We Energies has invested in renewable energy such as this solar farm, yet it continues to push for new gas-powered plants. Columnist John Imes argues that these proposals would set Wisconsin back, delaying progress toward a smarter, clean energy future. (WEC Energy Group photo)

Wisconsin stands at a critical energy crossroads. We Energies’ plan to build massive new methane gas plants is a costly misstep that threatens to lock in high energy costs, undermine clean energy goals, and leave ratepayers footing the bill for outdated infrastructure.

At a time when clean energy and storage solutions are proving to be more reliable and cost-effective, doubling down on fossil fuel dependency is a financial and environmental mistake Wisconsin simply can’t afford.

Conflicts with We Energies’ climate goals and corporate objectives

We Energies has publicly committed to reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. Yet, its proposed gas plants move in the opposite direction — locking in long-term fossil fuel reliance when cleaner, cheaper alternatives are available.

One of the key justifications for these plants is the anticipated electricity demand from data centers. However, rapid advancements in AI-driven efficiency — such as DeepSeek — could dramatically cut data center energy consumption. If We Energies locks in billions for gas plants just as these efficiency gains accelerate, Wisconsin ratepayers could be left footing the bill for infrastructure that is no longer needed. Instead of overbuilding based on outdated projections, Wisconsin should prioritize flexible, adaptive energy solutions that can evolve with technology.

If Wisconsin continues to lag in clean energy, it risks losing business investment. Major corporations like Microsoft, Google, and Meta have committed to 100% carbon-free energy by 2030. We Energies’ push for new gas plants directly contradicts these corporate sustainability goals, which could drive investment out of the state.

Rather than doubling down on fossil fuels, Wisconsin should implement on-site demand response incentives for large energy users—reducing peak demand without costly new gas infrastructure.

Costly and unnecessary rush to gas

We Energies’ push for new gas plants isn’t just unnecessary — it’s an economic gamble that could burden ratepayers for decades. Natural gas prices remain volatile due to global market instability, making long-term reliance on gas a risky bet for Wisconsin’s energy future.

Meanwhile, states across the Midwest are rejecting new gas plants in favor of renewables, battery storage and energy efficiency. If Wisconsin fails to follow suit, residents and businesses could face skyrocketing energy costs and stranded fossil fuel assets that quickly become obsolete.

Wisconsin needs a plan to manage its clean energy transition

Rather than allowing utilities to dictate energy policy, Wisconsin must take a more strategic approach. Other states have already adopted comprehensive energy transition plans that prioritize renewables, storage and grid modernization. Without a coordinated strategy, Wisconsin risks falling behind — leaving businesses and consumers to bear unnecessary costs.

Business voices matter 

The recent GreenBiz 25 conference, where more than 2,500 sustainability professionals gathered, underscored a key reality: Businesses are proving they can “do well by doing good.” Companies are cutting energy use, reducing emissions and making strategic clean energy investments that align with both business and environmental goals.

Despite political resistance, responsible businesses are stepping up. But they can’t do it alone — Wisconsin policymakers must work with business leaders to create a regulatory environment that supports clean energy innovation rather than hindering it.

Battery storage is outpacing gas nationwide 

The outdated notion that natural gas is the only way to meet peak demand is being disproven across the country. Texas, California and even Alaska are deploying large-scale battery storage systems to replace gas-fired peaker plants. Battery storage costs have fallen 90% over the last decade, making it the clear economic winner over new fossil fuel generation.

Before committing billions to new gas plants, Wisconsin should first maximize cost-effective battery storage—proven technology that reduces emissions while keeping electricity rates stable.

Modernizing existing power plants is a smarter alternative

Instead of building expensive new gas infrastructure, Wisconsin should follow the lead of other states that are repurposing existing fossil fuel plants into clean energy hubs. By investing in solar, wind, and battery storage at existing power plant sites, Wisconsin can leverage existing grid connections and transition to a cleaner, more resilient energy system.

This “clean repowering” strategy allows for a smoother transition while maintaining grid stability—without saddling ratepayers with the cost of unnecessary new gas plants.

Wisconsin has a historic opportunity to lead the Midwest in clean energy innovation. But We Energies’ gas expansion plan is a step in the wrong direction.

Investing in clean energy solutions creates jobs, lowers costs and aligns with corporate sustainability goals. Locking in new gas plants while battery storage and renewables continue to outpace fossil fuels is an expensive mistake Wisconsin can’t afford.

The choice is clear: Do we cling to outdated, expensive fossil fuel infrastructure, or do we embrace a smarter, more resilient clean energy future?

The answer should be obvious—for our economy, our environment and the future of Wisconsin.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Getty Images

As an oncologist, I can’t forget some of my patients’ stories. One of those belongs to a mother of two I diagnosed at age 35 with non-small cell lung cancer. She was a physician and a long-distance runner who had never smoked a day in her life. She died of metastatic lung cancer about two years after her diagnosis. 

Sadly, her story echoed that of another one of my patients, a 32-year-old emergency room nurse who never smoked and raised two teenage daughters. She was divorced and spent her days in my care desperately worried about what would happen to her daughters after she passed. Both women were medically considered “lucky” to survive long enough to see their children graduate high school, but they should have had decades left with their kids.

I will never know exactly what caused the lung cancer in these two particular women, but the number of people being diagnosed who have never smoked is rising, particularly in young women. And these diagnoses are deadly. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in America, responsible for about 125,000 deaths each year. Even with new, cutting-edge treatments, the five-year survival rate of patients with metastatic lung disease is only 6%.

Why do I mention these dismal statistics? Because after witnessing too many tragic deaths, I feel a deep responsibility to educate my community and policymakers about what contributes to lung cancer. And all too often, fossil fuel pollution is not on their minds, even though reducing that pollution is one of the strongest actions we could take to prevent future kids from growing up without their moms. 

Air pollution is a Class 1 carcinogen, as rated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The word carcinogen means “cancer causing,” and air pollution is responsible for about 14% of all lung cancer deaths. It can cause lung cancer even in people who have never smoked and can significantly affect the prognosis and treatment of other cancer patients.

One of those key pollutants is fine particulate matter, also called PM 2.5. That means the particles are 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter or 20 times smaller than the width of a human hair. These microscopic particles primarily come from the burning of fossil fuels. 

That’s why I am deeply concerned that several Wisconsin utilities, including We Energies, WPS, Alliant Energy, and Madison Gas and Electric, recently delayed their plans to retire coal and are proposing new methane gas plants in Wisconsin. In the next few months alone, the Public Service Commission will determine the fate of $2 billion in new gas infrastructure proposals.

Switching from coal to gas is like seeing one of my patients switch from smoking to vaping. Billions have been spent to market vaping as a better, cleaner alternative. A ploy that is not only blatantly false when it comes to the heart health impacts, with vaping causing an outbreak of cardiovascular injuries, but it has dangerously hooked a new youth generation of smokers. 

Similarly, billions have been spent to market natural gas as safe. But make no mistake, just like coal pollution, gas plants kill people by emitting PM2.5 and a mix of other hazardous pollutants that are inhaled through the lungs. From there, those toxicants can enter the bloodstream, heart, brain, and even the placenta. Akin to hooking a new generation of smokers, building new and expensive gas plants locks us into decades of fossil fuel dependence. We can’t afford that when 99% of scientists agree that we must take rapid action to decrease fossil fuels to maintain a liveable climate. Meanwhile, our neighboring states investing in wind, solar and energy efficiency prove that a better way forward is possible and that path saves lives and creates jobs.

As I think back to my two patients who died too young from lung cancer, it’s clear that we must do more. We must reduce air pollution and address climate change by decreasing fossil fuels. We can’t let Wisconsin get left behind. We need to ensure that new gas plants, such as the Oak Creek Gas Plant and Paris Plant, are not built in Wisconsin. We must come together to prevent more needless deaths from lung cancer.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE