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that threatens to lock in high energy costs, undermine clean energy goals, and leave ratepayers footing the bill for outdated infrastructure.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 Instead of overbuilding based on outdated projections, Wisconsin should prioritize flexible, adaptive energy solutions that can evolve with technology.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

On the night of Jan. 2, there was an explosion on a well pad in eastern Ohio’s Guernsey County. In shaky Facebook videos, the volunteer fire department chief warned off “looky-loos,” as a burning tank fed dark, billowing clouds of smoke off in the distance.

The accident happened at the Groh well pad which is operated by Gulfport Engergy. No one was injured in the blast and first responders determined the safest course of action was to let the fire burn itself out. Guernsey County Emergency Management Agency issued an evacuation notice within half a mile of the well pad. The agency lifted its advisory about 14 hours later.

In a statement, Ohio Department of Natural Resources spokeswoman Karina Cheung said the agency is still investigating the cause of the fire and assessing damage.

“Preliminary findings indicate that one containment tank was affected,” she said. “All produced fluids have been safely removed. There was no release of fluids into the environment and the well pad remains shut down and inactive.”

“There were no reported injuries, no reported impacts to wildlife, and no reported impacts to water,” she added.

Context and track record

But to some, the incident highlights concerns they’ve been raising for years about oil and gas drilling — particularly as exploration expands to state lands.

The Groh well pad sits about five miles from Salt Fork State Park. While the site doesn’t draw from within the park, the accident is a reminder that Salt Fork was recently opened to oil and gas exploration thanks to a 2022 law signed by Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine.

Those leases don’t allow well pads within the boundaries of state land, but opponents argue more exploration means more accidents. And with drilling infrastructure creeping closer, they contend, it’s a matter of time before those accidents affect public land.

“These are accidents that have great potential to cause people serious breathing and respiratory illnesses from air emissions alone,” Melinda Zemper from the organization Save Ohio Parks said.

Although she’s quick to note the difference in scale, Zemper compared the accident to the 2023 train derailment in East Palestine.

“Sometimes when you have explosions,” she added, “you don’t know what chemicals are going to be released into the soil and the water nearby the well pad.”

The group has organized opposition to drilling leases on public land since state officials began awarding them through the Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ Oil and Gas Land Management Commission.

Gulfport Energy has been awarded seven of those leases in Belmont and Monroe Counties.

Save Ohio Parks argues the recent Groh well pad fire isn’t an isolated incident.

In 2020, Gulfport agreed to a $3.7 million settlement with the U.S. EPA over its operations in Ohio. The company faced $1.7 million in penalties and was directed to invest $2 million in upgrades to reduce emissions at its facilities. The company has also had several accidents in Ohio, primarily related to spilling brine or other drilling fluid. In 2013, state officials fined the company a quarter million dollars over leaks at seven well pads in Belmont and Harrison Counties.

Ohio Capital Journal reached out to Gulfport Energy but got no response.

Accidents and reporting

Taking a step back, the organization FracTracker argued the Groh well pad explosion is a symptom of a broader problem. In an analysis of incident records from 2015 to 2023, Gwen Klenke found at least 1,900 well-related incidents reported in Ohio.

“I think the larger context is just that this industry is prone to accidents,” she said, “and that there will be accidents as we start to frack and extract on state lands — not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when.”

The bulk of incidents Klenke documented have to do with release or discharge — of gas, brine or other chemicals involved in drilling. Nearly 160 of those incidents are classified as explosions or fires, but only two reference injury or property damage. Under ODNR designations, only three incidents are classified as major or severe since 2018.

Ohio Oil and Gas Association President Rob Rob Brundrett points to the lack of major incidents as “a testament to the industry’s rigorous safety standards and practices.”

“Considering that only .004 percent of ALL Ohio oil and gas operations have had a major reportable incident during that timeframe, I have, and will continue to, put our industry’s safety numbers against any other labor-intensive industry in Ohio,” he added.

But Klenke argues that low number of major incidents points to shortcomings in reporting and classification rather than a strong safety record. Kathiann Kowalski from the Energy News Network highlighted ODNR’s classification system in a 2023 report as well.

The agency relies on a matrix to determine the severity of an incident, but its criteria are subjective and complex. Does the burned-out tank at the Groh well pad constitute “moderate” or “major” on-site equipment damage? If the fire burned for at least 14 hours, does that push it into the category of a major incident (12-24 hours to control impact) or does the apparent lack of off-site spillage ratchet it down to a minor incident?

In her report, Klenke points to two other incidents involving explosions at homes that involved injuries. Because the reporting system allows just one category, they were listed as “explosion/fire,” but they could’ve also been listed as “injury” or “property damage” among other designations.

Klenke explained neither incident was listed as “major” or “severe” under ODNR’s designations.

“They were calling those moderate or minor explosions,” she said, “when those should really be considered major if they’re damaging property, they’re damaging folks’ health.”

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

Well pad explosion raises concerns about drilling on Ohio public land 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.