On a sunny morning in late August, a dozen teenagers wearing reflective vests and work boots stand on a hill overlooking the farm fields of their central Wisconsin college.

A few steps away is the classroom where they’ll learn how electricity works. Beside it, a handful of poles six stories tall mark the training yard where they’ll train to install and repair power lines, a skill that’s increasingly in need as Wisconsin’s infrastructure ages and data centers demand ever more energy. 

Today, they’ll try out some of the toughest physical parts of the job — while racing against the clock. 

The students have just 30 minutes to dig a hole 4 feet deep and 2 feet wide. Then they must walk two 100-pound wooden pole chunks down the school’s dirt road and haul a 70-pound piece of wood up a 65-foot pole twice, using only a pulley and their own strength. The student who finishes in the shortest time wins.

This is day three of the nine-month Electrical Power Distribution Program at Northcentral Technical College in Wausau, which prepares about 14 students each year for careers with electric utilities or power line construction companies. 

It’s one of seven such programs at the state’s tech colleges, which together enrolled 265 students in 2025. 

With a median salary of more than $95,000, electrical line work is one of the country’s most lucrative jobs for people without a college degree. It can also be dangerous and draining, as it often involves long days of manual labor, as well as exposure to the elements, heights and thousands of volts of power.

Most of the students in this class were still in high school just a few months ago. By the end of September, they’d begun scaling utility poles six stories tall. Within a year, they could land apprenticeships that pay more than $34 an hour and put them on track to earn union pensions.

It’s instructor Marc Cegielski’s job to make sure they’re ready.

“It is physically demanding. It is mentally demanding, and your work-life balance is probably not going to be very good — unless you want your work-life balance to be more work than not work,” said Cegielski, who spent four years doing line work before he started teaching. He still works as a lineman for several weeks each summer to keep his skill sharp. 

The field of electrical line work is thriving. The country is expected to add 13,600 line worker jobs between 2025 and 2035, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s a jump of 10%, much faster than the average for all jobs. In Wisconsin, the ranks are expected to swell nearly 14% from 2024 to 2034, with about 240 job openings projected each year. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 2150, which represents line workers and a variety of other workers in Wisconsin, reports its membership is at an all-time high. 

One reason for that growth: the explosion of artificial intelligence. 

While the data centers that provide the computing power for all that AI tend to employ relatively few people once they’re up and running, constructing them takes a lot of labor. And it’s not just the work of building the data centers themselves. Hyperscale data centers, designed to be able to scale up their computing power as needed, will need massive amounts of electricity to power their computers, and Wisconsin will need to expand and update its electrical grid to meet the demand. Wisconsin’s first hyperscale data center opened in Mount Pleasant this summer, and others are under construction in Beaver Dam and Port Washington. Proposals for additional centers are under review in other communities, including Kenosha and Wisconsin Rapids.

The new energy demand comes at a time when states finally have the money to strengthen and expand aging electric grids, thanks to the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill signed into law in 2021. Those funds could help Wisconsin’s electrical infrastructure accommodate more energy sources and rebound more quickly after storms, changes proponents say are needed whether or not the state adds more data centers.

Meanwhile, line workers, like many other tradespeople, have been in increasingly short supply as Wisconsin’s workforce shrinks.  

“There’s never been a better time to get involved in this trade, and the work outlook right here at home in Wisconsin looks awesome for the next 10-plus years,” said IBEW Local 2150 business manager Jim Meyer. 

Risk versus reward

Installing and maintaining power lines is rewarding work, Cegielski said, because workers can see the difference they’re making. Sometimes they turn the lights back on after a storm. And sometimes, they bring electricity to a place that’s never had it, as he and a few students do each spring on the Navajo Reservation. 

“Getting people’s electricity back feels really good,” Cegielski said.

But the job isn’t for everyone. 

Line work involves heavy exertion in all kinds of weather. Machines can handle the tough tasks some of the time, but Cegielski warns his students there are plenty of times when they’ll need to dig or lift by hand because no machine is available, or it’d be too hard to maneuver the machinery — say, in a residential backyard. Plus, if there are buried utilities within 18 inches, mechanical digging is prohibited. 

“You can’t always use a machine. Sometimes you’re the machine,” Cegielski tells his students as they race to dig their holes. He says he’s sometimes spent a whole day digging a single hole, with or without a machine to help.

The students wipe their brows. One slips off his gloves. Cegielski urges them on. “Come on, man. The customer needs their electricity back.” 

With four minutes left on the clock, Sam Volm, 18, unfolds a ruler to check his progress. 

“I’m only about 2 feet deep! This is so crazy,” he says. He’s not alone. None of the holes are nearly deep enough. 

It’s just one example of the challenges of the job. Some line workers work for contractors hired by utility companies to build or maintain their infrastructure. Those workers could be on the road, often out of state, for weeks or months at a time. Line workers employed by local utility companies generally work close to home. Still, many work 12- to 16-hour shifts, and they may need to be available to help on nights or weekends.

“Your phone rings a lot,” Cegielski said. “You’re going to be missing a lot of things that you’d rather be doing with your friends and your family to answer that phone call and get people’s power back on so that they can cook supper, so that they can go to work and earn money for their own families.”

And then there are the safety concerns. Cegielski said he’s never been seriously injured doing line work, but he knows the risks that come from working with high voltage and at high heights, sometimes on busy roads. Electrical power line installers and repairers had the 16th highest fatal injury rate of all U.S. jobs, with an annual rate of around 24 fatalities and 189 nonfatal injuries per 100,000 workers, according to a USA Today analysis of federal data from 2020 and 2021.

Despite the challenges of the job, the training program at Northcentral Technical College consistently has a waitlist. 

For Volm, who’s worked in construction since he was 14, spending his days outside was part of the appeal. 

“You’re not behind a computer or nothing. It’s real physical work, it’s what I’m used to,” Volm said. 

His dad, an electrician, encouraged him to consider line work. Bigger lines mean bigger money, he said, plus he’d get to travel. 

The morning drill didn’t deter him. He’s been wrestling since first grade, so he’s got lots of practice putting his body to the test. 

“It was pretty tough, but I muscled through it, obviously, and embraced the suck.”

College classes not required

Training programs like these are an optional extra step for those looking to enter the field. Line workers get most of their training through apprenticeships that last three to six years and require only a high school diploma. But doing a program like the one at Northcentral Tech first gives students a chance to try out the work before they commit. 

That’s how Pat Keegan, a business agent with IBEW Local 2150, got started in the industry 25 years ago. 

“I’m glad I did it because I got comfortable with climbing and I knew I wanted to do this career,” Keegan said, though plenty of line workers go straight into apprenticeships. 

“I’ve seen people right out of high school, skip the tech school part of it … and have no issues,” Keegan said.

Prospective line workers shouldn’t assume this training will help them get an apprenticeship faster, Meyer said. Instead, they should think of it as a chance to solidify their skills and learn more about things like electrical theory. 

For Cegielski, the Northcentral Tech program is also about teaching the all-important “soft skills” that employers are increasingly looking for, like how to solve problems and persevere through challenges.

Take the August morning’s drill. What the students don’t know is that Cegielski designed the digging portion to be nearly impossible within the time limit.

“I like to observe to see, once they figure out they’re running out of time, do they continue trying, or do they give up? It’s a really good marker of character,” Cegielski said. “Even if they don’t think they can complete the task, they should keep going at it.”

Six other Wisconsin tech colleges offer electrical power distribution programs, but capacity is limited. Graduates earn around $43,000 more a year than the median high school graduate, according to an analysis of earnings data from three of the programs, conducted by Open Campus and The HEA Group. Program cost varies by school but typically runs from $8,500 to $11,000. 

Despite the growing demand for line workers, Northcentral Technical College hasn’t expanded its small program. Cegielski says he hasn’t heard anything about plans to do so. 

“They need more people than I can provide,” Cegielski said, “and I don’t see that changing anytime in the near future … I don’t know if that’s a problem that the technical college system wants to handle or can even handle.”

Leaders at Northcentral Technical College did not respond to a request for comment. 

Kristina Haensgen, a spokesperson for Moraine Park Technical College, which also trains future line workers, noted the “strong and ongoing demand for skilled electrical line workers” but said the school has no immediate plans to grow its program.

Chippewa Valley Technical College, Milwaukee Area Technical College and Southwest Wisconsin Technical College did not offer comment on their line worker training programs. 

If colleges do want to expand these programs, the booming industry might actually make it tougher, said Katy Pettersen, a spokesperson for the Wisconsin Technical Colleges System.

“We have not heard much on this front, other than colleges may be having trouble finding qualified instructors because the companies building the data centers are paying so well.”

Jobs aplenty

Meyer of IBEW Local 2150 said the number of apprenticeships available through his union depends on how much local employers are hiring. In a good year, there could be room for around 170 new apprentices, he said, and it looks like Wisconsin is on track for some good years. Those waiting for an apprenticeship can get jobs as “groundmen” assisting line-working crews until a spot opens. 

Cegielski talks with many of his former students, and he doesn’t think any of them are struggling to find work.

That stands in contrast to many other fields, where AI has left many uncertain about the future. Recent college graduates with four-year degrees are having more trouble finding jobs. Across the country, office workers are wondering if they’ll be replaced by increasingly powerful AI agents, or if they’ll have the skills they’ll need to use ever-more-ubiquitous AI tools. 

“At the moment, it doesn’t seem like AI is knocking at our door to take our jobs,” Cegielski said with a laugh. ”(The work) is hands-on, and it doesn’t look like machines and robots are going to be able to take it in the future. Maybe someday.”

Natalie Yahr reports on pathways to success statewide for Wisconsin Watch, working in partnership with Open Campus. Email her at nyahr@wisconsinwatch.org.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

As data centers test Wisconsin’s electrical grid, job opportunities flourish 60 feet in the air 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’s multibillion-dollar energy infrastructure construction boom isn’t fueling a similar deluge of utility-related campaign spending ahead of the election.

The state’s largest utilities are collectively on track to spend less supporting political candidates this year than in the last two gubernatorial election years.

Utility campaign contributions to Wisconsin’s local, state and federal campaigns — and state-level partisan fundraising groups — reached just under $300,000 by late September, down roughly $50,000 from the same point in 2022.

Neither Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Tiffany nor Democratic candidate David Crowley took in any contributions from the utilities’ political action committees (PACs) between January and September. 

Utilities could still make last-minute contributions before the election, as they have in years past.

Utilities are dialing back contributions despite the influence the next governor and Legislature will wield over the industry. Next month’s winners will appoint and confirm a new majority to the state commission that regulates utilities and weigh in on legislation that could shape Wisconsin’s energy future for decades.

Some industry observers speculate that the mismatch between utilities’ political spending and the election’s ramifications reflect the mounting public hostility to the data center boom — and, by extension, to the utilities themselves. 

“I think utilities are beginning to recognize that their brand is increasingly toxic,” said Jonathan Kim, a Chicago-based researcher for the Energy and Policy Institute, a nonprofit watchdog. As of August, Kim is also the institute’s registered lobbyist in Madison, focusing on residential ratepayer concerns. 

If past ties to utilities put a target on a candidate’s back, Kim added, the companies would have good reason to avoid making direct contributions in hotly contested races. 

Wisconsin isn’t the only state where utility political spending appears to be softening. In Michigan, for example, the state’s largest investor-owned utilities are on track to spend less supporting political candidates this year than they did in the last three midterm cycles. 

The drop in political spending falls short of an all-out retreat in Wisconsin. Utilities have steered nearly all of their contributions toward state legislative contests — and, for the first time in at least a decade, divided their giving almost evenly between Democrats and Republicans. The shift coincides with Democrats’ improved prospects of securing a majority in at least one legislative chamber for the first time since 2010.

How utilities spend on politics

Three companies provide electricity for a majority of Wisconsin households: Alliant Energy, owner of Wisconsin Power and Light; WEC Energy Group, the parent company of We Energies and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation; and Xcel Energy, owner of Northern States Power Company. 

Each company operates separate federal and state political action committees, or PACs. The committees collect voluntary contributions from company executives, employees and shareholders, then distribute those funds to political candidates and organizations chosen by their boards of directors. Candidates can spend donations on their current or future campaigns — or share them with other candidates. They cannot legally spend on personal expenses. 

 Wisconsin law caps how much a PAC can contribute to a given state-level candidate in a single cycle — up to $2,000 for a Senate campaign, for instance, or $86,000 for a gubernatorial campaign. Federal rules similarly limit PAC contributions to individual candidates. Utilities’ federal PACs can give up to $5,000 to a federal candidate.

Utility employees and executives, meanwhile, can donate via employer-sponsored “conduits.” Alliant, WEC Energy and Xcel each sponsor conduits, as do Madison Gas and Electric and the American Transmission Company, Wisconsin’s largest transmission utility. 

Like PACs, conduits serve as pass-throughs for political donations. Unlike PACs, employees choose which candidates receive their donations. The conduit’s sponsor may recommend candidates or races to support, and candidates who receive conduit contributions often also receive PAC donations. 

Conduit contributions appear in campaign finance records under the individual donor’s name. Although state law limits how much individuals may contribute to a candidate, the combined donations routed through a utility’s conduit can exceed the amount a utility’s PAC may give in a single cycle. 

How much have utilities spent on congressional races?

Alliant, WEC Energy and Xcel’s federal PACs gave roughly $23,500 to Wisconsin’s congressional delegation between January and late July.

U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, facing a competitive race for a district stretching from Janesville to Racine, received $5,000 from Alliant’s PAC in early March — the largest Wisconsin utility contribution to a single candidate this year. Federal campaign finance records show no utility PAC contribution to Steil’s Democratic opponent, Mitchell Berman. 

The state’s utilities have largely steered clear of the high-profile race in Wisconsin’s 3rd District, where incumbent Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden and Democratic challenger Rebecca Cooke have tried to link each other to data center interests.

Utility PACs have donated to all eight Wisconsinites in the U.S. House in the last decade. But annual donations have plunged from 2016, when the three utilities’ PACs gave over $94,000 to the Wisconsin delegation, primarily to Paul Ryan, who was House speaker at the time.

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, the Madison area’s representative in Washington since 2013, hasn’t  received a utility contribution since 2018. 

How much have utilities spent on state races? 

Contributions from the state-level utility PACs and their conduits to Wisconsin legislative candidates and legislative fundraising committees totaled roughly $250,000 between January and September.

Much of the decline in utility contributions from 2022 stems from reduced spending by WEC Energy’s PAC and conduit. 

Democratic lawmakers have received about 45% of utilities’ year-to-date contributions, compared to just under 20% in 2022.

“We work with both sides,” WEC Energy President Scott Lauber told investors on a July quarterly earnings call. “It’s just a matter of how we make Wisconsin successful.”

Taylor Adams, an Alliant Energy spokesperson, said the utility’s political giving is bipartisan and varies from year to year based on the communities and elected officials within its service territory, not partisan preference. Adams added that his company focuses on policies that support “reliable and cost-effective energy.”

Rep. David Steffen, chair of the Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities, is the top individual recipient of utility dollars, campaign finance records show. He has received roughly $13,655 via utility PACs and conduits this year, accounting for roughly a third of his total 2026 fundraising as of September.

Alliant and WEC Energy’s PACs have already given Steffen’s campaign the maximum $1,000 allowed by state statute for an Assembly candidate in a single cycle. Three WEC executives have done the same through their company’s conduit. 

The Assembly committee’s ranking Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Lisa Subeck, D-Madison, received $3,980.

Sen. Melissa Ratcliff of Cottage Grove, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Utilities, Technology and Tourism, received $5,250, including $2,000 from Alliant alone — the maximum state law allows for a Senate candidate. Ratcliff is not up for reelection until 2028.

Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August, R-Walworth, has received $7,500 from utilities and their conduits while Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein, D-Middleton, took in $5,560. With longtime Assembly Speaker Robin Vos set to retire, August is likely among top contenders to become speaker if Republicans keep the majority after Election Day. 

August led Assembly’s Republicans through the two consecutive fights over utility-backed “right of first refusal” (ROFR) bills, which would grant Wisconsin’s transmission utilities first dibs on any electrical grid projects within their territory. Ratepayer advocates argue the proposal would risk driving up electricity prices by stifling competition in the transmission market. 

Speaking at a June WisPolitics luncheon, Hesselbein blamed Republicans for the bill’s failure last session, casting the policy as a means to shore up Wisconsin-based businesses and union jobs.

Chamber leadership and members of the Senate and Assembly utilities committees received over a quarter of all utility PAC and conduit contributions this year. 

That pattern isn’t unusual. Other industry interest groups, including in agriculture, also focus contributions on the committees most relevant to their businesses. 

“Election spending from industry and wealthy special interests is about wanting access and sway over policy agendas that could affect their bottom line,” said Nick Ramos, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. “It’s no surprise that they assess the landscape and find who might have the most impact.”

Some top recipients are less obvious. 

Rep. Tip McGuire, D-Kenosha, has received $4,750 this year — more than many lawmakers on the Assembly utilities committee, despite not serving on it. McGuire is one of four Democrats on the Joint Finance Committee, which drafts the state’s two-year budget.

Other key lawmakers received relatively little this year. Senate utilities committee chair Sen. Julian Bradley, R-New Berlin, received $1,500 from utility PACs and conduits as of late September, and Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer received $1,175. 

Not all utility money reaches lawmakers directly. Utility PACs also contribute to partisan fundraising groups like the Republican Assembly Campaign Committee, which contributes to legislative campaigns. 

Partisan committees also receive contributions directly from the utilities, rather than from their PACs. WEC Energy, for instance, gave $14,000 to partisan fundraising groups between January and June. 

State law doesn’t cap contributions to party fundraising committees. 

“There’s not supposed to be any sort of coordination between donors to the party committee and the campaigns that receive that money,” Kim said, making it difficult to know which candidates ultimately benefit from the utility’s committee contribution.

Scant spending on the governor’s race

About 2% of contributions from utility PACs and utility conduits between January and September flowed directly to gubernatorial candidates — including to candidates who lost their primary. 

Wisconsin hasn’t held an open gubernatorial election since 2010, muddying comparisons with other recent elections. 

Former Republican Gov. Scott Walker collected roughly $269,000 in contributions — not adjusted for inflation — between the launch of his gubernatorial campaign in 2009 and his exit in 2019, including about $86,000 ahead of his 2018 defeat by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. 

Evers received about $11,000 in utility contributions during that race. Utilities have since contributed roughly $330,000 to his campaign committee.

Ahead of the 2022 election, utilities contributed more than twice as much to Evers as they did Tim Michels, his Republican opponent.

Some gubernatorial spending in 2018 and 2022 came in late October, just after the candidates turned in their final pre-election fundraising reports. 

Utilities haven’t transferred that financial support to Crowley, whom Evers backed during the chaotic final leg of this year’s Democratic primary. Utility PACs have yet to contribute to his or Tiffany’s gubernatorial campaigns.

Tiffany has received roughly $3,600 via WEC and MGE’s conduits while Crowley has drawn none during the campaign. 

Still, both accepted utility contributions during previous runs for office.

Tiffany brought in at least $17,000 from utility PACs and through their conduits over a decade of state legislative campaigns, followed by another $11,500 during and after his U.S. House campaign in 2020.

Crowley’s state Assembly campaign committee raised just over $1,600 from utility PACs and conduits — mostly WEC, which serves households in the Milwaukee district he represented. His Milwaukee County executive campaign committee accepted another $9,900 from WEC’s PAC and via its conduit between 2020 and 2024.

Any additional contributions between Oct. 26 and Election Day will appear on the candidates’ next finance report in January.

Utility allies spend more

Utilities share interests with other groups, some of which have poured far more into this year’s governor’s race.

Crowley has received separate $86,000 donations — the PAC cap for a single cycle — from at least four labor groups that often align with utilities on energy infrastructure projects:  International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers PAC, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 139 PAC, Wisconsin Laborers’ District Council and Wisconsin Pipe Trades Association PAC. Two other construction trades unions contributed smaller sums to Crowley’s campaign; a PAC representing a carpenters’ union gave $82,500 and a PAC representing plumbers and steamfitters gave $25,000.

Those unions represent workers who build or operate power plants and transmission lines. The political director of the Wisconsin Laborers’ District Council sits on the board of Fair Rates for Wisconsin’s Dairyland alongside WEC and Alliant representatives.

Tiffany seized on that support in an attack ad that dubbed his opponent “Data Center David Crowley,” citing the labor groups’ vocal support for developing data centers and associated energy infrastructure.

“IBEW certainly supports responsible data center development,” the IBEW state conference vice chair, John Jacobs, wrote in an email. “We also support renewable energy and countless projects that support family supporting jobs, great healthcare, great retirement benefits and a path to the middle class. All priorities of David Crowley – and that’s why we support him.”

