaborations and strengthening national coalitions that support self-determined clean energy development in Tribal communities.

Matt’s career began with a passion for meteorology, which evolved into a commitment to climate advocacy, community organizing, and public service. He spent eight years at Wisconsin Conservation Voters, where he launched the Wisconsin Native Vote campaign — an initiative that continues to mobilize Indigenous citizens across Wisconsin to vote and advocate for the protection of their natural resources.

In 2020, Matt joined the Biden campaign and was subsequently appointed to serve in the Biden–Harris Administration. He began in the White House Office of Presidential Personnel, then served at the U.S. Department of Energy as Deputy Chief of Staff in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). He concluded his federal service as Senior Tribal Liaison in the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, strengthening government-to-government relationships with Tribal Nations.

Matt and his spouse, Emma, are the proud parents of a young son and daughter, who inspire his continued commitment to building a more sustainable and equitable future.

Third-party solar, also known as third-party ownership, legislation is lagging behind in Wisconsin, and it is impacting Wisconsinites’ ability to afford a clean and reliable energy future.

The term “third-party solar” generally refers to solar installations that are financed through one of two non-traditional means. Under the first method, a solar installer covers the upfront costs of an installation on a customer’s property. The customer can begin using the clean energy right away, and they pay for the use of the equipment over time through a lease agreement. Under this model, they are “leasing” the solar equipment, allowing them to install solar while spreading out the upfront cost over time. By removing the hurdle of shouldering the entire cost upfront, solar becomes more accessible to the many ordinary energy consumers who want to invest in renewable energy.

The second method is a power purchase agreement (PPA), which is a financing arrangement where someone agrees to host the solar system on their property while the third-party provider continues to own, operate, and maintain the system. The customer buys the electricity produced by the system from the installer, and the installer benefits from tax credits. Together, the electricity sales and the tax-credit savings create a profit margin for the installer, and the customer has the opportunity to purchase clean electricity generated on-site without upfront installation costs.

Despite the opportunities both of these models present for people to expand renewable energy development and increase access to clean energy, the legal status of these options is in somewhat of a grey area, with different parties having opposing understandings of what is and is not allowed under Wisconsin law.

Wisconsin, like many other states, uses a public utilities system that functions as a regulated monopoly. Utility companies in Wisconsin are granted a monopoly over a specified territory and are regulated by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) in exchange. The goal of this structure is to protect people from bearing the cost of duplicative infrastructure while using regulation to ensure minimum service standards and reliability. However, as created through the Wisconsin Statutes, the current system of regulation does not leave a clear pathway for third-party solar development. 

The main issue is the lack of clarification on whether third-party solar providers are “public utilities,” as defined in Wis. Stat. § 196.01(5)(a). Under the status quo, third-party solar owners apply for interconnection with an electric utility, and the utility may reject the application and designate the third-party solar projects as public utilities, in which case the customer cannot interconnect their system without an appeal to the PSC. Entities that qualify as public utilities may not operate without PSC regulation or without meeting all the requirements necessary to operate as a public utility in Wisconsin. Multiple third-party solar providers have petitioned the PSC for a declaratory ruling stating that the providers do not meet the statutory definition of a public utility; however, the PSC has avoided issuing such rulings. PSC regulation, with a system-by-system review, is not an option for third-party solar solutions because it eliminates projects’ economic feasibility due to the length and expense of PSC proceedings. Legislation is needed to clarify that third-party solar providers are not public utilities and need not be subject to the PSC’s regulation.

Surrounding states have taken this step, including Illinois and Minnesota. I have seen the benefits of this first-hand; my undergraduate institution in Illinois was able to pursue and install solar arrays on-site through a PPA when they would not have otherwise been able to justify the upfront cost of a solar installation. I was personally involved in a project to expand the on-campus renewable infrastructure to include battery storage, providing the school revenue for the grid-stabilization services that batteries provide. This is only one of countless examples of the real-life benefits provided by third-party solar arrangements – benefits that Wisconsinites are missing out on due to a lack of clarification from the legislature and the PSC. 

No matter how many people wish for a cleaner and more affordable energy future, the legal hurdles to renewable development have to be removed for change to become economically feasible. Wisconsin’s regulation of third-party solar needs to catch up to the present day in order to make this future possible.

Anna Shoup was one of RENEW’s 2026 summer law clerks. She graduated from Olivet Nazarene University with degrees in Environmental Science and Philosophy. Anna is currently a rising 2L at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School, pursuing environmental or energy law. It is her hope to work for an environmental non-profit or government agency after graduation, and to use her career to help create a more renewable future.

Update: The comment period for the draft EIS has closed

A draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) created by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) staff regarding the Columbia Wind energy project is out for public comment. The EIS analyzes the social, cultural, and environmental impacts that could result from the Columbia Wind Project. The EIS should include the positive benefits the project would bring. However, the current draft EIS stops short of actually estimating Columbia Wind’s positive environmental benefits, such as the public health benefits of emission reductions.

RENEW Wisconsin is submitting comments asking the PSC to make sure that both estimates of avoided emissions and climate change impacts are included in the final version of the EIS. The positive impacts of reduced air pollution from projects like Columbia Wind are necessary for helping the general public understand why clean energy projects like Columbia Wind are so important. Join us in telling the PSC that reduced climate impacts and greenhouse gas emissions are necessary for a complete EIS.

Personalized comments are more effective, please take the time to make your message to the PSC unique. Comments on the EIS are due on August 28 and are for regulatory staff, but EIS comments are not officially part of the Commission record. There will be an opportunity to submit official comments in support of Columbia Wind this fall.

Sample Comment:

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), prepared by the DNR and PSC for Columbia Wind, needs to include information about the emissions that will be avoided thanks to this project. By reducing the amount of emissions we put into the air, we reduce health issues caused by fossil fuels and avoid causing greater damage to our climate. The EIS is not complete without these necessary details.

When a utility-scale solar project is proposed — often in a rural, agricultural setting — nearby residents often have real concerns. Renewable developers often prefer farmland because it offers large, open, and flat pieces of land suitable for solar projects.

It’s true that the development of a large-scale solar facility brings changes, including a period of construction and the introduction of photovoltaic (PV) panels to the agricultural landscape, which reduces the amount of usable cropland.

At the same time, solar projects also offer a wide range of community benefits, including construction jobs and economic development, tax and financial aid from project developers, and steady, long-term lease payments to local landowners — enabling them to keep their land in the family and weather periods of financial stress.

That last point is particularly important, and it was recently highlighted by leaders in New York, who wrote a letter to the Trump Administration in response to its inaccurate claims that solar power was eating up vast amounts of farmland.

Citing largely inflated or misinformed concerns over the loss of agricultural land, the USDA has backed away from helping farmers develop solar on their farmland. 

That is unfortunate news, and it’s important to note the fact that across the country, just .07 percent of farmland hosts solar projects. Building a cleaner, healthier, and more affordable renewable energy future will require more solar projects, plain and simple.

Another important statistic: to meet the Department of Energy’s ambitious goal of supplying 40 to 45 percent of U.S. electricity with solar by 2050, solar would require just 1.15 percent of America’s nearly 900 million acres of farmland. Growing corn for ethanol requires more than 4 percent of U.S. farmland, and is far less energy efficient than solar.

Countering Misinformation

Unfortunately, there’s a slew of online misinformation highlighting exaggerated and false narratives about wind and solar projects, making it difficult to have productive discourse around renewables. It is important for renewable energy advocates to counter these narratives with the facts, while recognizing and addressing legitimate community concerns.

First, no one is forced to lease their land for solar development. Private landowners, oftentimes farmers, make these decisions when they consider the economic security that solar projects can offer. These solar contracts typically last around 20 or 30 years — the life of the panels.

When the leases are up, landowners can choose to re-up their contract or to decommission the project and return the land to farming, removing the solar panels and the related infrastructure, which are often recycled for their valuable components. Allowing the land to “rest” without growing crops can restore the soil’s health, making it more productive when farming resumes.

Additional provisions about decommissioning the project can be put into solar leases or joint development agreements (JDAs, essentially voluntary contracts that communities and developers can enter that contain additional project terms).

Fostering Economic Resilience

For many farmers, the decision to lease land to solar developers boils down to dollars and cents. The regular payments that solar leases offer are welcome at a time when farmers are under heavy financial stress, as rising prices for fuel and other agricultural inputs combine with falling crop prices. Over the last two years, profit margins for American corn and soybeans have been in the red.

Increasingly extreme and unpredictable weather driven by climate change, combined with unpredictable tariffs, has made farming financially volatile. This can put family farms at risk of losing land they have held for generations.

Solar and wind leases can offer sorely needed financial relief and stability in a time of increasing uncertainty.

A study of landowners in New York State found that three times as many farmers intend to use large-scale solar leases to continue farming rather than exit the profession. The idea that solar panels always completely displace farming is also inaccurate. Some farmers continue to farm the land around the solar panels, grazing animals like goats and sheep.

Other projects and farms practicing agrivoltaics demonstrate the feasibility of growing crops like hay, soybeans, and alfalfa, as well as tomatoes, amidst solar panels. While agrivoltaics are not currently the norm, the dual-use model of agriculture co-existing with solar development is likely to become more popular.

Some project developers also plant native wildflowers to stabilize and regenerate soils, reduce erosion, and attract pollinators. These provisions can also be written into a JDA.

And it’s not just the involved landowners who benefit: Wisconsin communities can also reap the rewards of utility aid payments. Instead of property taxes, large-scale renewable projects (over 50 megawatts, or MW) pay $5,000 per MW of power produced each year, which is then divided up between the towns or cities and the counties hosting the project.

A report from Clean Wisconsin highlighted that the average payment to local governments is nearly $180,000. That money comes with no strings attached, and usually significantly exceeds local property taxes. These annual payments can be used to maintain roads, invest in local fire departments, and even decrease taxes or cancel proposed tax hikes. 

As mentioned above, communities commonly enter into JDAs with solar developers that can provide additional assurances about setbacks, construction, maintenance, environmental impacts, and decommissioning, providing peace of mind for communities.

Coexisting with Solar

Thankfully, we do not have to choose between protecting Wisconsin’s farming heritage and building the renewable energy we need for an affordable, healthy energy future, because solar projects offer a wide array of projects for farmers and their surrounding communities.

As advocates of renewable energy, RENEW Wisconsin is working to counter the misinformation and make sure that the renewable energy future is a win-win proposition, strengthening Wisconsin’s economy and protecting our state’s farming tradition while addressing the twin crises of energy affordability and climate change.

Brian Wagenaar, a Twin Cities native, is one of RENEW’s 2026 summer law clerks. He is currently a student at the University of Wisconsin Law School and starts his second year in the program this fall. Prior to his time at UW’s Law School, Brian earned his bachelor’s in environmental policy from UW-Green Bay.

On Thursday, July 30, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) approved Dawn Break Solar. This Waushara County project comes in at 180 Megawatts (MW) and is paired with an equally large battery energy storage system (BESS). Many renewable energy advocates joined us in supporting this project, thanks to all of you who helped us support this project as it sought approval from the PSC.

In our comments that advocated for this project, we highlighted both the benefits of the clean energy it will produce, along with the many economic benefits.

When construction is completed, Dawn Break Solar is expected to create many temporary construction jobs, as well as several long-term local jobs for operations and maintenance. Landowners will also benefit from consistent lease payments during the 35-year lifespan of the project.

Over the course of its life, the project will contribute more than $31.5 million in utility-aid payments. Local governments will receive $900,000 annually, with $510,000 for Waushara County and $390,000 for the Towns of Oasis, Plainfield, Deerfield, and Hancock.

Along with the many direct economic benefits, Dawn Break Solar will reduce emissions from energy production by about 600 million pounds of CO2 in the first year of operations. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, this is the equivalent of taking more than 59,100 vehicles off the road for a full year.

The more we reduce our emissions, the more benefits we will see, specifically better health outcomes. In this case, Wisconsin can expect more than $1.3 million in economic benefits associated with public health improvements in Dawn Break Solar’s first year of operations alone.

Dawn Break Solar is just one piece of the clean energy puzzle. We hope you’ll all continue to join us in supporting invaluable projects like this as we continue to build our clean energy future.

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) recently released two documents that provide useful insights into the past, present, and future of renewable energy development for our state. The PSC’s 2025 Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) memo provides statistics regarding utility-scale renewable energy that serves Wisconsin’s electricity needs, including projects located in Wisconsin and in neighboring states. The 2026-2032 Draft Strategic Energy Assessment (SEA) provides many insights, and most pertinent to the renewable industry, the SEA outlines utility plans for additional renewable energy development.

In short, the RPS memo tells a high-level tale of how Wisconsin got to where we are today with renewable energy. It shows that while wind-generating facilities have historically met most of Wisconsin’s renewable energy needs, production from new Wisconsin-based solar projects has increased the total amount of renewable energy that we use. As of 2025, about 20% of all the electricity we use in Wisconsin comes from renewable energy.

Separately, the draft SEA paints a picture of what the future could hold for Wisconsin. According to utility plans, the growth of Wisconsin-based solar will continue through 2030, as will battery energy storage systems (BESS) that support clean energy integration. Starting in 2030, utilities are planning for new Wisconsin-based wind projects to come online and add to Wisconsin’s renewable energy portfolio. This begs the question: Is Wisconsin on track to add enough renewable resources to serve our future needs? Due to policy uncertainty and speculative data center growth, the crystal ball is much too murky to answer that question with much confidence.

The 2025 RPS Memo

Let’s begin with a look back at Wisconsin’s historical renewable energy development. This figure from the RPS memo shows the growth of wind energy serving Wisconsin’s needs compared to baseline hydroelectric and biogas/biomass resources over the last decade plus:

And this PSC figure below presents utility-scale solar production over that same time span separately, as solar production was relatively flat until about 2020:

While the RPS memo does not provide detailed historical stats, based on RENEW’s participation in PSC cases and observation of renewable energy trends, we can provide insight into renewable energy development. This includes development that occurred before 2013 and new trends shown in the RPS memo figures. 

Between 2008 and 2013, renewable energy growth in Wisconsin was mostly driven by wind projects. According to the 2012 RPS memo, at that time, wind projects located in neighboring states contributed about 43% (2.8 million Megawatt-hours, or MWh) to Wisconsin’s renewable energy portfolio. Wisconsin-based wind projects contributed another 20% (1.3 million MWh). Altogether, wind production made up about two-thirds of Wisconsin’s renewable portfolio, with baseline hydroelectric and landfill gas making up most of the rest. The addition of these wind facilities after 2008 helped Wisconsin reach the 10% statewide renewable energy goal for the first time in 2013.

While growth in all renewable energy serving Wisconsin fell flat between 2013 and 2019, in 2020, wind energy production began to increase again, thanks to new projects. A new trend began here as well. For the first time, utility-scale solar projects located in Wisconsin came online and started to significantly contribute to our renewable energy portfolio. 

The 2025 RPS memo pie chart below presents a snapshot of what renewable resources serve Wisconsin’s electricity needs today. This is Wisconsin’s current renewable energy portfolio:

While non-Wisconsin-based wind projects used to occupy about two-thirds of this pie in the mid-2010s, that percentage has shrunk – not due to a reduction in wind production, but due to the growth of Wisconsin-based solar. In fact, while non-Wisconsin wind production increased from 2.8 million MWh in 2012 to 5.9 million in 2025, Wisconsin solar production grew astronomically over that same period – from a mere 5,000 MWh in 2012 to 4.2 million MWh in 2025.

The PSC only counts renewable energy production from facilities certified by the PSC as renewable resources, either owned by Wisconsin utilities or contracted by them to serve Wisconsin’s electricity needs. Each year, the PSC calculates the RPS percentage as total renewable energy production from these facilities divided by total retail sales of electricity to Wisconsin customers.

The main takeaway from the 2025 RPS memo is that renewable energy now serves about 20% of Wisconsin’s electricity needs. This includes a doubling in percentage from 10% in 2013, when Wisconsin first met its statewide goal, and a noticeable uptick from 2024, when 18.5% of our electricity came from renewables. To see where Wisconsin is headed, we will now have to look at the draft SEA.

