The former site of the We Energies Power Plant on Nov. 13, 2025, in Pleasant Prairie, Wis. (Photo by Joe Timmerman/Wisconsin Watch)

By some measures, the Pleasant Prairie Power Plant, once regarded locally as an “iconic industrial landmark,” had a good run.

Opened in 1980 near Lake Michigan in Kenosha County, it became Wisconsin’s largest generating plant, burning enough Wyoming coal, some 13,000 tons a day, to provide electricity for up to 1 million homes.

But over time, the plant became too expensive to operate. The owner, We Energies, shut it down after 38 years, in 2018.

We Energies customers, however, are still on the hook.

A portion of their monthly bills will continue to pay for Pleasant Prairie until 2039 — 21 years after the plant stopped producing electricity.

In fact, residential and business utility customers throughout Wisconsin owe nearly $1 billion on “stranded assets” — power plants like Pleasant Prairie that have been or will soon be shut down, a Wisconsin Watch investigation found.

That total will likely grow over the next five years with additional coal plants scheduled to cease operations.

Customers must pay not only for the debt taken on to build and upgrade the plants themselves, but also an essentially guaranteed rate of return for their utility company owners, long after the plants stop generating revenue themselves.

“We really have a hard time with utilities profiting off of dead power plants for decades,” said Todd Stuart, executive director of the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group.

The $1 billion tab looms as Wisconsin utility companies aim to generate unprecedented amounts of electricity for at least seven major high-tech data centers that are proposed, approved or under construction. By one estimate, just two of the data centers, which are being built to support the growth of artificial intelligence, would use more electricity than all Wisconsin homes combined.

All of which raises an important question in Wisconsin, where electricity rates have exceeded the Midwest average for 20 years.

What happens to residents and other ratepayers if AI and data centers don’t pan out as planned, creating a new generation of stranded assets?

How much do Wisconsin ratepayers owe on stranded assets?

Of the five major investor-owned utilities operating in Wisconsin, two — We Energies and Wisconsin Public Service Corp. — have stranded assets on the books. Both companies are subsidiaries of Milwaukee-based WEC Energy Group.

As of December 2024, when the company released its most recent annual report, We Energies estimated a remaining value of more than $700 million across three power plants with recently retired units: Pleasant Prairie, Oak Creek and Presque Isle, a plant on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

Wisconsin Public Service Corp.’s December 2024 report listed roughly $30 million in remaining value on recently retired units at two power plants.

In total, utilities owned by WEC Energy Group will likely have over $1 billion in recently retired assets by the end of 2026.

The company also noted a remaining value of just under $250 million for its share of units at Columbia Generating Station slated to retire in 2029, alongside a remaining value of roughly $650 million for units at Oak Creek scheduled to retire next year.

Its customers will pay off that total, plus a rate of return, for years to come.

The company estimates that closing the Pleasant Prairie plant alone saved $2.5 billion, largely by avoiding future operating and maintenance costs and additional capital investments.

Both Wisconsin Power and Light and Madison Gas and Electric also own portions of the Columbia Energy Center, and Wisconsin Power and Light also operates a unit at the Edgewater Generating Station scheduled for retirement before the end of the decade. Neither company provided estimates of the values of those facilities at time of retirement. Andrew Stoddard, a spokesman for Alliant Energy, Wisconsin Power and Light’s parent company, argued against treating plants scheduled for retirement with value on the books as future stranded assets.

How stranded assets occurred: overcommitting to coal

In 1907, Wisconsin became one of the first states to regulate public utilities. The idea was that having competing companies installing separate gas or electric lines was inefficient, but giving companies regional monopolies would require regulation.

Utility companies get permission to build or expand power plants and to raise rates from the three-member state Public Service Commission. The commissioners, appointed by the governor, are charged with protecting ratepayers as well as utility company investors.

