The on-site renewable mandate in AB 840 is a grid reliability trap.
Wisconsin is at the front edge of a new electricity boom. Data centers, especially those powering artificial intelligence, are arriving with power demands greater than those of many towns and cities. This can be an opportunity for economic growth and long-term energy strength. But only if we write the rules correctly.
That’s why one provision in Assembly Bill 840 (AB 840) should be rejected outright:
“Any renewable energy facility that primarily serves the load of a data center shall be located at the site of the data center.”
On the surface, it sounds reasonable. If a data center claims it will use renewable energy, then the renewable energy should be “right there,” on-site. Simple. But energy policy isn’t made in slogans. It’s made in engineering and economics. And this provision is not a renewable energy policy at all.
It’s a natural gas mandate in disguise. Wisconsin should demand clean power at scale, not performative compliance. Large data centers can draw hundreds of megawatts around the clock. That kind of demand can’t realistically be met with on-site renewables alone. At least in most locations in Wisconsin. Wind and solar require significant acreage, and the best renewable resources aren’t always near data-center sites.
So what happens when lawmakers require renewables to be built in a confined or impractical space? Renewables can’t meet demand. And when renewables can’t be deployed effectively, the market defaults to the only thing left — fossil fuels.
That means AB 840’s on-site rule doesn’t “ensure renewables.” It blocks renewables and guarantees fossil fuel generation, exactly the opposite of what Wisconsin needs for long-term energy security and economic resilience.
Grid reliability comes from flexibility, not forced geography. Here’s the core problem: the electric grid is not designed around one-to-one power matching. Wisconsin’s power system works because it is a network. We build generation where it makes sense, where the renewable resource is strongest, where land is available, where interconnection is possible, and where transmission can support it. Then electricity flows across the system.
This is not a partisan argument. It’s how modern power systems are built. Requiring renewable energy facilities to be located only on-site at data centers ignores the basic physics of the grid and forces the wrong kind of infrastructure in the wrong place.
Even worse, it undermines reliability. Concentrating generation and load at the same node can create congestion and interconnection bottlenecks. Reliability improves when generation is diversified and distributed geographically, wind in one region, solar in another, storage where it helps most, and transmission planned intentionally.
AB 840’s location requirement is the opposite of that. It is central planning, not grid planning.
If Wisconsin wants ratepayer protection, fine, but we can’t sabotage the growth of clean energy. There’s a lot in AB 840 worth serious discussion. Wisconsin absolutely must prevent large private loads from shifting costs onto families, farmers, and small businesses. That’s non-negotiable.
But if lawmakers are serious about protecting Wisconsinites, they should also consider what happens when natural gas becomes the default fuel for powering the new economy. Gas plants lock in decades of fuel dependence. And fuel dependence means price volatility. Families don’t just pay for the plant — they pay for the fuel, forever. That’s not energy security, that’s vulnerability.
Wisconsin should not build its economic future on imported fuel with prices set by national and global markets. We should build it on resources we can produce right here: wind and solar, paired with storage, demand response, transmission planning, and other grid reliability tools.
There’s a better way, and it’s common sense.
If lawmakers want data centers to contribute to Wisconsin’s energy future, the bill should do three things:
Require meaningful renewable procurement at scale, not token projects
Allow off-site renewable development connected to the Wisconsin grid
Require data centers to pay for the upgrades they drive, generation, interconnection, transmission, and firming
That approach accomplishes everything policymakers say they want:
reliability
competitiveness
long-term price stability
grid modernization
and no cost shift to ratepayers
And it does it without forcing Wisconsin into a wave of fossil buildout. Wisconsin gets one shot at this data center expansion will reshape our grid for the next generation. The decisions we make now will determine whether Wisconsin becomes:
a national model for modern, resilient power growth, or
a cautionary tale of rushing headfirst into natural gas dependence
AB 840’s on-site renewable mandate is not a guardrail. It’s a trap. If we want energy security and grid reliability, renewable energy provisions must be strong—and they must be real. That means allowing off-site renewables and requiring data centers to add new clean power to the grid at scale.
Wisconsin can welcome economic growth. But we should not do it by writing fossil dependence into law.