The Strategic Energy Assessment (SEA) 2026-2032

The SEA is a forward-looking document that attempts to project future needs and future supply within Wisconsin’s electricity industry. Wisconsin does not have an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), as many utility-regulated states do. To somewhat fill that IRP gap, the SEA serves as an information-gathering and reporting process that the PSC is required to do by state law. The PSC released a draft that covers the 2026-2032 period and is now seeking public comments through September 28 to inform updates and edits made to its final revised report.

The first takeaway from the draft SEA is the projected rise of data centers in Wisconsin. Over the 2026-2032 period, collective utility forecasts project a 40% increase in statewide summer peak. The SEA also states that 72% of this projected increase is due to new data centers and their electricity needs. 

While this blog will focus on renewable energy insights provided by the SEA, we must also note that bullish utility projections of new data centers in Wisconsin are highly uncertain, and that the SEA does not provide a rigorous vetting of utility forecasts that would be included within IRP proceedings.

Before we delve further into the SEA outlook for renewable development, let us reference one important SEA statistic that the RPS memo misses. That statistic is the installed capacity of customer-owned solar, which can also help us understand a fuller picture of Wisconsin’s renewable energy production. The SEA states that in 2025, Wisconsin residents and businesses owned 318 Megawatts (MW) of rooftop solar. If we assume a 13% average capacity factor for rooftop solar, this equates to about 362,000 MWh of electricity produced by these customer-owned solar systems in 2025. 

Since utilities do not register these customer-owned solar systems for RPS compliance, the RPS memo does not capture Wisconsinites’ direct contribution to Wisconsin’s renewable portfolio. But if you insert the Wisconsin rooftop solar production estimate into the calculation of that 20% RPS statistic mentioned above, Wisconsin’s 2025 statewide renewable energy percentage increases to about 21.4%. 

As we turn to the SEA’s 2032 renewable projections, it is important to note Wisconsin’s current installed capacity of renewable resources. Wisconsin currently has 2,189 MW of utility-scale solar generating capacity, 827 MW of wind generating capacity, and 510 MW of BESS storage capacity in service. 

From this understanding of Wisconsin’s current generation portfolio, we can better contextualize the planned build-out coming over the next several years. The table below is informed by SEA-collected statistics and reflects utility-planned additions:

If these plans fully come to fruition, by 2032, Wisconsin will nearly triple its in-state solar and wind generating capacity and more than quadruple its current capacity to store electricity. 

Based on other information within the SEA, a bit more insight can be shared with regard to the start-up timing of these resources. The start of operations for these solar and BESS resources will mostly occur between 2026 and 2030. Many of these solar and battery projects have already been approved by, or have applications pending before, the PSC. Applications for Wisconsin wind additions are just now beginning to be presented to the PSC. Those wind projects would likely start operating between 2030 and 2032.

Later this summer, RENEW plans to follow up on this blog to compare the SEA 2032 clean energy projection to the 2050 modeling results for what Wisconsin will need according to our Wisconsin Zero Carbon Study.

*On Thursday, August 6, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon ruled that the Trump administration’s use of a review process to freeze wind development violated statutory and regulatory deadlines. The administration has been ordered to resume the review of onshore wind projects and provide status updates every 30 days on its progress.

In a political effort to prevent new wind projects from being built, the Trump Administration has gone to increasingly great lengths. Recently, the administration has spent several billion taxpayer dollars to buy out offshore wind leases.

The cancellation of offshore wind leases earlier this year led several Northeast states to sue the administration, and a group of eight states has filed a notice of intent to sue over the settlement the Trump Administration made to buy out wind leases belonging to Invenergy and Bluepoint Wind.

For about a year, the Trump Administration has also utilized formerly routine national security reviews to stall the approval of new wind projects.

For years, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Department of Defense (DoD) worked with wind energy builders to balance the development of wind energy with concerns about national security and radar interference, mitigating any issues. In the DoD’s own words, this review is supposed to be a “timely, transparent, and repeatable process.” 

But in August 2025, the DoD stopped signing off on any national security mitigation plans to allow proposed wind energy projects over 200 feet tall to move forward.

More than 150 wind projects across the country are impacted by this so-called “wind freeze.” The indefinite pause on DoD approvals creates a cloud of uncertainty that leaves projects without the necessary insurance and financing, threatening the development and deployment of renewable energy and putting immense financial strain on wind project developers.

Some developers missed the construction window to qualify for federal tax credits, which were phased out by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4.

Faced with endless delay, a coalition of renewable energy trade groups and wind energy development companies sued the DoD back in late May, alleging violations of administrative law and seeking to undo the freeze. That case is known as Renewable Northwest v. Hegseth.

Earlier this year, efforts by the Interior Department to hold up five offshore wind energy projects on the East Coast were stopped by federal courts, with judges allowing the projects to proceed, overriding the agency’s security concerns.

The Benefits of Wind Energy

Unfortunately, the impacts of this purposeful administrative delay will negatively impact all Americans. Stalling or canceling wind energy projects robs communities of tax revenue and jobs, and cuts off a critical source of clean energy as data centers and the AI boom demand more and more power.

In 2025, wind energy produced about 11 percent of America’s utility-generated power. Once installed, wind turbines provide reliable, fixed-cost power at a competitive price, even without subsidies.

Compare that to alternatives like natural gas, where prices can vary substantially with the ebbs and flows of international energy markets and lead to unexpected and unwelcome increases in consumers’ energy bills.

Once turbines have been built, wind energy is not vulnerable to international political crises or other supply shocks. Paired with solar energy, transmission networks, and battery storage, wind power is a key building block of a clean energy future.