Those labor groups had not contributed to Tiffany’s campaign through September. But Robert Marchant, the Wisconsin Data Center Coalition’s sole lobbyist, donated $5,000 in early June. Alliant, WEC and Xcel are founding members of the coalition. 

Spending strategically

Utilities’ spending this year leaves them far behind Wisconsin’s top political donors. Diane Hendricks, for example, has already given exponentially more than utilities in 2026 — all to the Wisconsin Republican Party, which has transferred most to Tiffany’s gubernatorial campaign.

But the companies’ political goals don’t match those of explicitly partisan spenders like Hendricks.

“They just want to be able to wield sufficient political power to get the things that they need,” Kim said. “They’re not going to spend dumb money.”

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Despite high stakes for energy future, Wisconsin’s utilities scale back campaign spending — so far 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.

Energy bills are rising in Wisconsin. Who feels it most? 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.

Editor’s note: This story has been corrected to reflect uncertainty about when Consumers Energy will close the J.H. Campbell plant. 

Wisconsin ratepayers may no longer be on the hook to keep a Michigan coal plant running past its retirement date. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday overturned a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) order keeping the 60-year-old J.H. Campbell power plant online. The plant’s operator, Consumers Energy, approached the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2025 for permission to bill ratepayers across the Midwest for the plant’s operating costs.

The Energy Department intervened to block the western Michigan plant’s scheduled retirement last spring, arguing the closure could exacerbate an “emergency” electricity shortfall in the region. Its operator, Consumers Energy, has since spent at least $295 million to operate the plant as the department repeatedly extended its life.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers urged Energy Secretary Chris Wright in July to allow the plant to close, citing a projection that Wisconsinites alone could spend $117 million on the facility over “the next few years.” 

Wisconsin’s Citizens Utility Board joined a coalition of ratepayer advocacy groups in a December amicus brief supporting Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s lawsuit challenging the extension orders.

The court ruled unanimously for Michigan Friday, questioning the federal agency’s authority to invoke emergency powers to keep the plant open. 

“The Department’s position would empower it to pick its preferred power sources in Michigan — or, presumably, any other state — and order them to operate without regard to the multiple procedural and substantive constraints built into state reliability planning processes,” Judge Cornelia Pillard wrote. 

Nessel applauded the ruling in a Friday press release. 

“By forcing its continued operation, DOE tried a never-before-used tactic to illegally prop up the aging J.H. Campbell coal plant that nobody asked to keep, sticking ratepayers with a bill for a facility that should have been retired more than a year ago,” Nessel said. “I am relieved that the Court saw through this facade.”

Consumers Energy told reporters on Friday it is reviewing the ruling but does not plan to immediately close the plant.

The Energy Department has not made similar efforts to block the retirement of Wisconsin coal plants, though the agency plans to spend $425 million to shore up 13 coal plants in 10 states, at least $19 million of which may be used to extend operations at Alliant Energy’s coal-powered units at the Columbia Energy Center near Portage. 

Meanwhile, Wisconsin ratepayers still owe more than $1 billion in costs tied to retired coal plants. The Citizens Utility Board estimates that We Energies would collect more than $100 million in returns from those retired assets over the next two years under a rate proposal pending before Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Court ruling could spare Wisconsin ratepayers costs of keeping Michigan coal plant open 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.

The post Meet RENEW Wisconsin’s Newest Board Officers! appeared first on RENEW Wisconsin.

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.

The post Meet RENEW Wisconsin’s Newest Board Members! appeared first on RENEW Wisconsin.

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.

The post Third-Party Solar in Wisconsin appeared first on RENEW Wisconsin.

In Wisconsin, utility Alliant Energy has called off a project meant to reduce power outages in disadvantaged and tribal communities after the Trump administration terminated a federal grant that would have supported it.

In California, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which has deployed and upgraded hundreds of thousands of advanced smart meters, has not received any reimbursement from the U.S. Department of Energy for the work since October, when the Trump administration declared it was killing grants that it described as fueling ​“the Left’s climate agenda.”

And in the upper Midwest, a consortium of regional grid operators, utilities and state agencies is still waiting for $464 million in DOE funds meant to help build high-voltage transmission lines to reduce grid congestion — although the agency in charge of the project says the funding will soon be restored.

Across the country, hundreds of such projects to improve grid reliability and make electricity more affordable face a highly uncertain future — the result of Trump administration actions that have slowed the outflow of billions of dollars of DOE funds to a trickle.

Some of those projects in ​“blue states” were targeted as political retribution, as recent reporting from The New York Times has made clear. A handful of grant awardees in this category have won favorable court rulings, and more are seeking legal redress.

But many others are suffering from the DOE’s broader failure to carry out work that Congress has tasked it to do, according to groups that have been monitoring the agency since the start of last year. In red and blue states alike, the DOE is forcing thousands of grantees to undergo a laborious review process, so even projects that have not been officially terminated are stuck, unable to determine when or if they’ll start getting the money they’re owed.

According to an April report from the DOE Alumni Network, a group of former agency employees, the DOE has announced the termination of 356 awards totaling $12.5 billion since January 2025 and has threatened to terminate 303 additional awards worth $12.2 billion.

But the DOE has also stalled projects for ​“a large number of awardees who have never appeared on any list,” the report found. ​“This means the agency is not moving forward to resolve disputes, finalize conditional awards, or respond to continuation applications, leaving projects in administrative limbo and functionally freezing promised funds.”

“DOE both overtly canceled a set of projects, then had this pattern of behavior where for 15 months they stopped actively managing projects,” said one former DOE official. ​“Projects can’t proceed to the next stages and get their next tranche of funding.”

The former official, who asked not to be named, described a pattern of stalling, stonewalling and ​“ghosting” utilities, state governments, energy companies, and nonprofit groups awarded grants under the Biden administration.

Many of those projects have been caught up in a process the DOE announced in May 2025 to review all financial assistance ​“on a case-by-case basis to identity (sic) waste of taxpayer dollars, protect America’s national security and advance President Trump’s commitment to unleash affordable, reliable and secure energy for the American people.”

Then, in October, the DOE announced the ​“termination of 321 financial awards supporting 223 projects” — all of them tied to states that voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. The DOE’s termination announcement came right after Russ Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, declared in a social media post that the administration would cancel ​“nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding.”

Canary Media reached out to a subset of DOE grantees that had won funding from the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) program created by the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. The DOE issued a total of more than 100 GRIP grants — in October 2023, August 2024 and October 2024 — for projects to enlarge the grid, harden it against extreme weather, build microgrids to protect vulnerable communities, and deploy technologies to integrate solar, wind, EVs, and batteries.

Some of the GRIP projects involve expanding clean energy and serving disadvantaged communities, two bugbears of the Trump administration. But many more are straightforward grid improvement projects that need federal dollars to reduce the costs borne by utilities and regional or state agencies.

The largest of these is in California. In 2024, the DOE awarded a $630.6 million grant aimed at upgrading more than 100 miles of high-voltage power lines in the state with advanced power cables capable of carrying more electricity along existing transmission corridors, a project estimated to be capable of delivering about $200 million in savings from improved energy efficiency. That project appeared on the termination list in October, and the DOE has not disbursed money for it, according to federal records, though negotiations for resuming funding are underway.

This uncertainty appears to apply to the majority of GRIP projects, according to Emlyn Bottomley, founder of the consultancy High Road Analytics, which focuses on workforce development, and a former Department of Labor deputy policy director in the Biden administration.

According to his tracking of federal spending, of the roughly $11.4 billion in DOE funds obligated to grid infrastructure and resilience — a category that includes GRIP program funds — $9.1 billion remains ​“at risk,” with funding stalled or timelines for completion shortened. That’s compared with $400 million in grants that have been canceled outright and $1.3 billion not yet disbursed but showing no signs of being stalled.

“It’s a shame these projects are being held up or canceled, especially since the case for them is fairly bipartisan — spanning national security, economic competitiveness, and cost and affordability,” Bottomley said.

All of the GRIP projects required partners to provide matching funds at an amount at least equal to the money DOE is providing, the former DOE official added. ​“You’re talking about folks putting hundreds of millions of dollars on the line. People have skin in the game for these awards.”

The costs of losing federal funding

Many of the GRIP grantees contacted by Canary Media declined to comment, citing ongoing discussions with DOE. Others reported that they are no longer pursuing the projects as described in their grant applications, at least not with the help of DOE money.

The latter is the case for Alliant Energy’s Smart Power Automation in Rural Communities (SPARC) project, which won a $50 million grant in late 2024 to add grid visibility and control devices to 140 grid circuits in disadvantaged and tribal communities served by subsidiary Wisconsin Power & Light — a utility in a blue state.

Those devices could allow the utility to quickly find and isolate faults on its grid, cutting power outages in targeted communities by up to 50%. They could also support grid-management software to help integrate more renewable and distributed energy and potentially expand wireless communications access to these remote areas.

Alliant ​“voluntarily withdrew” from the grant award process in April, six months after its grant was terminated by the DOE, Alliant spokesperson Melissa McCarville told Canary Media. The agency has disbursed no funds to the project, according to federal records.

Alliant is ​“actively pursuing many of the goals that were outlined in the SPARC project,” McCarville wrote in a May email, but as part of a 10-year strategic plan with no set timeline. ​“While the grant did provide valuable funding, it also required a significant investment, and we want to ensure our contributions are properly prioritized,” she wrote.

Still, at least one grant-funded project in a blue state is proceeding despite the absence of DOE funds. 

That’s the case for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which serves the state’s capital and environs. In 2023, SMUD won a $50 million grant to support a project to deploy 200,000 smart meters and grid devices and underlying software controls to ​“improve grid reliability, resilience, visibility and efficiency,” utility spokesperson Gamaliel Ortiz told Canary Media in an email. 

SMUD has carried out much of that work, which includes close to $100 million in utility spending, and has received almost $33 million in reimbursements from DOE, according to federal records. However, SMUD ​“has not received reimbursement for any costs incurred after the grant was cancelled on October 10, 2025,” Ortiz wrote. ​“We remain committed to this critical work and stay flexible as we evaluate how the loss of grant funding may impact the project timeline.”

In other blue states, some grants have been canceled and others are still under negotiation. In Oregon, utility Portland General Electric has recently learned that the DOE may reinstate a previously terminated $50 million grant to support next-generation ​“grid edge computing” devices, utility spokesperson John Farmer told Canary Media in an August email. That project had received only $1.2 million in DOE funding, according to federal records.

The purpose of the project was to integrate batteries, EVs, and community solar into its grid to ​“improve resilience, enable the integration of distributed energy resources, and maximize customer investments in home energy solutions.”

“PGE is evaluating the benefits and risks of reinstating the grant,” Farmer told Canary Media. The utility ​“recognizes that there are inherent risks of additional and changing demands by the DOE as the administration’s priorities change.”

At the same time, PGE remains in discussion with the DOE on a $250 million grant to build a high-voltage transmission line with the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Farmer wrote. ​“Without this funding, we would lose the opportunity to offset those costs with external dollars, which could limit how efficiently we can advance needed grid improvements.”

Red state projects are also being held up because the grantee is located in a blue state. Such is the case of the aforementioned $464 million DOE grant for the Joint Targeted Interconnection Queue project to build new transmission lines between the Midcontinent Independent System Operator and Southwest Power Pool, two grid operators spanning nearly a dozen Midwestern states.

The $464 million GRIP grant was meant to bolster $1.3 billion in matching funds from utilities in the region to enable nearly 30 gigawatts of new generation to be built in Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. All but one of those states voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 election — but the Minnesota Department of Commerce, the entity awarded the grant, is in a blue state.

In May, the Minnesota Department of Commerce announced that the DOE ​“will honor its $464 million grant,” which will ​“unlock more than $1 billion in additional private investment and provide communities across the region with economic and infrastructure benefits.”

A DOE spokesperson told Canary Media in a July email that the DOE has conducted its review of GRIP projects based on a ​“number of criteria,” including whether it has ​“achieved the milestones set forth in the terms of the award,” whether it ​“remains technically and economically feasible,” and whether it ​“continues to effectuate the purpose of the program or the Department’s priorities.”

The spokesperson added that ​“none of the termination decisions were based on political considerations.” That statement is belied by court testimony reported by The New York Times last month, in which a DOE lawyer stated that none of the October grant terminations were ​“based on any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction or performance-based factor,” and that all but one of them ​“had a recipient location and/​or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has two Democratic-caucusing senators.”

During a series of congressional hearings in April, Energy Secretary Chris Wright stated that the DOE’s review of more than 20,000 grants was almost complete and that more than 80% of grantees had received notice that their awards could proceed as is or with modifications.

But an Alumni Network analysis of DOE data shared with Congress showed that the DOE’s review both failed to restore the vast majority of projects caught up in the ​“blue state” termination action in October and failed to address the hundreds of projects that have never been officially terminated but remain unable to secure funds.

The revelation of the DOE’s explicit targeting of blue states for grant termination spurred 39 Senate Democrats to sign a letter to Wright and Vought demanding the immediate restoration of funding for DOE projects terminated in October.

“Once an Administration begins punishing Americans for how they vote,” the senators wrote, ​“the threat extends far beyond these projects: no state, community, business, or worker can trust that the federal government will apply the law fairly.”

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

Trump is blocking billions of dollars of grants that would fix the grid 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.

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.

The post Solar Energy Offers Numerous Benefits for Farmers and Rural Communities appeared first on RENEW Wisconsin.

The post Understanding Third-Party Solar in Wisconsin appeared first on RENEW Wisconsin.

In early July, the U.S. power grid experienced a heat dome that drove Americans’ energy usage to an all-time high. 

There is little doubt that heat waves fueled by climate change, coupled with the rising power use of data centers, will increasingly strain the electrical grid, likely driving up consumer costs even further. 

So, what can we do? Virtual power plants offer a real solution where customers can work with power providers to reduce demand for energy and use it efficiently — cutting costs for both consumers and utilities.

At the most basic level, virtual power plants (VPPs) are a network of energy users and suppliers that use existing energy resources in the community and within people’s homes to provide power to the grid—and to strategically reduce energy demand during periods of peak use.

VPPs can be managed by private technology or renewable energy companies, regulated utilities, or other program operators. To manage energy use, VPPs use various devices and technologies that create, store, and use power. This can include rooftop solar, electric vehicles (EVs), home and industrial-scale batteries, smart thermostats, water heaters, and other similar energy systems.

By managing these resources throughout the day as power demand rises and falls, VPPs ensure reliable power while producing energy savings and rewards for participating consumers.

Because they reduce peak power demand and enable a more flexible power grid, VPPs have the potential to reduce or eliminate the need to build expensive and polluting fossil fuel infrastructure.

Preventing these new gas-powered plants from being built eliminates the risk that utility customers, who are already burdened by recent energy rate increases, will be asked to pay for stranded fossil fuel infrastructure as Wisconsin transitions to a clean energy economy.

Particularly as large data centers drive a projected 40 percent increase in energy use by 2032, expanded VPP programs will be necessary to supply reliable power, reduce the health impacts of dirty fossil fuel plants, and keep Wisconsin on track for our 2050 carbon-free energy goal.

VPPs in Your Home

In areas where demand response programs are available, customers can voluntarily install smart thermostats, heat pumps, and other devices in their homes that can be managed remotely by the VPP operator. The operator can then reduce demand and draw excess energy to other users, in exchange for compensating the customers, often via bill credit.

VPP systems have begun to catch on throughout the United States, including in Chicago, where a smart thermostat VPP program was recently approved, slated to begin in May 2027. ComEd, the utility serving northern Illinois, will manage the Chicago program and utilize smart thermostats voluntarily installed by consumers. The program is estimated to save $60 per year for the average household.

So, what would the program look like in your home? Let’s say it’s a particularly hot August day, and your thermostat is set to 70 degrees to keep your house comfortable. A VPP operator may increase your house’s temperature to 73 degrees to reduce energy demand during the afternoon or early evening when energy consumption is high, and the energy grid is under stress.

Making this small change across thousands of homes will significantly reduce energy use and relieve stress on the grid. In exchange, you will receive a bill credit for allowing your thermostat to be remotely controlled.

In 2025, a brutal heat wave hit Vermont. But Green Mountain Power, the region’s utility, sourced power from customers’ batteries distributed across the state, reducing the need to buy expensive peak demand energy. Ultimately, the VPP saved consumers an estimated $3 million in energy costs for just one day — roughly $10 per customer.

RENEW’s Role in the VPP Revolution

Here in Wisconsin, RENEW Wisconsin is working to expand consumer access to rooftop solar systems, making it easier and more financially viable to install a miniature solar energy plant on your property.

Additionally, RENEW advocates for expanded consumer EV and Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) programs that reflect the value of consumers reducing their demand, connecting consumers to the energy system, and enabling customers to exert greater control over their energy — reaping the financial reward when they reduce energy consumption.

Wisconsin’s statewide energy efficiency program, Focus on Energy, provides $50 rebates on qualified smart thermostats across nearly all utilities in Wisconsin. Some utilities also offer demand response programs that are compatible with utility-eligible smart thermostats. These utility smart thermostat programs manage cooling during peak times and provide rewards or bill credits for customer participation.

WE Energies just unveiled a summer program that offers new participants $50 for allowing the utility to adjust their thermostat for up to four hours, with the option for customers to override the adjustment. Returning customers can get more than $6 per month for their participation, shaving a few dollars off their monthly bills.

Another example of a demand response program is WE Energies’ pilot EV program, which gives consumers credit for charging their EVs between 12 am and 8 am, when energy demand is low.

RENEW also advocates for consumers to get monthly bill credits for participating in demand response programs, such as Madison Gas and Electric’s smart thermostat and smart water heater programs. Monthly credits, as opposed to annual bill credits or gift cards, enable consumers to readily see how their participation is reducing energy demand and enabling grid flexibility.

In the future, RENEW will continue to advocate for utilities to make these programs permanent, larger, and more comprehensive — linking together thermostats, EVs, batteries, and rooftop solar to create a smart, responsive energy system for Wisconsin, powered by renewable energy and clean technology.

Doing so will reduce the need for outdated fossil fuel infrastructure, lower customers’ energy bills, and help meet all of Wisconsin’s growing power needs.

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.

The post Virtual Power Plants Can Produce Real Results for Wisconsinites appeared first on RENEW Wisconsin.

*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.

The post Trump Administration’s Freeze on Wind Projects Threatens America’s Affordable, Sustainable Energy Future appeared first on RENEW Wisconsin.

A major national credit rating agency downgraded Oracle’s rating last week, citing uncertainty about the tech giant’s investments in artificial intelligence. The drop comes just weeks after the company sued Wisconsin’s utility regulator over new credit requirements for data center operators in We Energies territory — a lawsuit spotlighting the company’s financial condition.

S&P Global Ratings, one of the “big three” ratings agencies responsible for assessing the creditworthiness of government and corporate debt, lowered Oracle’s rating from a BBB to a BBB- on July 9. The rating places Oracle on the bottom edge of S&P’s “investment-grade” tier; any additional downgrades will land the company’s credit rating in the “high yield” or “junk” tier. 

“Oracle Corp.’s rapidly expanding AI infrastructure business is increasing its overall credit risk,” S&P analysts wrote in an announcement of the downgrade, pointing to high capital spending, “an uncertain path to profitability” and stiff competition as reasons to be “more cautious” in its approach to AI infrastructure businesses. 

Still, S&P isn’t wholly pessimistic about Oracle’s finances. 

“Despite the stretched leverage and cash-flow profile over the next two years, we expect Oracle to demonstrate consistent improvements toward profitability as capacity comes online and business scales,” the analysts added.

Oracle is co-developing a vast new data center campus in Ozaukee County, and its BBB- credit rating adds a hurdle to its efforts to connect the campus’ servers to the grid.

The reason: new rules for data centers seeking electrical service in We Energies territory. Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission (PSC) recently approved a rate structure for We Energies’ “very large customers” that requires operators like Oracle to pay for the construction of new power plants needed to meet data center energy needs.

But constructing a new plant can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and any unpaid debts tied to the plants could fall to We Energies’ other customers if a data center operator becomes insolvent.

To shield ratepayers from a potential cost shift, the PSC set a AAA- credit rating threshold for data center operators seeking electric service from We Energies. Companies below the threshold must post steep collateral, either in cash or lines of credit, as a backstop.

For Oracle, that could mean paying $100 million or more a year as a condition of receiving electric service for Port Washington servers.

We Energies asked the PSC in June to reconsider the credit requirements, arguing that the rule unfairly penalizes Oracle based on an overly cautious reading of the company’s financial health. 

“In practical terms, tens of billions of dollars in Oracle’s value would need to be destroyed before creditors or counterparties, such as Wisconsin Electric and its other customers, could experience losses,” the utility’s lawyers wrote. 

The PSC declined to reconsider the requirements last week.

Oracle sued the commission in Ozaukee County Circuit Court as a backup to the reopener request. The company’s lawsuit asks Judge Sandy Williams to “set aside, reverse, and remand” the credit rating requirements, arguing that they aren’t “needed to prevent harm” to We Energies’ other customers or shareholders. 

In a response filed July 9, the commission accused Oracle of trying to dodge regulatory scrutiny. The company seeks “to overturn over one-hundred years of established caselaw and allow it to dictate one-off preferential terms of service with the utility, bypassing Commission oversight altogether,” commission attorneys wrote.

Wisconsin’s Citizens Utility Board (CUB) and renewable energy advocacy group Clean Wisconsin also weighed in this week to support the credit ratings requirements. 

“An investment grade credit rating provides little advance warning of financial difficulties that may worsen rapidly,” CUB attorney Daniel Narvey wrote in a position statement filed Monday in Ozaukee County Circuit Court. “If a data center customer suffered financial distress and had not been required to post collateral, (We Energies) and its other customers could be on the hook for billions of dollars of stranded investments.”

Oracle’s stock value has tumbled by more than 25% in the month since it sued the PSC.

Wisconsin isn’t the only state embroiled in a fight over Oracle’s data center operations. In March, Michigan’s Public Service Commission declined to revisit its approval of an electrical service agreement between utility DTE Energy, Oracle and OpenAI. Michigan’s utility regulator approved the contracts in an expedited, uncontested process that drew criticism from ratepayer advocates and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Oracle credit rating drops amid Wisconsin fight over data center credit rules 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’s largest transmission utility is seeking federal intervention months after the Midwest’s regional grid operator awarded a major project to a startup competitor.

The American Transmission Company (ATC), which owns and operates transmission lines across eastern and central Wisconsin, asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) last month to force the grid operator to either redo its bidding process or reconsider earlier bids. 

The request escalates a protracted fight over who profits from billions of dollars in new transmission investments — costs that electricity customers pay through their utility bills — and whether competitive bidding limits those costs. The race to serve energy-hungry data centers has raised the stakes, and ATC’s request is intertwined with plans to connect a massive data center campus in Port Washington to the grid by the end of next year.

The fight to build transmission lines

Wisconsin’s latest high-capacity transmission buildout began in 2022, when the nonprofit Midcontinent Independent Systems Operator (MISO) approved $10 billion in upgrades across the Upper Midwest. Another round of approvals in 2024 brought the total projected price tag to roughly $32 billion. The upgrades are a core part of MISO’s effort to improve grid reliability and connect population centers to abundant electricity from renewable sources, especially from wind farms on the Great Plains.

Included in the buildout are a set of transmission lines and substations circling Milwaukee, stretching south to the Illinois border and north to Fond du Lac and Sheboygan. MISO originally expected the projects to enter service by 2033.

Decade-old federal rules require competitive bidding for multistate transmission projects, and utilities and developers from around the country lined up to compete for a share of the Midwest’s buildout. The winners gain a reliable source of revenue via a fixed “return on equity” — profit per dollar invested — approved by regulators and paid for by electricity customers. 

Supporters of the bidding requirement, including Wisconsin’s Citizens Utility Board, say it forces developers to compete on cost, thereby shielding ratepayers from cost overruns and excessive profits.

But investor-owned monopoly utilities have spent years seeking exemptions from competition, contending that the requirement hinders efficient grid development. 

Those lobbying efforts have paid dividends elsewhere in the Midwest: Minnesota and Michigan, for instance, enacted right-of-first-refusal (ROFR) laws giving local utilities first dibs on any transmission projects within their territory, including those planned by grid operators like MISO.

Utilities argue ROFR laws ensure projects go to the companies best-equipped to complete them: local monopolies with well-established relationships with local labor and regulators. The companies also argue that claims of cost savings from competitive bidding are overblown.

Wisconsin lawmakers have repeatedly rejected ROFR proposals, including one introduced in 2025 by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester.

Data centers raise the stakes

With no Wisconsin law shielding it from competition, ATC has sought other means to control projects in its territory.

Two months after bidding on the eastern Wisconsin project last July, ATC asked the state Public Service Commission (PSC) for permission to build infrastructure for a planned data center campus in Ozaukee County. Port Washington’s city council approved the campus shortly after MISO signed off on the nearby transmission upgrades.

ATC, which manages the existing local transmission infrastructure, is responsible for ensuring the campus connects to the grid by December 2027. Three of the substations ATC proposed to state regulators would occupy roughly the same locations as MISO’s planned substations, though the data center would require higher-capacity infrastructure on a shorter timeline.

Winning the larger project would allow ATC to meet both needs with one set of substations, but if MISO chose another bidder, the utility said it would still seek state permission to build substations for the data center. 

Instead, MISO initially awarded the project to Chicago-based Viridon, a startup owned by private equity firm Blackstone. Viridon’s roughly $350 million bid was the lowest — just over half of MISO’s estimate and more than $100 million below the next-cheapest bid. In its January announcement, MISO acknowledged the budget “may not be achievable” but cited Viridon’s promises to limit cost overruns and profits as reasons to pick the company over its competitors.

ATC pressed the issue. MISO agreed in February to move up the eastern Wisconsin project deadline to 2027. A month later, the operator reassigned the three substations to ATC outright, citing uncertainty over whether Viridon could clear the administrative hurdles in time to meet the new deadline. 

Viridon kept only a fraction of the original eastern Wisconsin project, including a set of transmission lines and one substation, all still scheduled for completion by 2033.

ATC appeals to Washington

As ATC awaits PSC’s final approval of the eastern Wisconsin buildout, the utility has opened a new front in its fight against competition by asking FERC to step in.

In April, a group of utilities calling themselves the “Grid Acceleration Coalition” asked FERC to exempt at least some major grid upgrade projects from the competitive bidding requirement. The coalition argued that “bureaucratic red tape” can tack months onto project timelines and strain the country’s ability to “achieve dominance” in artificial intelligence. ATC is a member of the coalition, as is Xcel Energy, owner of Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin.

“This complaint is about whether our country will seize, or squander, a generational chance to own the next century,” the utilities wrote, pointing to the tug-of-war over MISO’s eastern Wisconsin project as an example of delays that could stymie AI development.

FERC has been flooded with similar requests as the nationwide data center boom strains grid capacity and spurs utilities to spend billions of dollars on new infrastructure. The fragmented U.S. energy system is poorly equipped to manage the scale of the buildout, and the five-person commission has begun weighing in on questions about speeding grid connections and shielding residential ratepayers from data-center-related costs. 

The Grid Acceleration Coalition’s April request specified that it did not seek to “claw back” projects already awarded via competitive bidding.

ATC’s June complaint goes further. The utility asked FERC last month to either “re-bid” or “reevaluate the existing bids” for MISO’s eastern Wisconsin project, arguing the grid operator botched its earlier review. If FERC agrees, Viridon could lose its remaining portions of the project.

Tom Content of the Citizens Utility Board told Wisconsin Watch that CUB will “support a full evaluation of the process and any concerns,” but said the timing of ATC’s request — months after MISO first awarded the project — was a surprise.

ATC said it brought the issue to FERC rather than appealing to MISO because the commission offers a more neutral venue. The company said it does not know when FERC will decide whether to take up the request. It remains unclear whether ATC’s effort to reopen bidding would delay construction of the substations needed to plug in the Port Washington data center to the grid. 

Correction: A previous version of the story incorrectly described the remedy American Transmission Company is seeking in its petition to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Fight over who expands Wisconsin’s power grid heads to Washington 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.

The post Bent Tree North Wind Project Approved appeared first on RENEW Wisconsin.

Amid a surge in utility shutoffs, and in the face of a groundbreaking study finding racial disparities in those outcomes, Minnesota’s largest utility is taking a closer look at the issue.

In a November agreement with consumer groups and the state’s Public Utilities Commission, Xcel Energy has outlined a series of steps to provide more information to customers and make it easier for them to restore service.

Xcel also agreed to hire an outside consultant to conduct a one-year study of disparity issues related to disconnections and outages and, separately, do its own analysis of outages. The move came in response to a University of Minnesota study released earlier this year that found that people of color were more likely than White households to have their service disconnected for falling behind on bills, even when controlling for income and home ownership status. 

The agreement falls short of a demand from the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office for Xcel to institute a temporary moratorium on shutoffs until racial disparities are addressed, based on a recommendation from Fresh Energy and a coalition formed by Cooperative Energy Futures, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Sierra Club, and Vote Solar. 

Erica McConnell, staff attorney for the Environmental Law & Policy Center, represented the clean energy organizations advocating for grid equity. She supported the agreement but believes it will do little to help reduce disparities in shutoffs. 

“These are very important improvements that don’t really address — and the commission didn’t discuss — the disparate impacts and the racial disparity (of disconnections) and how to address that specifically,” she said.

A temporary moratorium on disconnections would have allowed for time to study disparities and find ways to address them.  

“The commission didn’t talk about that,” McConnell said. “They didn’t address it at all, so that was disappointing. I understand it’s uncomfortable and it’s a tough issue, but it’s disappointing they shied away taking it head on.”

Shutoffs soaring

Beyond the challenge of disparities, Xcel’s number of service disconnections has skyrocketed. More than 45,000 Xcel customers saw their power shut off this year, a number that has grown significantly over the last two decades. 

Xcel agreed to many proposals from the Citizens Utility Board of Minnesota, the Energy CENTS Coalition, clean energy organizations and the Public Utilities Commission to create more consumer protection against shutoffs.

Xcel Energy’s involuntary disconnection notices began rising significantly in 2023 before skyrocketing in 2024, when shutoffs doubled the prior year’s total for May through July. Despite Minnesota’s cold weather protection rules that limit disconnections during the winter through April 30, shutoffs even grew during the winter months.

Clean energy and consumer organizations point to Xcel’s ability to remotely disconnect customers who have smart meters as a major reason for the shutoffs, along with inflation, escalating rate increases and challenging repayment requirements. Xcel had demanded customers pay 50% of what they owe to reconnect, which may have violated Minnesota law, according to the Citizens Utility Board. 

Xcel’s pact with the Citizens Utility Board and Energy CENTS “is going to make payment agreements more affordable and hopefully help households that are behind on their bills avoid getting shut off and get caught back up,” said Annie Levenson-Falk, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board of Minnesota.