RENEW Wisconsin is part of a coalition supporting the enactment of a community solar program. The long-awaited legislation will be introduced in the coming days to allow private developers to build and operate solar projects, creating savings for electricity customers participating in the program.
Community solar is not new — 23 states already have similar programs. In Wisconsin, public utilities have rejected any attempt to allow a non-utility to provide electricity to customers. Here, community solar is an option in limited areas – for customers who were able to sign up in a handful of utility-offered projects or those who happen to be members of an electric cooperative that offers it.
This proposed legislation aims to change that. With community solar, participants can save money on their electric bill. Many people do not have the funds to install solar panels on their roof or have land with the right sun exposure. From apartment-dwellers to non-profits to schools and small businesses, interest is growing. As is the desire of landowners and farmers to lease their land or businesses to lease their unused roof space or a parking lot for steady extra income from hosting the projects.
Significant changes have been made to prior efforts on this bill to garner more support.
Key components of the proposed legislation include:
Developers need to secure land to lease for the project, build it, and maintain it
The projects are limited to a minimum of 3 subscribers, and no subscriber can get more than 40% of the power generated
The project size must be under 5 megawatts, which equates to about 27 acres
The program is set to last 10 years, with a maximum number of projects set at 350
Customers need to sign up to participate in the program, and still get most of their electricity from the utility and pay the utility facility charges, including a $20 minimum bill requirement
Projects are required to meet the definition of dual use, such as pollinator habitat, grazing, or other agricultural development
If electrical updates are needed to accommodate projects, the developers will be required to reimburse the utility for the upgrade
The developers are responsible for making sure there are enough subscribers for the energy generated from each project
The main thing that the utility is responsible for is allowing the projects to be interconnected to the grid and making arrangements to ensure participating customers save on their energy bills thanks to the electricity generated by the community solar projects.
These projects are intentionally community-based and require community approval when approving the site for each project. The bill calls for a 2/3 approval by the local government. With any development, laws govern permitting and zoning requirements. When it comes to larger, utility-scale renewable energy development, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin has oversight. For smaller-scale ones like the community solar, approval authority is in the hands of the local government. Adding options for community solar development is not choosing smaller over large-scale, but providing different opportunities and renewable energy benefits to more areas of the state.
Supporting all renewable energy development brings benefits beyond energy. These projects bring private capital to local areas, greater economic investments, and more jobs. Jobs created by these projects include building and road construction, electrical, and maintenance. There’s additional economic opportunity thanks to the dual-use requirement for these projects, which makes sure the land (in many cases, farmland) is still producing crops, grazing opportunities, or even wildlife habitat.
Constituents in every legislative district would have a chance to benefit from this bill if passed. But with utility opposition, those chances are slim. Unless those who are in support of community solar developments advocate for this bill.
Let’s be clear – a few community solar projects built over the next decade will not ruin public utilities. But having subscribers reduce their bills by a small percentage could benefit many utility customers.
Reading Time: 7minutesClick here to read highlights from the story
Wisconsin is expected to receive about $780 million by 2038 through national litigation surrounding drug companies’ role in the opioid crisis, with 70% flowing to the state and 30% split between 71 counties and 16 municipalities.
The state has reported spending $36 million so far. Local governments have spent about $20 million.
Nearly 30 local governments have yet to report any spending, with some citing a need for more guidance.
Transparency varies among local governments. Seven filed required spending reports only after a reporter asked why theirs was missing. Wisconsin Watch and WPR found errors on reporting filed by more than a dozen local governments.
Wisconsin and its local governments are expected to receive more than $780 million by 2038 as part of a national legal settlement over the role of drug makers, distributors and pharmacies in the opioid crisis — potentially transformational funding in efforts to reduce drug deaths.
But it’s not easy to track where some of that money is going.
While Wisconsin does a better job than many states in making that information accessible, advocates say it has room to improve, particularly when it comes to transparency around local spending. Not every local government has filed required reports on time, and Wisconsin Watch and WPR found reporting errors on documents submitted by more than a dozen local governments.
The state gets 30% of the settlement funding and documents its spending on a web page.