States Seek To Intervene in the Lawsuit

This past week, the attorneys general of 18 states and Washington, D.C., filed a motion to intervene in Renewable Northwest v. Hegseth, seeking to represent the interests of their respective states.

The states argue that this agency decision is illegal and causes them serious harm, taking away their authority over energy policy and thwarting their plans to develop clean energy and meet state-level emissions reduction targets.

Those targets are meant to protect human health and the environment, but are jeopardized by a significant delay in wind energy development at a critical moment in the renewable energy transition.

The states that have had wind energy projects stalled by the Trump Administration may face energy insecurity, rising power costs, and dirtier air as a result of DoD actions constraining the development of wind power.

According to the states’ motion, public and private investments in these wind energy projects and the underlying infrastructure, such as job training and research and development, total billions of dollars. Those investments were intended to facilitate the buildout of wind energy, but are now stranded assets until the pending projects can gain the DoD approval needed to move forward.

Finally, the states hoping to intervene in the case argue that they have suffered economic harm, as the halt in wind project approval means that projected jobs and valuable tax revenue go unrealized.

In Colorado alone, more than 7,000 jobs are in jeopardy on proposed projects that involve $2.6 billion in private investment. In 2022, Colorado-based wind projects contributed $10 million in state and local tax receipts and $18 million in lease payments to Colorado residents.

The Bottom Line

The Trump Administration’s anti-wind policies are not just bad for community health and efforts to address the ongoing climate crisis — these policies stand in the way of economic development that investors, companies, and consumers all benefit from.

Trump’s administration has touted an “energy dominance” strategy, but refusing to greenlight wind energy — a clean, proven, and cost-effective form of energy — is deeply shortsighted.

Should the freeze be allowed to continue, Americans will feel the pain in their pocketbooks.

We must continue to push our political leaders to facilitate the clean energy transition that our society needs: creating jobs and investment, lowering energy costs, and ditching fossil fuels for clean power.

Brian Wagenaar, a Twin Cities native, is one of RENEW’s 2026 summer law clerks. He is currently a student at the University of Wisconsin Law School and starts his second year in the program this fall. Prior to his time at UW’s Law School, Brian earned his bachelor’s in environmental policy from UW-Green Bay.

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

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

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

Mandela Barnes: “Let’s Build Opportunity.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Her route is ambitious and detailed.

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

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

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

More on The Candidates’ Energy Plans

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

Francesca Hong

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

 Mandela Barnes

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

Tom Tiffany

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

The Destination

Every candidate agrees on one thing:

Wisconsin needs more energy.

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

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

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

What if someone told you that you could save money on your electric bill by getting a small solar array that can fit on your balcony or patio? It is possible — just not in Wisconsin. At least not explicitly.

Millions of such systems have been installed in Europe, giving people the option to use solar energy to offset some of the electricity they use. Because electrical systems differ here, several manufacturers are developing comparable products for use in the U.S. Meeting electrical safety standards is one of the most important steps in making these products ready for balconies, lawns, and the like across the country.

As these products become more widely available, it will be important to make sure you purchase ones specifically designed to meet the strict criteria of UL and the National Electrical Code. Not only to make sure you’re following established rules (once they are created), but also to keep you and your home safe.

Because these approved systems are intentionally small and limited in how much they can produce, they shouldn’t need to be approved by your utility company. These smaller solar systems produce just enough electricity to power a couple of appliances, meaning all the energy they create is used immediately.

So far, existing plug-in solar kits include all the essentials someone might need to simply plug them into an electrical outlet. The attached inverter and plug are designed to shut off when unplugged, during an outage, or when a voltage adjustment is needed.

The solar panels in these kits are the same technology as those on rooftops and solar fields. The economics of purchasing these kits and seeing real savings by buying less electricity is also pretty straightforward. So what would it take to make it explicitly legal here in Wisconsin? Creating a law that sets up rules and regulations to ensure we can safely reduce our energy bills. 

This step requires legislation to allow customers to install these systems under clear guidance. Legislation will also help to create clear rules and guidelines for safe use. Model legislation is available as a starting point, and with over 20 states introducing legislation, many examples of proposals exist, including some that have already been signed into law. A Wisconsin proposal is in the works, too.

It’s exciting to see all the enthusiasm building for balcony solar in the state, but we must keep in mind that changing public policy is not a sprint, not even a marathon, but more like a triathlon. If you want to do something before our next legislative session kicks off in January, consider speaking with some Wisconsin candidates for the upcoming elections this year. Tell them you value clean, affordable energy.

Across the country, youth impacted by climate change have sued state governments on the theory that inaction in the face of the climate crisis violates their fundamental constitutional rights.

In one highly publicized case, Held v. State, 16 kids sued the State of Montana over environmental laws that shielded companies developing fossil fuel projects, forbidding the state from reviewing the full impacts of the projects’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The youth litigants won a decisive court victory, striking down that provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act and securing a declaration of their constitutional right to a “stable climate system.”

More recently, the Montana plaintiffs are back in court in 2026 seeking to reinforce their win and ensure Montana’s energy and environmental policy actually complies with the established right to a stable climate.

Wisconsin’s Youth Climate Case

Here in Wisconsin, the nonprofit legal advocacy group Our Children’s Trust teamed up with Midwest Environmental Advocates (MEA) to sue the state’s Public Service Commission (PSC) and the state legislature in 2025 in Dunn v. Wisconsin Public Service Commission.

In their complaint, the young plaintiffs — ranging from age 8 to 17 at the time the case was filed — challenged aspects of Wisconsin energy law that allow utilities to continue building fossil-fuel infrastructure despite the climate crisis.

The youth plaintiffs hail from a wide range of backgrounds, but they all share one tragic bond: climate change is making their lives measurably worse.

The climate crisis has forced some of their families to move, rendered many Wisconsin rivers and lakes degraded and unfit for swimming, fishing, and boating, robbed them of opportunities to engage in cultural activities like tapping maple trees for maple syrup, exposed them to a heightened risk of Lyme disease, exacerbated health issues like asthma, and led to a decline in their mental health.

Driven by these cultural, health, and economic impacts, many of these kids and young adults have dedicated themselves to climate education and activism.

But they can’t do it alone — they will need help from engaged Wisconsinites to push our legislators and courts to consider the true costs of continuing to develop more fossil fuel infrastructure when renewable energy alternatives are readily available.

The Youths’ Argument

In court, plaintiffs argued that the law prohibiting the PSC from considering the impacts of air pollution in issuing Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCNs) to large energy projects is unconstitutional, allowing the continued development of fossil fuel projects without considering their full costs to society.

Second, the youth argued that Wisconsin’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is unconstitutional, effectively putting a ceiling on the PSC’s ability to push utilities to supply more renewable energy.

In 2005, Wisconsin amended Act 9, setting an initial goal of 10 percent renewable energy by 2015. That goal was first met back in 2013, two years ahead of schedule. Since then, the PSC has been unable to require more renewable energy to support our statewide climate goal, or even accurately track the renewable energy portfolio of Wisconsin’s utilities. This shortcoming has led Wisconsin to fall behind in the adoption of renewable energy.

Without the ability to mandate that utilities develop more renewable energy, Wisconsin will struggle to meet the long-range 2050 goal of 100% carbon-free energy set by Governor Evers.

The plaintiffs argue that these maladies in Wisconsin law are violating their foundational rights to life and liberty, which rest on a stable climate system.

They also argue that the defendant’s inadequate response to climate change was violating Wisconsin’s Public Trust Doctrine and depriving plaintiffs of the ability to use and enjoy Wisconsin’s bountiful water resources: our many public rivers and lakes. Sadly, Wisconsin’s public waterways are increasingly degraded by extreme heat and algal blooms closely linked to climate change.

The Lower Court’s Ruling

Despite a load of evidence, the plaintiffs’ case was dismissed by the court. While the judge sympathized with the youth, acknowledging that the plaintiffs showed clear harm from climate change, they decided that this case is not fit for resolution in a courtroom.

Instead, the court said the plaintiffs’ cause is an energy policy issue that would be better addressed in the state legislature.

However, the plaintiffs are appealing that decision and fighting to bring awareness to the human impacts of the climate crisis, and to push Wisconsin to take meaningful action to mitigate climate change and protect the future of all Wisconsinites.

The High Cost of Fossil Fuels

The natural gas plants that Wisconsin utilities and power producers are currently building and proposing will operate for 30 or more years, producing a wide range of serious, negative environmental health impacts for Wisconsinites.

Natural gas and coal plants struggle to compete with solar and wind power on costs, and that’s not including the often-ignored economic and health costs of fossil fuel projects, which include dirtier air, a slew of health risks, and early death.

In 2025, WE Energies received PSC approval for two massive natural gas plants, Oak Creek and the Paris Generation Project.

While some have touted natural gas as a cleaner “bridge” fuel, analysis conducted by Healthy Climate Wisconsin and the Union of Concerned Scientists predicts that the plants will cost more than $5 billion in health impacts from particulate, sulfur, and other forms of toxic pollution over their three-decade lifespan, with impacts in Wisconsin and neighboring states like Michigan.

These new plants will particularly harm people with existing heart or respiratory issues, as well as communities that have already borne the hefty costs of fossil fuel development.

Overall, Wisconsinites will be less healthy as a result of these natural gas projects, in addition to the broader impact on climate change from burning methane — a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide.

The roughly $2 billion WE Energies is spending developing the Oak Creek and Paris projects could have been used to build large-scale solar or wind farms that would have provided clean, reliable energy.

Wisconsin’s Clean Energy Future

With the technology we have available, there is no need for more outdated, dirty fossil fuel infrastructure in Wisconsin.

RENEW Wisconsin is fighting to put solar and wind on level ground with fossil fuels — because solar and wind power prevail when they are given a fair chance to compete in the energy market.

A brighter and attainable Wisconsin energy future powered by renewable energy would produce reliable power, create jobs, and lessen air pollution, leading to a healthier and wealthier Badger State.

A combination of rooftop, community solar, large-scale solar, energy conservation, smart demand reduction programs, and battery storage can meet all of Wisconsin’s energy needs, even with the projected increase in energy demand from data centers.

That is the future RENEW Wisconsin is fighting for.

Brian Wagenaar, a Twin Cities native, is one of RENEW’s 2026 summer law clerks. He is currently a student at the University of Wisconsin Law School and starts his second year in the program this fall. Prior to his time at UW’s Law School, Brian earned his bachelor’s in environmental policy from UW-Green Bay.

Communities across Wisconsin continue to grapple with how renewable energy projects get sited and permitted. At our 2026 RENEW Wisconsin Summit RENEW Wisconsin hosted a panel that brought together expert voices on state and local siting and permitting authority. The conversation is worth a revisit, as the industry continues to navigate this important topic.

Eric Callisto, a former Chair of the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) and private-sector renewable energy attorney, made a clear case for why state-level oversight of large projects matters: projects that serve the regional grid are matters of statewide concern, and an independent expert agency is better positioned to evaluate energy projects than individual town boards. He was candid that without that independent oversight, the “NIMBY element” would prevent many worthy projects from being built.