The utility board and Energy CENTS Coalition forged the agreement with Xcel under the purview of the Public Utilities Commission, which will issue a final order later. The agreement requires the following:

• Customers will pay 10% of what they owe to have the power turned back on, instead of 50%.
• The amount due will have to be at least $180 before Xcel can send a disconnect notice.
• Xcel cannot shut off power until a customer reaches a $300 past due balance. Xcel’s data from this year showed disconnected customers were $441 in arrears on average in October and much higher in other months.
• The utility must wait at least 10 days after a shutoff notice has been sent to disconnect, up from five days.
• Xcel must post clear disconnection and payment policies on its website, along with information about customers’ right to develop an affordable repayment plan. Any changes Xcel makes to shutoff policies and repayments have to be reported to the commission, and it must collect data on repayments and customer agreements.
• A variance allowing remote disconnections without field visits from Xcel remains, but the utility must contact customers via voicemail and use at least one other form of electronic communication.

Xcel spokesperson Kevin Coss said the utility believes “this agreement is a great step toward reducing disconnections for some of our customers who continue to struggle economically.”

Options for customers

George Shardlow, Energy CENTS executive director, said he thought a clearer explanation of the disconnection process on Xcel’s website brings a transparency that had been lacking.

“I don’t think the average person even knows that they have a right to negotiate when they’re struggling to pay their bills,” he said. “It’s all sort of opaque. We’re excited to see better documentation of people’s rights on Xcel’s website.”

Minnesota law says utility customers are “entitled” to a payment plan they can afford, Shardlow said. Customers who cannot afford the 10% down payment can still negotiate for a settlement that fits their budget, he added.

Shutoffs have been growing. This year Xcel sent disconnection notices to 51,000 customers in January and 71,000 in July. But not all notices result in shutoffs. The highest month for disconnections, May, saw more than 10,000 shutoffs. By August, slightly more than 8,400 customers had been disconnected.

Coss said Xcel works with customers to avoid disconnection by starting a nine-week process of contacting them through multiple channels to “point them to available options for energy assistance — both through the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and our own affordability programs — and offer flexible payment plans tailored to their circumstances.”

Minnesota also has cold weather protections that greatly reduce utilities’ ability to disconnect customers in winter months. But people who fail to pay their bills in winter see their balances grow, leading to higher disconnections in summer when they fail to catch up.

Xcel agreed to monitor progress and collect more data on racial disparities involving customers involuntarily shut off. The utility has already hired a third party evaluator, as the agreement requires, to study its shutoff policies and hold stakeholder engagement meetings during the year-long process.

Coss said disparities result in inequities throughout society and Xcel has been doing its part to address them. The utility has worked with the study’s authors and advocacy groups to identify actions to reduce disparities, he said.   

Earlier this year, the commission also approved a proposal by Xcel for a pilot program that will provide bill credits to select census tracts with high levels of disconnections. Coss said Xcel will provide $500 bill credits to customers in low-income census areas who have a greater than $2,000 past-due balance, using money available from a quality of service program.

Minnesota Public Utilities Commissioner Joe Sullivan said he believed the agreement negotiated among the nonprofits and utility would reduce the financial strain on households facing disconnections and assist Xcel in recovering debt.

“I thought that in that docket people came together and were constructive,” he said. “I feel like I’m hopeful that the order will make some progress.”

PUC Chair Katie Sieben said the commission is “always looking at affordability, and especially as it pertains to low-income customers, I think we have a great track record on working with stakeholders and with utilities to provide robust low-income assistance to customers.”

She mentioned the commission’s role in approving an Xcel pilot to decrease payments for low-income, low-usage customers and a September decision that used a penalty for the utility’s service quality underperformance to provide bill credits to around 1,000 customers with the oldest outstanding balances in low-income census tracts.

‘Still more work to do’

The agreement does not solve the problem of low-income customers struggling to pay utility bills. Shardlow said Energy CENTS and the Citizens Utility Board lobbied the state legislature to allow households to apply for energy assistance funding the entire year instead of the current policy of having a deadline of May 31. Only 20% of eligible Minnesota households participate in the program, he said.

Levenson-Falk wants Xcel to consider eliminating the 1.5% late fee it charges customers on their balance, or consider donating the money to affordability programs.

The Citizens Utility Board also wants Xcel to develop a plan to reconnect customers quickly on days of high heat or poor air quality. Coss said Xcel will evaluate reconnecting customers disconnected during days of air quality alerts.

Levenson-Falk said the agreement at least makes progress. “I think we resolved everything that we had discussed with Xcel but that’s not to say that we think this is going to solve the problem, because, of course, there are still going to be continuing shutoffs, and those are still very concerning,” she said. “There’s still more work to do.”

This story was updated to include a statement from Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Chair Katie Sieben.

Fresh Energy staff, board members and funders do not have access to or oversight of the Energy News Network’s editorial process. More about our relationship with Fresh Energy can be found in our code of ethics.

As utility shutoffs soar in Minnesota, Xcel Energy agrees to consumer protections and racial disparities study is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

A new contract between Kalamazoo, Michigan, and utility Consumers Energy signals a change in direction for the city’s clean energy strategy as it seeks to become carbon neutral by 2040. 

Solar was seen as a pillar of the city’s plans when it declared a climate emergency in 2019 and set a goal of zeroing out carbon emissions by 2040. After spending years exploring its options, though, the Michigan city is tempering a vision for rooftop solar in favor of large, more distant solar projects built and owned by the utility. It’s not alone either, with Grand Rapids, Milwaukee, Muskegon and other cities taking a similar approach.

“Folks want to see solar panels on parking lots and buildings, but there’s no way as a city we can accomplish our net-zero buildings just putting solar panels on a roof,” said Justin Gish, Kalamazoo’s sustainability planner. “Working with the utility seemed to make the most sense.” 

Initially there was skepticism, Gish said — “environmentalists tend to not trust utilities and large corporate entities” — but the math just didn’t work out for going it alone with rooftop solar.

The city’s largest power user, the wastewater treatment station, has a pumping house with a roof of only 225 square feet. Kalamazoo’s largest city-owned roof, at the public service station, is 26,000 square feet. Spending an estimated $750,000 to cover that with solar would only provide 14% of the power that building uses annually — a financial “non-starter,” he said.

So the city decided to partner with Consumers Energy, joining a solar subscription program wherein Kalamazoo will tell Consumers how much solar energy it wants, starting in 2028, and the utility will use funds from its subscription fee to construct new solar farms, like a 250 MW project Consumers is building in Muskegon. 

Under the 20-year contract, Kalamazoo will pay a set rate of 15.8 cents per kWh — 6.4 cents more than what it currently pays — for 43 million kWh of solar power per year. If electricity market rates rise, the city will save money, and Kalamazoo receives Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to help meet its energy goals. 

The subscription is expected to eliminate about 80% of Kalamazoo’s emissions from electricity, Gish said. The electricity used to power streetlights and traffic signals couldn’t be covered since it is not metered. As the city acquires more electric vehicles — it currently has two — electricity demand may increase, but city leaders hope to offset any increases by improving energy efficiency of city buildings.  

Consumers Energy spokesperson Matt Johnson said the company relies “in part” on funds from customers specifically to build solar, and considers it a better deal for cities than building it themselves, “which would be more costly for them, and they have to do their own maintenance.”  

“We can do it in a more cost-effective way, we maintain it, they’re helping us fund it and do it in the right way, and those benefits get passed on to arguably everybody,” Johnson said. 

Grand Rapids, Michigan, joined the subscription program at the same time as Kalamazoo. Corporate customers including 7-Eleven, Walmart and General Motors are part of the same Consumers Energy solar subscription program, as is the state of Michigan.

Costs and benefits

“There’s a growing movement of cities trying to figure out solar — ‘Yes we want to do this, it could save us money over time, but the cost is prohibitive,’” said John Farrell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. 

Until the Inflation Reduction Act, cities couldn’t directly access federal tax credits. The direct-pay incentives under the IRA have simplified financing, Farrell said, but cities still face other financial and logistical barriers, such as whether they have sufficient rooftop space.  

Advocates acknowledge deals with utilities may be the most practical way for budget-strapped cities to move the needle on clean energy, but they emphasize that cities should also strive to develop their own solar, and question whether utilities should charge more for clean power that is increasingly a cheaper option than fossil fuels.

“Our position is rooftop and distributed generation is best — it’s best for the customers, in this case the cities; it’s best for the grid, because you’re putting those resources directly on the grid where it’s needed most; and it’s best for the planet because it can deploy a lot faster,” said John Delurey, Midwest deputy director of the advocacy group Vote Solar. “I believe customers in general and perhaps cities in particular should exhaust all resources and opportunities for distributed generation before they start to explore utility-scale resources. It’s the lowest hanging fruit and very likely to provide the most bang for their buck.”

Utility-scale solar is more cost-effective per kilowatt, but Delurey notes that when a public building is large enough for solar, “you are putting that generation directly on load, you’re consuming onsite. Anything that is concurrent consumption or paired with a battery, you are getting the full retail value of that energy. That is a feature you can’t really beat no matter how good the contract is with some utility-scale projects that are farther away.”

Delurey also noted that Michigan law mandates all energy be from clean sources by 2040; and 50% by 2030. That means Consumers needs to be building or buying renewable power, whether or not customers pay extra for it. 

“So there are diminishing returns [to a subscription deal] at that point,” Delurey said. “You better be getting a price benefit, because the power on their grid would be clean anyways.” 

“Some folks are asking ‘Why do anything now? Just wait until Consumers cleans up the grid,’” Gish acknowledged. “But our purchase shows we have skin in the game.” 

A complement to rooftop

In 2009, Milwaukee adopted a goal of powering 25% of city operations — excluding waterworks — with solar by 2025. The city’s Climate and Equity Plan adopted in 2023 also enshrined that goal. 

For a decade, Milwaukee has been battling We Energies over the city’s plan to install rooftop solar on City Hall and other buildings through a third-party owner, Eagle Point Solar. The city sought the arrangement — common in many states — to tap federal tax incentives that a nonprofit public entity couldn’t reap. But We Energies argued that third party ownership would mean Eagle Point would be acting as a utility and infringing on We Energies’ territory. A lawsuit over Milwaukee’s plans with Eagle Point is still pending.

In 2018, We Energies launched a pilot solar program in Milwaukee known by critics as “rent a roof,” in which the utility leased rooftop space for its own solar arrays. Advocates and Milwaukee officials opposed the program, arguing that it encouraged the utility to suppress the private market or publicly-owned solar. In 2023, the state Public Service Commission denied the utility’s request to expand the program.

Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board opposed the rent-a-roof arrangement since it passed costs they viewed as unfair on to ratepayers. But Wisconsin CUB executive director Tom Content said the city’s current partnership with We Energies is different, since it is just the city, not ratepayers, footing the cost for solar that helps the city meet its goals.

Milwaukee is paying about $84,000 extra per year for We Energies to build solar farms on a city landfill near the airport and outside the city limits in the town of Caledonia. The deal includes a requirement that We Energies hire underemployed or unemployed Milwaukee residents.

The Caledonia project is nearly complete, and will provide over 11 million kWh of energy annually, “enough to make 57 municipal police stations, fire stations, and health clinics 100% renewable electricity,” said Milwaukee Environmental Collaboration Office director Erick Shambarger. 

The landfill project is slated to break ground in 2025. The two arrays will total 11 MW and provide enough power for 83 city buildings, including City Hall – where Milwaukee had hoped to do the rooftop array with Eagle Point. 

Meanwhile Milwaukee is building its own rooftop solar on the Martin Luther King Jr. library and later other public buildings, and Shambarger said they will apply for direct pay tax credits made possible by the Inflation Reduction Act — basically eliminating the need for a third-party agreement.

“Utility-scale is the complement to rooftop,” said Shambarger. “They own it and maintain it, we get the RECs. It worked out pretty well. If you think about it from a big picture standpoint, to now have the utility offer a big customer like the city an option to source their power from renewable energy — that didn’t exist five years ago. If you were a big customer in Wisconsin five years ago, you really had no option except for buying RECs from who knows where. We worked hard with them to make sure we could see our renewable energy being built.”

We Energies already owns a smaller 2.25 MW solar farm on the same landfill, under a similar arrangement. Building solar on the landfill is less efficient than other types of land, since special mounting is needed to avoid puncturing the landfill’s clay cap, and the panels can’t turn to follow the sun. But Shambarger said the sacrifice is worth it to have solar within the city limits, on land useful for little else.

“We do think it’s important to have some of this where people can see it and understand it,” he said. “We also have the workforce requirements, it’s nice to have it close to home for our local workers.”

Madison is also pursuing a mix of city-owned distributed solar and utility-scale partnerships. 

On Earth Day 2024, Madison announced it has installed 2 MW of solar on 38 city rooftops. But a utility-scale solar partnership with utility MGE is also crucial to the goal of 100% clean energy for city operations by 2030. Through MGE’s Renewable Energy Rider program, Madison helped pay for the 8 MW Hermsdorf Solar Fields on a city landfill, with 5 MW devoted to city operations and 3 MW devoted to the school district. The 53-acre project went online in 2022.

Farrell said such “all of the above” approaches are ideal.

“The lesson we’ve seen generally is the more any entity can directly own the solar project, the more financial benefit you’ll get,” he said. “Ownership comes with privileges, and with risks. 

“Energy is in addition to a lot of other challenging issues that cities have to work on. The gold standard is solar on a couple public buildings with battery storage, so these are resiliency places if the grid goes down.”

Correction: Covering Kalamazoo’s public service station roof with solar panels would provide an estimated 14% of power used by that building. An earlier version of this story mischaracterized the number.

In Michigan and Wisconsin, cities are finding rooftops alone may not achieve solar energy goals  is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Election Day yielded few bright spots for the transition to clean energy, but there was one in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The city of nearly 120,000 voted 79 percent in favor of a measure to create a ​“sustainable energy utility” (SEU) that will supplement the existing grid and help residents shift to cleaner, more reliable energy.

With that overwhelming approval, city officials will now figure out the governance, staffing, and leadership of the new local utility. They have already begun outreach to residents interested in participating; 600 customers had registered by Tuesday afternoon. The plan is to assemble an initial tranche of 20 megawatts worth of demand, at which point Ann Arbor will finance the purchase and installation of solar panels, batteries, and energy-efficiency upgrades to serve those customers.

Installations — on homes, sheds, schools, libraries — could happen in the next 18 to 24 months, Mayor Christopher Taylor told Canary Media. Longer term, the utility hopes to construct a district-level geothermal network to heat and cool buildings without fossil fuels.

“I’m incredibly gratified by the support that voters of Ann Arbor have given to the SEU,” Taylor said. ​“The SEU is going to be both great for our carbon future and great for the pocketbook.”

The effort to fast-track local clean energy installations serves Ann Arbor’s ambitious climate goals. But it’s also a response to an uptick in power outages as extreme weather collides with for-profit utility DTE’s aging distribution-grid infrastructure. Monopoly utilities, for the most part, have shown little interest in seizing the opportunities of decentralized energy, but that’s core to the new Ann Arbor utility’s mission.

The measure’s success marks the latest episode in a sporadic national trend of communities trying to break free from the century-old model of for-profit, monopoly utilities controlling local energy systems.

Such efforts typically provoke a scorched-earth response from the incumbent utility. Utilities elsewhere have waged lengthy legal battles and spent millions of dollars on political campaigns to stop these escape attempts. When localities win their energy autonomy, they often have to pay hefty exit fees as a reimbursement for grid infrastructure built on their behalf. Communities that make it through that ringer then have to shoulder the laborious task of operating and maintaining decades-old infrastructure while trying to push ahead with new technologies.

In a bracing and punchily worded 2021 report, Ann Arbor’s sustainability office made clear that it would take a different route.

“Every dollar we don’t spend in litigation or to buy the [investor owned utility]’s old, failing infrastructure is money we can spend on new infrastructure here in Ann Arbor to generate power, distribute power, and store power — dollars we can use to immediately provide reliable, clean, and affordable public power to everyone,” the city wrote.

In short, it’s a distributed energy wish list coming to life. Ann Arbor has created a clear pathway to building more clean, local, resilient, and publicly owned infrastructure. If the city can make electricity cheaper on top of that, it will demonstrate that a better electricity system is possible even without completely overhauling the existing utility industry.

Local action for local needs

In 2019, Ann Arbor set a 2030 deadline to deliver equitable, community-wide carbon neutrality. Meeting that target requires sourcing clean electricity, driving out fossil-fuel combustion in buildings, and cleaning up transportation.

But the city’s built environment poses some challenges. Ann Arbor spans about 49,000 households, 52 percent of which are rentals. Overall housing stock averages 48 years old. That necessitates a lot of retrofits to turn these buildings into efficient systems running on clean electricity.

The SEU thus prioritizes energy-efficiency upgrades for customers. Unlike a for-profit utility, the municipally owned nonprofit has no incentive to let customers keep wasting energy. Ann Arbor aims to make efficiency more accessible with tools like on-bill financing, ​“structured to match or be lower than the monthly utility bill savings, resulting in a positive cash-flow for the customer immediately,” per the 2021 report.

The utility can buy equipment like solar panels and batteries in bulk and finance these upgrades with its AAA municipal credit rating, accessing far cheaper capital than a bunch of lone homeowners negotiating separately with private lenders. And the on-bill charge stays with the house — if someone moves out, the new resident takes over paying for the improvements that will lower their bill.

Climate goals weren’t the only factor motivating the change. The area’s aging grid has suffered a number of outages lately.

“Ann Arbor is currently served by an investor-owned utility that has a history of reliability challenges in our area,” Taylor noted. ​“We expect the SEU to provide far more reliable service.”

The SEU plans to install and own solar panels on customers’ rooftops and batteries in their sheds and garages, selling those customers the power at cost, without a markup. That lets residents access solar power and backup power without dropping a load of cash up front for it or taking on debt. This kind of subscription is available from companies like Sunrun, but they do it to make money, not to sell at cost.

The most radical dimension of the plan is to use the city’s utility franchise rights to build wires between properties, so that they can share excess solar power locally. Most everywhere in the country, customer-led upgrades have to stay on the customer side of the utility meter; crossing that boundary to sell power to a neighbor violates the utility’s legally enforced monopoly. This stands in the way of visions for interconnected neighborhoods generating and selling power with each other based on who needs it at a given moment.

But Ann Arbor officials tracked down a century-old precedent that makes sharing power possible: ​“The Michigan Constitution preserves the rights of cities and villages to form their own utility or to supplement an existing utility,” Missy Stults, the city’s sustainability and innovation director, told me.

Thus, the SEU will link up different properties if the people living there want it. If a home generates more solar than it can use, it could run a line to a neighboring house that’s shaded by trees, allowing it to buy surplus power.

“We’ll be able to connect homes with each other, schools with homes, schools with each other,” Taylor said. ​“We’re going to do this in a way that is cost-effective and fully opt-in.”

This plan assumes people will be happy to offer up their roof space for panels that the SEU will own and use for broader community benefit. But doing so will let that household buy cheaper, cleaner power for itself. The battery controls present some additional complications: Will the host customer get first dibs on backup power, or will that be split among the locally connected homes as well? This is new territory for distributed energy in the U.S.

That said, the strong show of support at the ballot box demonstrates the local community is fully on board with the general direction of the SEU. It’s no accident that this idea is coming to fruition in a college town like Ann Arbor, said Liesl Clark, a former state climate leader who now serves as director of climate action engagement at the University of Michigan.

“There are a lot of people who are innovative and also are interested in having agency,” she said. ​“It is a community that was ripe for a solution like this.”

Furthermore, the city structured the plan in a way to minimize any downside for residents who don’t want to jump on the decentralized power opportunity.

“You haven’t asked me how much it’s going to cost the taxpayer,” Taylor told me as I was about to wrap up our phone call. He answered the rhetorical question: ​“Nothing!”

That pledge veers into too-good-to-be-true territory, but the SEU structure makes it possible. The city won’t levy any new taxes because it’s not buying out DTE’s assets. Instead, it’s installing new equipment based on voluntary customer commitments, and those customers pay their way, while saving themselves money.

Breaking free from utilities without all the hassle

The outcome of this effort remains far from certain. But so far, Ann Arbor has managed to pursue a low-drama, low-conflict way to break up with a monopoly utility, in contrast to high-profile recent attempts elsewhere.

The city of Boulder, Colorado, famously fought for a decade to peel off from Xcel Energy, and ultimately gave up. In 2010, California mega-utility PG&E spent $46 million to make it harder for communities to source their own electricity, though even that gargantuan sum failed to stop the rise of community choice aggregators.

Maine has grappled for years with its deeply unpopular monopoly utilities. Last year, voters nonetheless soundly rejected a ballot referendum to seize utility assets under a new public power entity. The utilities spent $40 million to fight it, and independent experts raised concerns about how the public entity would deliver on promises of a cheaper, more efficient grid after saddling itself with billions of dollars of debt.