Stranded assets have occurred across the nation, partly because of the cost of complying with pollution control regulations. But another factor is that, while other utilities around the country moved to alternative sources of energy, Wisconsin utilities and, in turn, the PSC overbet on how long coal-fired plants would operate efficiently:

• In the years before We Energies pulled the plug on Pleasant Prairie, the plant had mostly gone dark in spring and fall. Not only had coal become more expensive than natural gas and renewables, but energy consumption stayed flat. By 2016, two years before Pleasant Prairie’s closure, natural gas eclipsed coal for electricity generation nationally.

• In 2011, We Energies invested nearly $1 billion into its coal-fired Oak Creek plant south of Milwaukee to keep it running for 30 more years. The plant, which began operating in 1965 and later became one of the largest in the country, is now scheduled to completely retire in 2026 — with $650 million on the books still owed. That will cost individual ratepayers nearly $30 per year for the next 17 years, according to RMI, a think tank specializing in clean energy policy. The majority of the debt tied to those units stems from “environmental controls we were required to install to meet federal and state rules,” WEC Energy Group spokesperson Brendan Conway said.

• In 2013, to settle pollution violations, Alliant Energy announced an investment of more than $800 million in the Columbia Energy Center plant in Portage, north of Madison. But by 2021, Alliant announced plans to begin closing the plant, though now it is expected to operate until at least 2029.

Various factors encourage construction and upgrades of power plants.

Building a plant can create upwards of 1,000 construction jobs, popular with politicians. Moreover, the Public Service Commission, being a quasi-judicial body, is governed by precedent. For example, if the PSC determined it was prudent to allow construction of a utility plant, that finding would argue in favor of approving a later expansion of that plant.

The PSC allowed utility companies “to overbuild the system,” said Tom Content, executive director of the Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board, a nonprofit advocate for utility customers. “I think the mistake was that we allowed so much investment, and continuing to double down on coal when it was becoming less economic.”

Utilities “profit off of everything they build or acquire,” Stuart said, “and so there is a strong motivation to put steel in the ground and perhaps to even overbuild.”

Conway, the WEC Energy Group spokesperson, argued that the utilities’ plans to retire plants amount to a net positive for customers.

“We began our power generation reshaping plan about a decade ago,” he wrote in an email. “That includes closing older, less-efficient power plants and building new renewable energy facilities and clean, efficient natural gas plants. This plan reduces emissions and is expected to provide customers significant savings — hundreds of millions of dollars — over the life of the plan.”

Guaranteed profits add to ratepayer burden

The built-in profits that utility companies enjoy, typically 9.8%, add to the stranded assets tab.

When the Public Service Commission approves construction of a new power plant, it allows the utility company to levy electricity rates high enough to recover its investment plus the specified rate of return — even after a plant becomes a stranded asset.

“We give them this license to have a monopoly, but the challenge is there’s no incentive for them to do the least-cost option,” Content said. “So, in terms of building new plants, there’s an incentive to build more … and there’s incentive to build too much.”

When the Pleasant Prairie plant was shut down in 2018, the PSC ruled that ratepayers would continue to pay We Energies to cover the cost of the plant itself, plus the nearly 10% profit. The plant’s remaining value, initially pegged at nearly $1 billion, remained at roughly $500 million as of December 2024.

Eliminating profits on closed plants would save ratepayers $300 million on debt payments due to be made into the early 2040s, according to Content’s group.

New ‘stranded assets’ threat: data centers

As artificial intelligence pervades society, it’s hard to fathom how much more electricity will have to be generated to power all of the data centers under construction or being proposed in Wisconsin.

We Energies alone wants to add enough energy to power more than 2 million homes. That effort is largely to serve one Microsoft data center under construction in Mount Pleasant, between Milwaukee and Racine, and a data center approved north of Milwaukee in Port Washington to serve OpenAI and Oracle AI programs. Microsoft calls the Mount Pleasant facility “the world’s most powerful data center.”