Orrie Walsvik, an associate attorney at Michael Best, walked through what he called the “inverted pyramid” of clean energy regulation, from baseline zoning to the case-by-case requirements of § 66.0401 to the PSC’s comprehensive authority over 100+ Megawatt projects. His core point: local governments have been delegated administrative authority to help Wisconsin implement its renewable energy policy, not the legislative authority to decide whether that policy is welcome in their jurisdiction.

Isaac Uitenbroek, a zoning administrator with direct experience drafting and implementing solar regulations, provided an honest window into what local government staff navigate: constituent pressure, tight timelines, and the balancing act of building ordinances that meet legal requirements while giving elected officials a process they can use to address community concerns. He advised developers and applicants to communicate early, communicate often, and leave no information vacuum. His perspective reflected real experience with what happens when communities feel blindsided.

David Jakubiak, Senior Vice President of Aileron and expert on renewable energy communications, reinforced that community engagement is not a compliance checkbox but a prerequisite for project success. He pushed back on drone footage, cookie-cutter community meetings, and out-of-state project representatives and witnesses. David made the practical case for finding local champions and showing people what renewable energy actually looks like from the road, not from the sky.

The common thread of the panel discussion and audience question was a recognition that Wisconsin is navigating a genuine policy contest, one requiring developers, lawyers, and local governments to work together to find a workable path that recognizes community concerns and appreciates the local benefits of renewable energy development.

RENEW Wisconsin selected 5 projects for this year’s Honor Roll. These projects and the organizations involved in them demonstrate leadership, ambition, and climate awareness in their design and use of clean energy.

Winding Rivers Solar Library Program

Middleton-Cross Plains School District

Sheboygan Lakefront Solar Roof

Eland Door County Solar Group Buy

Menasha Maplewood Middle & Intermediate School

Public comments are open now through June 11 for Dawn Break Solar, a 180 Megawatt (MW) solar project paired with a 180 MW battery energy storage system. If approved, the solar project will be located in Waushara County and is planned for completion in 2029. Projects like this have a wide range of local and statewide benefits. Show your support for this project and tell the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) why you support the approval of a vital solar project in Wisconsin!

You can use some of the listed benefits below to help you craft your message.

Dawn Break Solar isn’t just about the clean energy it will produce. The 180 MW facility in Waushara County has many benefits:

Economic Growth: Dawn Break Solar is expected to create construction jobs, as well as several long-term local jobs for operations and maintenance. Landowners will also benefit from consistent lease payments during the 35-year lifespan of the project.

Community Benefits: Once in service, Dawn Break Solar will contribute more than $31.5 million in utility-aid payments. Local governments will receive $900,000 annually, with $510,000 for Waushara County and $390,000 for the Towns of Oasis, Plainfield, Deerfield, and Hancock.

Emissions Reductions: Dawn Break Solar will reduce emissions from energy production by about 600 million pounds of CO2 in the first year of operations. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, this is the equivalent of taking more than 59,100 vehicles off the road for a full year. Additionally, non-GHG emissions reductions will result in health, economic, and environmental benefits. Wisconsin can expect more than $1.3 million in economic benefits associated with public health improvements in Dawn Break Solar’s first year of operations alone.

Submit your comments today and tell the PSC you support the approval of Dawn Break Solar. Feel free to use some of the bullet points above to craft your own unique message.

But their anticipated output would not be sufficient to serve data center projects in the construction pipeline

*Guest Blog by Michael Vickerman—RENEW Wisconsin Board Member

Construction of large solar power plants in Wisconsin will accelerate throughout the decade, thanks to a series of regulatory approvals handed down over the past 12 months. Indeed, by all appearances, solar power will dominate utility investment in new sources of electric power for the foreseeable future.

In March 2026 alone, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) approved utility requests to acquire three solar projects—two in Columbia County and one in Rock County—totaling 315 megawatts (MW). When energized over the next two years, these three plants will generate more than 600,000 megawatt-hours of zero-emission electricity annually to customers. That amounts to 0.9% of electricity consumption in the Badger State. 

As shown in Table 1 below, WEC Energy and Madison Gas & Electric will add 1.265 gigawatts, or 1,265 MW, of solar power to their generation fleets over the next three years. Construction is well underway at the Koshkonong and High Noon project sites, and ground will be broken this year on the other solar plants listed in the table.

Construction is also proceeding on a 250 MW solar plant in central Wisconsin owned by Minneapolis-based Geronimo Energy. Anticipated to be placed in service later this year, the Portage Solar plant will produce electricity for the wholesale market and sell the renewable energy credits (RECs) from that generation to Microsoft, which will soon complete construction on a hyperscale data center in Racine County. When activated later this year, Microsoft’s facility will become the largest consumer of electricity in the entire state, with a baseline demand of approximately 500 MW. Microsoft will purchase all of the RECs produced by Portage Solar to offset a portion of that facility’s electricity usage. 

Utility-owned solar generating plants often come paired with battery energy storage systems (BESS) placed within the project boundaries. These installations can store up to four hours of electricity at the battery’s rated capacity. 

At the Koshkonong project, for example, the battery system is designed to accept as much as 660 MWh of electricity generated onsite. These BESS units will enable grid operators to discharge stored electricity directly into the transmission system when demand peaks later in the afternoon and evening. 