Activists in Ann Arbor have also pushed for full municipalization — a city-level version of what Maine considered and rejected. The city is working on a second study to dig into the details of what purchasing the grid infrastructure would entail. That conversation will continue as the SEU implementation moves forward, Taylor noted.

For its part, Michigan utility DTE hasn’t declared war on Ann Arbor. Following the vote, the company stated that it will continue to invest in making the city’s grid more resilient and clean — a recent Michigan climate law requires ramping to 60 percent renewable power by 2035 and 100 percent clean electricity by 2040.

The public interest in full municipalization may explain the muted response from the utility: The SEU allows DTE to go on with business as usual, and its distribution grid will continue to play a crucial role even if kilowatt-hour sales decline from the new local solar generation.

Instead of fighting the utility colossus head on, Ann Arbor is taking a live-and-let-live approach. It’s a case where avoiding head-on conflict could make it possible to deliver the benefits of clean, local energy far more quickly.

Voters in Ann Arbor, Michigan, create a local clean energy utility is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

This article was originally published by the Idaho Capital Sun.

The Boise Airport became powered by 100% renewable energy this fall after Boise opted to be the first city to sign on to an optional new renewable energy program through Idaho Power.

The city of Boise is purchasing enough solar energy to power both the Boise Airport and the Lander Street wastewater treatment facility through 100% renewable energy, Steve Hubble, climate action manager for the city of Boise, said in an interview Thursday.

The Boise Airport is likely the first municipally-owned major airport in Idaho to become 100% solar energy powered. Hubble said he isn’t familiar enough with municipalities in North Idaho or eastern Idaho, which work with different utility companies, to know what their energy mix is.

“We’re the first municipality in Idaho to enter one of these Clean Energy Your Way contracts, so that’s pretty exciting in and of itself,” Hubble said. “And then from a quantitative perspective, I’m always going to link that back to what the city’s goals are.”

The move to powering its facilities by renewable energy represents Boise moving forward on climate policies at a time when the Idaho Legislature is actively pushing back against environmental and climate programs. While the Idaho Legislature has not established formal climate goals, the city of Boise has specific goals it bases climate policies around.

• Power city government by 100% renewable energy by 2030.
• City government operations become carbon neutral by 2035.
• Power the entire community by 100% clean electricity by 2035.
• The community becomes carbon neutral by 2050.

Making the Boise Airport and Lander Street wastewater treatment plant 100% renewable-powered brings the city to 25% of its 2030 renewable energy goal for city government.

“So in other words, if you look at all the city’s electricity usage right now, about a quarter of it is being powered by renewable electricity, because the airport and Lander Street are two of our three biggest electricity-using facilities,” Hubble said. 

How did Boise make its airport and a water treatment plant renewable energy powered?

Boise had been powering the airport and Lander Street facility with the standard energy it received from Idaho Power, which includes an energy portfolio of renewable energy like hydro as well as nonrenewable energy sources, like coal. To go 100% renewable, the city bought enough renewable solar energy to cover 100% of the energy those two facilities use.

The project is part of Idaho Power’s Clean Energy Your Way program, which is optional and does not change the energy mix that regular Idaho Power customers receive or the rates they pay, Idaho Power Director of Economic Development and Innovation Megan Ronk said in an interview.

Idaho Power’s largest source of energy today is renewable hydro power, Ronk said. For 2022, 24% of Idaho Powers energy generation capacity was coal, Idaho Power reported. Idaho Power has a goal to have 100% clean energy by 2045.

For customers who want to go renewable sooner, Idaho Power created Clean Energy Your Way, Ronk said.

“Clean Energy Your Way is really intended to provide a menu of options to meet customers where they are at in meeting their respective renewable and clean energy goals,” Ronk said in a phone interview.

The Boise City Council approved participating in the Clean Energy Your Way program in October 2023. 

“This is possible because Boiseans have been so clear that they expect our city to lead in protecting our environment for the future,” Boise Mayor Lauren McLean said in a written statement after the Boise City Council vote. “It is important that we are resilient and because we want our kids, and their kids, to be healthy and to have a place where they can live and thrive into the future.”

After the Boise City Council approved participating in the program, Idaho Power and the city applied for approval from the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, which regulates utility companies in Idaho.

Under the application for the project, Boise sought approval to buy up to 10 megawatts of power from Black Mesa Energy solar project in Elmore County. In addition to the normal Schedule 19 rate Boise pays for energy not from the solar project, Boise will pay a fixed cost charge for each kilowatt hour of energy received from the Black Mesa Energy solar project. Excess energy generated but not used will be credited to the city. 

The Idaho Public Utilities Commission approved the application in August, which allowed the city to begin purchasing the solar energy Sept. 1.

The city’s contract is for 20 years. Hubble told the Sun he expects the city to pay slightly more for energy during the first 18 months of the project. Then, for the duration of the first 10 years, Hubble expects the city to either realize a savings or be paying no more than it would have regularly, without going renewable.

“We’re pretty excited about that savings opportunity, because basically this contract allows us to kind of lock in the rate for a portion of our power cost, and power costs do change, so that’s something we’re really excited about,” Hubble said. “It’s kind of cool, not only the renewable attribute of this, but that economic attribute of this is pretty exciting.”

Boise has a 25% share of the solar energy from the Black Mesa Energy project, while the remaining 75% is being used by Micron for renewable energy projects, Hubble said. 

Other cities, residents and businesses can participate

Idaho Power offers different types of Clean Energy Your Way programs for residential customers, businesses and large municipal customers like the city of Boise. The largest energy-using customers, like the city of Boise, are able to participate in the Clean Energy Your Way Construction agreement that powered the Boise Airport and Lander Street facility. Hubble thinks Boise’s project could set an example for other large Idaho Power municipal or industrial customers who want to go with renewable energy. 

But there are other options for other types of Idaho Power customers too. Residential customers can cover all or part of their energy use with renewable wind and solar energy at a cost of 1 additional cent per kilowatt hour, with the ability to cancel any time. Business customers can purchase renewable energy certificates, with options to buy on a month-to-month basis or for a three-year commitment. 

Boise Airport now powered by 100% renewable energy through Idaho Power program is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Nearly a year after Massachusetts regulators laid out a vision for the state’s evolution from natural gas distribution to clean energy use, lawmakers are coalescing around legislation that would start converting principles into policy. 

The wide-ranging climate bill includes several provisions that would allow utilities to explore alternatives to gas and empower regulators to place more limits on the expansion and continuation of natural gas infrastructure, changes that supporters say are critical to a successful transition away from fossil fuels. 

“This bill is a major first step in empowering [regulators] to do something rather than just rubber stamping the utilities’ plans,” said Lisa Cunningham, co-founder of ZeroCarbonMA.

Natural gas is currently the primary heating source for half the homes in Massachusetts, a number that needs to drop if the state is going to meet its ambitious climate goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, advocates and state leaders say. In 2020, the state department of public utilities opened an investigation into the role natural gas utilities would play in the transition to cleaner energy. In December 2023, the department issued a lengthy order concluding that the state must move “beyond gas” and outlining a broad framework for making the shift. 

Lawmakers attempted to start turning these general ideas into binding law earlier this year, but the legislative session closed at the end of July before the Senate and House reconciled the differences between their versions of a climate bill. Legislators returned to work this fall and hammered out an agreement, and the Senate passed the resulting bill last month. The House speaker has said the body will vote when it returns to formal session later this year. The bill is generally expected to pass and be signed into law. 

“A lot of people were skeptical we’d get a bill at all, but I’m happy with where this bill ended up,” said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director for climate nonprofit Acadia Center. “It shows a step toward that needed urgency.”

At the heart of the bill’s energy transition provisions is a change to the definition of a natural gas utility that allows the companies to also provide geothermal power. Networked geothermal — systems that draw heat from the earth and deliver it to a group of buildings — is widely seen as a promising alternative to natural gas, and both National Grid and Eversource have pilot projects in the works. However, current law prevents the utilities from pursuing such projects without specific authorization from regulators. The climate bill would remove this barrier, making it easier for gas companies to explore new approaches to business.

“The gas utilities deeply need a new business model that can help them step into the future,” said Audrey Schulman, founder of climate solutions incubator HEETlabs. “That allows them to potentially evolve.”

This definition change supports other provisions aimed at slowing the expansion of natural gas use in the state. The bill would end the requirement that natural gas utilities provide service to any customer in their service area who requests it, with few exceptions. Under the new law, utilities could decline these requests when other alternatives are available. 

The bill would also allow regulators to consider the impact of emissions when deciding whether to approve requests to expand natural gas service into new communities. In 2023, the state approved a request to bring gas service to the central Massachusetts town of Douglas. Regulators at the time noted that the decision works against the state’s goal of phasing out natural gas, but said the law gave them no choice but to approve the plan. Provisions in the climate bill would untie regulators’ hands in such cases in the future.

“The [Department of Public Utilities] can consider the public interest, including climate, it doesn’t have to say yes to more gas service,” said Amy Boyd Rabin, vice president of policy at the Environmental League of Massachusetts. And the inclusion of geothermal in gas utilities’ definition means “now there’s also something else to offer the customers.” 

Another major element of the bill would reform the state’s Gas System Enhancement Plans program, which encourages utilities to repair or replace pipes in the state’s aging and leak-prone natural gas distribution system. Clean energy advocates have often argued that these plans are problematic, investing billions of ratepayer dollars into shoring up a system that is increasingly obsolete. The climate bill would allow utilities to choose to retire segments of pipe rather than fixing them. 

“For the first time ever they are able to look at a pipe and say, ‘You know what, this is not worth the cost,’” Murray said. “We don’t want ratepayers shouldering the burden for a lot of stuff that’s not going to be useful in five to 10 years.”

Environmental advocates praised the bill’s gas provisions, and are already focusing on what more there is to be done. Several would have liked to see a more aggressive phasing out of Gas System Enhancement Plans, with a specific end date. Others champion an expansion of a pilot program that allows cities and towns to ban fossil fuel use in new construction and major renovations. 

“There is no reason why communities that want to enact this via home rule petition should be restricted from enacting the will of their constituents,” Cunningham said. 

In the meantime, advocates are ready to see the climate bill turning into reality. 

“There’s a lot of good stuff in there that will do a lot of good for the commonwealth,” Boyd Rabin says.

Massachusetts legislation looks to remove barriers to the state’s shift from natural gas is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.