Data centers are also proposed for Beaver Dam, Dane County, Janesville, Kenosha and Menomonie.

The energy demand raises the risk of more stranded assets, should the data centers turn out to be a bubble rather than boom.

“The great fear is, you build all these power plants and transmission lines and then one of these data centers only is there for a couple years, or isn’t as big as promised, and then everybody’s left holding the bag,” Stuart said.

In an October Marquette Law School poll, 55% of those surveyed said the costs of data centers outweigh the benefits. Environmental groups have called for a pause on all data center approvals. Democratic and Republican leaders are calling for data centers to pay their own way and not rely on utility ratepayers or taxpayers to pay for their electricity needs.

Opposition in one community led nearly 10,000 people to become members of the Stop the Menomonie Data Center group on Facebook. In Janesville, voters are trying to require referendums for data centers. In Port Washington, opposition to the data center there led to three arrests during a city council meeting.

Utilities are scheduled in early 2026 to request permission from the Public Service Commission to build new power plants or expand existing plants to accommodate data centers.

Some states, such as Minnesota, have adopted laws prohibiting the costs of stranded assets from data centers being passed onto ratepayers.

Wisconsin has no such laws.

Shifting cost burden to utility companies

Currently, ratepayers are on the hook for paying off the full debt of stranded assets — unless a financial tool called securitization reduces the burden on ratepayers.

Securitization is similar to refinancing a mortgage. With the state’s permission, utilities can convert a stranded asset — which isn’t typically a tradeable financial product — into a specialized bond.

Utility customers must still pay back the bond. But the interest rate on the bond is lower than the utility’s standard profit margin, meaning customers save money.

A 2024 National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners report noted that utilities’ shareholders may prefer a “status quo” scenario in which customers pay stranded asset debts and the standard rate of return. Persuading utilities to agree to securitization can require incentives from regulators or lawmakers, the report added.

In some states, utilities can securitize the remaining value of an entire power plant. Michigan utility Consumers Energy, for instance, securitized two coal generating units retired in 2023, saving its customers more than $120 million.

In Wisconsin, however, utilities can securitize only the cost of pollution control equipment on power plants — added to older coal plants during the Obama administration, when utilities opted to retrofit existing plants rather than switching to new power sources.

In 2023, two Republican state senators, Robert Cowles of Green Bay and Duey Stroebel of Saukville, introduced legislation to allow the Public Service Commission to order securitization and allow securitization to be used to refinance all debt on stranded assets. The bill attracted some Democratic cosponsors, but was opposed by the Wisconsin Utilities Association and did not get a hearing.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers proposed additional securitization in his 2025-27 budget, but the Legislature’s Republican-controlled Joint Finance Committee later scrapped the provision.

Even Wisconsin’s narrow approach to securitization is optional, however, and most utilities have chosen not to use it.

We Energies was the first Wisconsin utility to do so, opting in 2020 to securitize the costs of pollution control equipment at the Pleasant Prairie plant. Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission approved the request, saving an estimated $40 million. “We will continue to explore that option in the future,” Conway said.

But the PSC expressed “disappointment” in 2024 when We Energies “was not willing to pursue securitization” to save customers $117.5 million on its soon-to-retire Oak Creek coal plant. The utility noted state law doesn’t require securitization.

Stuart said that if utilities won’t agree to more securitization, they should accept a lower profit rate once an asset becomes stranded.

“It would be nice to ease that burden,” he said. “Just to say, hey, consumers got to suck it up and deal with it, that doesn’t sound right. The issue of stranded assets, like cost overruns, is certainly ripe for investigation.”

Comprehensive planning required elsewhere — but not Wisconsin

Avoiding future stranded assets could require a level of planning impossible under Wisconsin’s current regulatory structure.

When the state’s utilities propose new power plants, PSC rules require the commission to consider each new plant alone, rather than in the context of other proposed new plants and the state’s future energy needs. Operating without what is known as an integrated resource plan, or IRP, opened the PSC to overbuilding and creating more stranded assets. IRPs are touted as an orderly way to plan for future energy needs.