In just a handful of years, solar has emerged as the fastest-growing in-state source of electric power, and its contribution to electricity supplies now surpasses wind and hydro combined (see Table 2). Accounting for 6.6% of Wisconsin-generated electricity in 2025, solar generation could reach the 10% threshold by 2030.

Will solar growth be large enough to offset anticipated load growth driven by hyperscale data centers? 

As impressive as solar’s growth was in 2025, it wasn’t large enough to fully offset the increase in electricity consumption that occurred that year. The other generation resource that saw a significant increase in output from 2024 was coal, whose rise came at the expense of fossil methane. Factoring in other hyperscale data centers now under construction, it will be a challenge to offset rising electricity sales with new solar generation.

As applied to retail electricity customers, the term “capacity factor” is a measure of their actual electrical consumption in a year divided by its peak demand multiplied by 8,760, the number of hours in a year. The consensus estimate of a hyperscale data center’s capacity factor falls in the 75% to 80% range. 

Compared with other customer types, hyperscale data centers impose an unprecedented level of demand on the electric grids that serve them, due to the following reasons.

• Massive scale of operations serving millions of users; 
• Expansion of AI use is driving the need for high-density computing power;
• Energy-intensive cooling systems; and
• Always-on operations requiring uninterruptible electrical service.

With the above in mind, let’s estimate the power consumption from Microsoft’s Mt. Pleasant campus that will commence operations later this year. If we assume a peak load of 500 MW and a capacity factor of 75 to 80%, electricity consumption from this particular entity would range from 3.3 to 3.5 million MWh per year, or 5% of the electricity sales recorded in the entire state of Wisconsin last year. 

It would take six solar plants the size of Koshkonong–1,800 MW in total–to offset, on a MWh by MWh basis, the anticipated consumption from just the Mt. Pleasant data center alone. When the two Beaver Dam and the Port Washington data center projects are brought into the picture, the number of Koshkonong-size projects needed to offset all four hyperscalers in the pipeline would exceed 20. 

Given that, it’s fair to conclude that the data center build-out will elevate greenhouse gas emissions from Wisconsin’s electric power industry even with a robust expansion of in-state solar power. Unless something changes on the ground, this worrisome outcome, and all the unpleasant environmental and economic consequences that it will amplify, is quite literally baked into our future.

Last Friday, April 24, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) unanimously approved an electricity rate plan for data centers and other “Very Large Customers” (VLC) in We Energies’ service territory. This decision will protect Wisconsinites from shouldering the financial burden of the energy and infrastructure costs associated with data centers.

RENEW Wisconsin submitted comments in support of this decision to protect Wisconsin ratepayers. We also asked the PSC to include considerations such as energy efficiency and renewable energy in their decision-making process. Meaning these corporations with massive financial means should, at the very least, be investing in building and operational efficiency, while also signing contracts with utility-scale solar projects.

We also highlighted the importance of these large corporations sticking to their own sustainability goals and how, through their vast access to capital, they could incorporate emerging or cutting-edge renewable energy resources to mitigate their contributions to climate change.

As our Policy Director, Andrew Kell, said in his comments to the PSC, “Data centers have adequate resources to become key innovators and provide the ‘technology push’ and ‘demand pull’ required for these programs, technologies, and infrastructure to scale up and flourish.”

While we don’t have guarantees that data centers will lead the charge on innovation as it relates to renewables, we do at least have a strong indication that the PSC will continue to protect ratepayers in future proceedings related to data centers.

“The decisions we’re making here today will not be limited to this docket,” said PSC Commissioner Kristy Nieto. “They will shape future proceedings, future investments, and the trajectory of the utility system itself.”

The PSC also determined that the energy demand threshold for a VLC to qualify for this rate structure should be reduced from 500 megawatts (MW) to 100 MW, the level at which new energy generation projects typically require PSC approval. The PSC also made it mandatory for eligible VLCs to subscribe.

VLCs will also need to fund and subscribe to portions of multiple new power generation projects, or entire projects, as they will be the driver of much of the state’s new energy demand.

We are still waiting for the final written order for this decision, but we are glad that PSC’s preliminary decisions align with what many public comments submitted stated, which is that data centers must pay the full costs of the energy and infrastructure they require.

As data center development progresses, RENEW aims to collaborate with data centers and strongly encourage them to drive and fully pay for cutting-edge clean energy resources. If data centers do in fact strive to incorporate into communities, they should help to ensure that we can create a sustainable, zero-carbon future.

Our shared home and all of its inhabitants deserve protection. It’s been said many times before, but it deserves repeating—we only have the one Earth.

For the last 35 years, supporters like you have helped us lead the charge as we fight to create a future powered by renewable energy. In that time, we’ve made a lot of progress and continue to expand our efforts to end our reliance on fossil fuels and combat climate change.

In 2025 our efforts to support renewables resulted in:

• 5.6 million megawatt hours of renewable energy generated
• 9 billion pounds of carbon emissions avoided
• 560,000 homes powered by renewable energy

We also helped 25 nonprofit organizations go solar through our Solar for Good grant program. This year, we’re looking to do even more to bring the benefits of renewable energy to every corner of Wisconsin.

In 2026 we have already:

• Supported two utility-scale solar projects
• Supported one utility-scale wind project
• Highlighted the value of clean energy jobs
• Advocated for data center legislation that protects Wisconsinites
• And Hosted our Annual Summit!

We’ve also seen three new utility-scale renewable projects get approved by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin! Each of these wins brings us one step closer to our goal of creating a healthy climate and an economy we can afford. And there’s so much more we hope to achieve. It is, after all, still spring. By winter, we hope our list of achievements has gotten much longer. Together, we can make it happen!