The rest flows to 71 Wisconsin counties (all but Polk, where the county board declined to join Wisconsin’s lawsuit) and 16 municipalities, according to Wisconsin’s settlement agreement finalized in 2022.
It’s considered compensation for a public health crisis that killed at least 14,747 Wisconsinites between 2000 and 2023.
Local governments have spent $20 million during the first three years of disbursements, investing in strategies ranging from residential treatment and jail recovery programs to technology for police and T-shirts for school-based drug prevention programs.
The millions spent so far make up less than 15% of what local governments have received. With more than $115 million sitting in county and municipal accounts as of last December and about $400 million more on the way, local spending will likely ramp up in the coming years.
But transparency varies across local governments.
A 2021 state law requires that local governments spend opioid settlement dollars within a list of approved uses related to the opioid crisis. But the law does not require local officials to tell the state how they spend it. Instead, counties and municipalities are required to report only how many settlement dollars they have received and spent, alongside their year-end balances.
In making those decisions, local governments should be transparent and involve people directly impacted by the opioid epidemic, experts say.
Rick Schaefer lost his job and house after developing an opioid addiction. He accepts he’ll never be made whole.
“But we should be more involved in how the (settlement) money is spent,” Schaefer said, adding that most people he talks to know little about the settlement funding. While he wishes people would pay more attention, he wants governments to better engage the public.
“I want to see more people with lived experience doing the work,” he said.
Some localities have followed that practice by including people with lived experience on advisory committees. Others post detailed spending information online, conduct regional surveys and hold community listening events.
The majority of Wisconsin’s local governments elaborate on their plans in supplementary annual surveys by the Wisconsin Counties Association.
Milwaukee County is seen nationally as a model for transparency and public involvement. It submitted nearly 30 pages of details to the state this year alongside its required figures.
But a dozen counties and municipalities have skipped or minimally answered the optional questions. Multiple municipalities failed to report opioid settlement spending totals one to two years after state deadlines. And seven governments submitted reports only after a reporter asked why theirs was missing.
The Wisconsin Department of Justice reviews the reports annually and has flagged and reported issues when they are identified, but the department “does not have any enforcement role with respect to the submission of these reports,” spokesperson Samantha Standley said in an email.
The Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee also receives the reports annually. Co-chairs Rep. Mark Born, R-Beaver Dam, and Sen. Howard Marklein, R-Spring Green, did not respond to requests for comment.
Lessons from tobacco settlement
Drug overdose rates dropped in 2024 across Wisconsin and the country, the first annual decline since 2019.
The decrease represents major progress, said Giavana Margo, Wisconsin program manager for Vital Strategies, a national nonprofit working to reduce overdose deaths.
Still, plenty of work remains, and progress is uneven.
Black and Indigenous communities continue to face disproportionate harm from the opioid epidemic. In Milwaukee, for instance, older Black men are accounting for a growing share of drug deaths as fentanyl creeps into cocaine supplies.
Wisconsin still saw more than 1,000 drug-related deaths from February 2024 to February 2025, preliminary U.S. Centers for Disease Control data show.
Settlement dollars have the potential to save lives if spent strategically, Margo said.
That did not happen the last time states reaped billions in compensation for a public health crisis.
While states promised to use the funding to fight tobacco use, the bulk went toward plugging budget holes. Most states still spend less on tobacco prevention than the CDC recommends.
For its part, Wisconsin receives hundreds of millions each year from settlements and taxes on tobacco but spends less than 12% of what the CDC recommends on prevention.
Advocates want to avoid a repeat as opioid settlement funds flow in, said Kristen Pendergrass, vice president of state policy at Shatterproof, a national nonprofit focused on the addiction crisis. It’s why experts call for transparency.
Wisconsin is off to a better start this time.
The Department of Health Services opioid settlement web page details $36 million in department spending so far — much of it funding treatment center construction and renovation.
Wisconsin is among 20 states with some level of public reporting requirements for 100% of settlement funds at the state and local levels, according to OpioidSettlementTracker.com.
Many states lack any reporting requirements for locally disbursed funds, leaving interested residents to sift through county board minutes and a scattering of local government websites.
Wisconsin’s annual reporting requirement creates a central location for spending information, Margo said, even if it’s not as robust or accessible as it could be.
States such as Minnesota and Indiana break down local spending on dashboards and spreadsheets linked on health and substance abuse-related websites. Wisconsin’s reports aren’t as easily findable. They are published as PDFs on the Joint Finance Committee website, alongside hundreds of other spending reports unrelated to opioids. The reports are also available by request through the state DOJ. The Wisconsin Counties Association separately published the 2023 and 2024 spending reports to a resource page created for county officials.
The city of Milwaukee receives more settlement funding than any local government except for Dane and Milwaukee counties. But it failed to initially report two years of spending and receipts after “an oversight resulted in delays,” wrote Comptroller Bill Christianson. After being contacted by a reporter the city submitted reports detailing more than $500,000 in spending, and it created procedures to meet future reporting deadlines.
Some local government officials said they didn’t know they were required to submit reports if they had yet to spend any settlement money. Several corrected missing expenditure figures, misreported receipts and mismatched account balances between years after a reporter flagged discrepancies.
Calls for public input
The overdose reversal drug Narcan saved Schaefer’s life multiple times before he started his recovery journey and became a certified peer support specialist. Growing availability of Narcan and other harm reduction resources is likely fueling the decline in overdose deaths — at least in part, Schaefer said.
Rick Schaefer, a member of DUO Wisconsin, a union for current and former drug users, stands on the patio of his apartment building, July 23, 2025, in Madison, Wis. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
Rick Schaefer displays his certificate of completion as a trained certified peer specialist. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
Many Wisconsin local governments have reported purchasing drugs like Narcan and training for its use.
“Things are going in the right direction,” Schaefer said. “So let’s decide where to throw more money. What else can we try?”
He and other members of DUO Wisconsin, an organization for current and former drug users, hope governments will listen to people with lived experience. Their proximity to the crisis forges unique perspectives.
Many local governments have launched advisory councils and seek public input, including from people affected by the opioid crisis. Twenty-one local governments in annual reports to the state mentioned soliciting some form of community input.
But even in those cases, people don’t always know how to get involved or whether they will be listened to, said Jess Morrow, a DUO member.
“How do you even begin to look or find out?” she asked.
Morrow and Schaefer live in Dane County, which holds public meetings on opioid settlement spending and includes people with living experience on its advisory committee.
“When you look at the successes of other counties and other states, it’s meeting people where they’re at,” said Dane County Supervisor Rick Rose, who helped create that committee.
He aims to streamline the county’s allocation process so more dollars can more quickly flow where needed.
“This disease is changing every day,” Rose said.
Several local governments reported spending money on test strips for the potent drug fentanyl and xylazine, a veterinary sedative increasingly found in illicit drugs. But DUO members say people are also unknowingly buying drugs cut with harmful substances strips don’t test for, like plastic and dog dewormer.
“Everybody who uses probably has way too many (test strips), because they’re everywhere,” Schaefer said. “We need something that does a better job of accurately telling you, really what’s in everything. … The technology is improving to get us there.”
Some local governments have yet to spend
Nearly 30 counties and municipalities reported spending zero settlement dollars so far, including several who said they weren’t sure how to spend it.
Monroe County in 2023 cited as a barrier “minimal information available and guidance on how to appropriately use opioid settlement funds.”
Delaying spending could make sense in some scenarios, Pendergrass said. Governments might want to take extra time for research and outreach. Or they could invest in interest-earning accounts that grow funds for ambitious future projects. But they owe an explanation to the public, she said.
And the funds could save lives now.
“It’s great news that overdose rates are going down,” Pendergrass said. “But we can’t take our foot off the brake because people are still dying every day.”
One of the biggest happenings in the state legislature in the first half of this year is the passing of the biennial state budget. The original document, 2025 Senate Bill 45, became Wisconsin Act 15. What started at 1,916 pages was whittled down to a mere 195. Below are a few items that might be of interest to the renewable energy industry.
Nuclear Power Siting Study
The Department of Administration has allocated $500,000 from general-purpose revenue for a nuclear power siting study. This stems from a broader initiative by the legislature to evaluate the feasibility of new nuclear development and potential sites in Wisconsin. Originally, a stand-alone bill, the provision was added to the budget.
Battery Storage
Under general obligations, bonding authority was modified to include battery storage. This effort signals support for the installation and development of battery energy storage systems to enhance grid reliability, integrate renewable energy systems, and improve energy efficiency.
Electricity Sales Tax Exemption
Under prior law, Wisconsin residents did not have to pay the sales tax on electricity and natural gas during the winter months, from November to April, to ease the cost of energy. The budget bill changes this exemption to apply to all months and reduce electric bills for residential customers during the summer air-conditioning season as well. For solar installations, this change could simplify the calculation of savings and costs, as the tax would not be collected at all, rather than having different applicability during certain months.
Electric Vehicle Sales Tax
Directs the transfer of anticipated sales tax collection to the general fund. appropriation of about $28 million per year.
Intervenor Financing
The appropriation of financing for intervenors allows the continuation of third-party participation in Public Service Commission (PSC) proceedings, like utility rate cases. The legislator settled on an appropriation of $542,500 annually. The PSC compensation program provides financial assistance to organizations and individuals who choose to intervene on behalf of an affected group in proceedings before the commission. The Governor’s initial budget request aimed to increase this amount.
Energy Efficiency & Focus on Energy
This provides general support for initiatives to improve energy efficiency in state facilities. Allocates $536,300 annually for energy efficiency and renewable resource programs under the PSC.
Office of Clean Energy and Sustainability
There were cuts to the positions in certain offices, including the OSCE. This was not specifically in the passed budget bill, as it occurred in an omnibus motion during the committee process.
Integrated Resource Planning
The Governor’s original budget proposal included a provision to adopt IRP for state energy planning. This was removed during the initial sweep of non-fiscal items and policy-focused initiatives to fulfil the obligation of keeping primarily financial matters in the budget. IRP would help evaluate the ability of utilities to meet long-term electricity demand and include plans to integrate clean energy sources into their supply portfolios.
After the shock of earlier executive orders had somewhat subsided, we were lulled by the notion that “only Congress can change the tax code,” and then, it happened. Congress began its work on a reconciliation bill, parts of which would effectively pull the rug from under the solar industry.
But we’re not letting it happen without a fight.
RENEW Wisconsin, like many other organizations, is sharing action alerts and urging members of the industry and the public to contact their members of Congress. The effort is meant to bring the harsh reality into view, so policymakers can understand that gutting the programs and repealing these tax credits immediately will have devastating effects. These effects will be felt by real people, businesses, and local energy production.
Many of our partner organizations, like the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), have organized webinars and call-ins to keep industry participants informed and involved. In-district meetings and a fly-in to D.C. have been organized to meet with elected representatives and advise them on a different course of action.
When the distressing contents of the House bill were voted on and the bill moved to the Senate, a determined group of RENEW Wisconsin members scheduled a meeting with Senator Ron Johnson’s chief of staff. I, along with Michael Cornell from Ach Solar, Ron Chester from Full Spectrum, Kurt Reinhold from Legacy Solar Co-op, and Michael Reuter from Midwest Solar Power, met with Tom Petri in the Madison district office. The main message conveyed was “don’t pull the rug” out from under our businesses, replicating the same term Senator Johnson used during a recent media interview. During that interview, Johnson indicated he did not want to hurt business.
But there was more — the specific examples relayed to Johnson’s team highlighted how the tax credit helps with the upfront cost of projects and allows nonprofits, farmers, and homeowners to take advantage of solar power and reduce their energy bills. We shared how manufacturing has just started to ramp up and has begun producing materials in the U.S. to help boost local energy production. We also explained that deploying solar is faster, cheaper, and if partnered with battery storage, incredibly reliable.
The tax incentives supporting the industry were not expected to last forever, but the abrupt end to them will impact projects, eliminate prior investment, cut jobs, and delay future development. This affects homeowners, developers, installers, manufacturers, and much more.
While we await final action by the Senate, followed by some form of compromise with the House, we’re tracking developments and urging people to advocate for the industry.
There is a way to phase out the credits, with an intentional transition, without disrupting the established progress. For that, Congress needs to hear from the industry and make the needed changes.
Login