“There’s no real comprehensive look in Wisconsin,” Stuart said. “We’re one of the few regulated states that really doesn’t have a comprehensive plan for our utilities.

”We’ve been doing some of these projects kind of piecemeal, without looking at the bigger picture.”

Structured planning tools like IRPs date back to the 1980s, when concerns about cost overruns, fuel price volatility and overbuilding prompted regulators to step in. Minnesota and Michigan require utilities to file IRPs, as do a majority of states nationwide.

Evers proposed IRPs in his 2025-27 state budget, but Republican lawmakers removed that provision because it was a nonfiscal policy issue.

Northern States Power Company, which operates in Wisconsin and four other Midwestern states, is required by both Michigan and Minnesota to develop IRPs. “Because of these rules, we create a multi-state IRP every few years,” said Chris Ouellette, a spokesperson for Xcel Energy, the utility’s parent company.

Madison Gas and Electric, which only operates in Wisconsin, argued that its current planning process is superior to the IRP requirements in neighboring states. “A formal IRP mandate would add process without improving outcomes,” spokesperson Steve Schultz said. “Wisconsin’s current framework allows us to move quickly, maintain industry-leading reliability and protect customer costs during a period of rapid change.”

How to influence decisions relating to stranded assets

The devil will be in the details on whether the Public Service Commission adopts strong policies to prevent the expected wave of new power plant capacity from becoming stranded assets, consumer advocates say.

The current members, all appointed by Evers, are: chairperson Summer Strand, Kristy Nieto and Marcus Hawkins.

The public can comment on pending cases before the PSC via its website, by mail or at a public hearing. The commission posts notices of its public hearings, which can be streamed via YouTube.

Among the upcoming hearings on requests by utilities to generate more electricity for data centers:

Feb. 12: We Energies’ request to service data centers in Mount Pleasant and Port Washington. We Energies says the fees it proposes, known as tariffs, will prevent costs from being shifted from the data centers to other customers. The “party” hearing is not for public comment, but for interaction between PSC staff and parties in the case, such as We Energies and public interest groups.

Feb. 26: Another party hearing for a case in which Alliant Energy also said its proposed tariffs won’t benefit the data center in Beaver Dam at the expense of other customers.

To keep abreast of case developments, the PSC offers email notifications for document filings and meetings of the commission.

The PSC would not provide an official to be interviewed for this article. It issued a statement noting that utilities can opt to do securitization to ease the financial burden on ratepayers, adding:

“Beyond that, the commission has a limited set of tools provided under state law to protect customers from costs that arise from early power plant retirements. It would be up to the state Legislature to make changes to state law that would provide the commission with additional tools.”

On Nov. 6, state Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin, D-Whitefish Bay, and Rep. Angela Stroud, D-Ashland, announced wide-ranging data center legislation. One provision of their proposal aims to ensure that data centers don’t push electricity costs onto other ratepayers.

But there is no provision on stranded assets.

This article first appeared on Wisconsin Watch and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To republish, go to the original and consult the Wisconsin Watch republishing guidelines.

A PFAS advisory sign along Starkweather Creek. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

A Wisconsin Senate committee held a public hearing Thursday on a bipartisan bill that would require the state Department of Natural Resources to notify county and tribal governments when local groundwater contamination is found to exceed state standards. 

Throughout the hearing, the bill’s authors and residents of communities with water quality problems complained of incidents in which significant amounts of time passed before people learned their water was contaminated with harmful chemicals such as nitrates or PFAS. 

“Time really counts, hours, days, weeks, and in our case, even years,” said Lee Donahue, a resident of the town of Campbell on French Island near La Crosse, which has been dealing with PFAS contamination for years. “It’s been heart wrenching to know that my family and my friends and my neighbors have all been impacted by these toxic chemicals. I don’t wish anyone to have contamination in their water. And the sad part is we had no clue that PFAS was pouring from our faucets and that we were drinking that water for years and years and years before any notification was made.”

Initially authored by Rep. Jill Billings (D-La Crosse) and Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp), more than 60 legislators of both parties have signed onto the bill as co-sponsors, signaling the legislation has enough support to be signed into law during a legislative session in which efforts to find compromise on environmental issues — including efforts to extend the Knowles-Nelson stewardship grant program and to create a method to spend $125 million that has been set aside for more than two years to remediate PFAS contamination — have been stuck in the partisan muck. 

Under the bill, if the DNR finds an exceedance of the state’s groundwater standards the department will have seven days to notify the local county or tribal health department as well as the county land and conservation department. 

For several years, Wisconsin policymakers have been unable to establish a state standard for the acceptable amount of PFAS in the state’s groundwater, hitting roadblocks at the state Natural Resources Board and in the Republican-controlled Legislature. The state does have established standards for the amount of PFAS in the state’s surface water and the drinking water provided by municipal water utilities. 

As the Legislature has tried and failed to pass a bill that would spend the $125 million in the PFAS trust fund, residents of communities affected by PFAS contamination have frequently said the policy change they’d most like to see is the establishment of a groundwater standard. 

The contaminant notification bill does not establish a groundwater standard for PFAS, however it requires the DNR to notify the county government if the groundwater is found to have PFAS levels higher than the existing state standards for PFAS in surface or drinking water. 

About one-third of Wisconsin residents get their water from private drinking wells. While the bill does not establish a groundwater standard and does not provide any assistance if the groundwater they use to shower, brush their teeth, make coffee or mix baby formula is contaminated, proponents said it does make sure residents have the information they need to make decisions about the source of their water. 

“If people have a right to clean water, then they have a right to know when their water is not clean,” said Michael Tiboris, the agriculture and water policy director at the River Alliance of Wisconsin. “And this bill is exactly the kind of action that we appreciate having legislators take a strong position on, giving families knowledge of the threats to their drinking water makes it possible for them to protect themselves.” 

None of the people or groups that testified at the hearing Thursday were in opposition to the bill, but a few industry groups expressed a handful of complaints and said they’d like to see amendments to the bill’s final version. 

The concerns of business groups centered around making sure that any notifications were made after test results have been verified and making sure that the notifications don’t instigate regulatory action from the government that it doesn’t have the authority to undertake. 

“It’s just not appropriate for the government to take any kind of action,” said Adam Jordahl, director of environmental and energy policy at Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce. “I know it’s not a direct regulatory action where we’re expecting an individual or business to do something or comply with something, but nevertheless, the issue of sort of holding people accountable to a regulatory PFAS standard that has not yet actually been promulgated into the administrative code. We find that to be very problematic and kind of a slippery slope going down in terms of holding people accountable or responsible to something that hasn’t gone through the full rulemaking process.”

Scott Suder, the president of the Wisconsin Paper Council, said he’s concerned that prematurely telling people their water is contaminated could create “reputational risks” for nearby businesses. 

“It creates unnecessary legal and reputational risk for industry, potentially because the notice is subject to public inspection and copying under [Wisconsin open records law],” Suder said. “All exceedance notifications would become public records, creating significant disclosure and some reputational risks, so even minor errors or omissions could trigger liabilities, and the visibility of exceedances may lead to public misunderstanding about actual risks. So it is a bit concerning for industry as well.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A California Highway Patrol officer holds an evidence bag after taking a suspect into custody during a stop in Oakland, Calif. Many factors can influence a police agency’s clearance rate, including how quickly evidence is processed by crime labs. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Police departments’ “clearance rates” — the percentage of cases they declare closed — are one of the most widely cited benchmarks for how effectively they combat crime. Lawmakers reference clearance rates in hearings, mayors cite them during police budget debates, and community members often use them to judge how well their local department is functioning.

But the figures can be confusing — and in some cases misleading.

State lawmakers are pushing to better understand and improve clearance rates, as crime remains top of mind for many Americans and a defining issue in statehouses nationwide.

Efforts to help solve more crimes and support victims have become a rare area of bipartisan agreement. This year, lawmakers in Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Texas have considered or enacted measures that would boost police investigative capacity or improve crime data and clearance rate reporting.

A new law in Illinois will require all law enforcement agencies to publish routine clearance data on nonfatal shootings and homicides starting in July 2026.

Missouri enacted a similar law, which will go into effect in 2026, that directs the state’s Department of Public Safety to publish clearance rates statewide and create a new grant program to help police departments solve violent crimes. And Texas lawmakers established a pilot program to set up rapid DNA testing facilities in two counties.

Lawmakers and police officials in some of these states say raising clearance rates is both a public safety priority and a matter of providing closure for victims and families. Research suggests that the likelihood of being caught is one of the strongest deterrents to committing a crime — making clearance rates a closely watched indicator of how well the justice system is working.

Clearing crimes is critical for public safety because it takes repeat offenders off the streets, helps resolve cases that never made it into official reports, delivers justice for victims, and strengthens the community trust that helps police solve future cases, said Thaddeus Johnson, an assistant professor of criminal justice and criminology at Georgia State University. Johnson, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan think tank Council on Criminal Justice, also served as a police officer in Memphis, Tennessee, for a decade.

“Clearance rate reflects police actions, but also the vibe and how the community feels –– the confidence and faith they have in the police,” Johnson said.

Across the country, clearance rates for violent crimes — including homicide, rape and aggravated assault — have declined for decades. The national homicide clearance rate, for example, has fallen from 72% in 1980 to 61% in 2024, the most recent year with FBI data available.

The decline is similar across other major crime categories. In 1980, police cleared 49% of rapes and 59% of aggravated assaults. By 2024, those figures had fallen to 27% and 49%, respectively. Robbery clearance rates also shifted over time, rising from 24% in 1980 to 30% in 2024.

But those figures reflect national averages. At the local level, clearance rates vary widely, with some departments solving a large share of cases while others struggle with consistently low numbers.

Police departments in Vermont, Delaware and Idaho had the highest violent crime clearance rates in 2024, while New Mexico, Georgia and Mississippi had the lowest, according to a 50-state crime data analysis by the nonpartisan, nonprofit Council of State Governments Justice Center.

Some experts say there are several reasons clearance rates can swing in either direction. Chronic staffing shortages, overwhelmed detective units, rising caseloads and strained community relationships can push rates down. Strong victim and witness cooperation, better investigative technology and clearance of older backlogged cases can push them up.

At the same time, clearance rates — like most crime statistics — have limitations and can be difficult to understand.

Clearance rates, explained

A clearance rate is meant to show how often police solve reported crimes in a given year. The formula is simple — cleared cases divided by reported cases — but the definition of “cleared” is broad.

Under federal rules, cases can be cleared either by arrest or by “exceptional means.” Arrest clearances are straightforward: Police make an arrest, file charges and hand the case to prosecutors.

Exceptional clearances apply when police say they have enough evidence to arrest someone but cannot do so for reasons outside their control — for example, when a suspect has died, fled the country, is being held in another jurisdiction that won’t extradite, or when prosecutors decline to bring charges or victims choose not to move forward.

Since agencies have wide discretion in using exceptional clearances, similar cases may be counted as “solved” in one community and remain open in another. High exceptional clearance rates can give the impression that more arrests have been made than actually have.

Timing also complicates the statistics. Clearances are counted in the year a case is closed, not the year the crime occurred. For crimes that routinely take months or years to investigate, such as homicides or sexual assaults, this is common.

As a result, departments that focus on long-term investigations or suddenly receive new evidence may clear a batch of older cases, making their current-year rate look higher even though more recent cases remain unresolved.

Most agencies do not publicly break down how many of their annual clearances involve older cases, but that doesn’t mean they are intentionally manipulating their statistics.

National reporting isn’t airtight either. The FBI’s crime reporting program is voluntary, and some police departments may submit crime data but skip clearance data altogether.

Other measures of effectiveness

A clearance does not guarantee that prosecutors filed charges or that a case resulted in a conviction — outcomes that often matter most to victims and their families. It also doesn’t capture whether the right person was apprehended.

“It’s an imperfect metric for the performance of our criminal justice system,” said Marc Krupanski, the criminal justice policy director at Arnold Ventures, a philanthropic research organization.

Clearance rates also say little about investigative quality, how consistently police update families, how quickly officers respond or whether residents feel comfortable coming forward with information in the first place.

For these reasons, experts recommend looking at other measures, including prosecutorial outcomes, police response times, victim satisfaction and levels of community trust.

Some experts say clearance rates are most meaningful when analyzed over time — ideally 10 to 20 years — and adjusted per capita or per 100,000 residents. Breaking out clearances by arrest and exceptional means also adds important context, as does examining how many arrests lead to charges or convictions.

These outcomes, experts say, reflect both police work and community cooperation — from gathering witnesses to processing crime scenes and maintaining evidence — offering a clearer picture of investigative effectiveness.

Michigan’s proposal

Just last month, Michigan lawmakers introduced bipartisan legislation aimed at boosting the state’s clearance rates. Last year, Michigan police solved 48% of violent crimes, according to the Council of State Governments Justice Center’s analysis.

The House and Senate versions of the Violent Crime Clearance Act are sponsored by Republican state Rep. Sarah Lightner and Democratic state Sen. Stephanie Chang. The legislation would create a statewide grant program for police departments, allowing them to use the funds to hire and train investigators or crime lab personnel, upgrade evidence-collection equipment or record-management systems and support witnesses in violent crime investigations. It would also establish strict clearance rate reporting requirements.

“Regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum, I think there’s just a general belief that we want crimes to be solved,” Chang told Stateline.

Rural police departments, which often have fewer staff and limited investigative resources, sometimes face challenges in solving certain types of cases. To help address this, the bill would require that grants be distributed across the state, and that no single agency receive more than 20% of the total program funding in a given year.

Supporters, including Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard, say the legislation would provide much-needed help for overburdened departments.

“These aren’t just statistics. These are people. … They were dragged into the criminal justice system as a victim, and so for us, each case — and trying to find and bring closure, whether it’s an armed robbery, a rape or a murder — is critically important,” Bouchard said.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin electricity rates – for residential, industrial and commercial users – have exceeded regional averages annually for 20 years.

From 2003 through 2022, Wisconsin rates exceeded the averages in each of the three user categories for eight Midwest states, Wisconsin Public Service Commission reports show.

For the three categories combined, Wisconsin’s rate was second-highest in 2023-24 and third-highest in 2024-25 among 12 central region states, federal Energy Information Administration figures show.

Here are the July 2025 cents-per-kilowatt hour rates in Wisconsin versus the north central region average:

Residential: $18.30/$17.84

Commercial: $13.39/$13.31

Industrial: $9.87/$9.46

Electric bills rose for residential customers of Wisconsin’s five largest utilities, according to the Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board. For example, the average monthly We Energies bill for a typical residential customer was $128.65 in 2024, twice as high as $56.18 for 2004.

Booming data center construction in Wisconsin could affect utility rates.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Wisconsin Public Service Commission: Strategic Energy Assessment reports
• U.S. Energy Information Administration: Electric Power Monthly
• Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board: We Energies residential average bills
• Wisconsin Watch: Data center construction is booming, and it could affect utility rates

Have Wisconsin electricity price increases exceeded the Midwest average for 20 years? 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.