Wisconsin's energy future: A smarter, more affordable path forward

Yahoo

06-03-2025

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that threatens to lock in high energy costs, undermine clean energy goals, and leave ratepayers footing the bill for outdated infrastructure.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.
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 Instead of overbuilding based on outdated projections, Wisconsin should prioritize flexible, adaptive energy solutions that can evolve with technology.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX