A Nonpartisan Comparison of Gubernatorial Candidates’ Energy Policies

Wisconsin is entering an important period of energy investment and transition.

Electricity demand is expected to grow as manufacturers expand, transportation becomes increasingly electrified, and data centers seek access to large amounts of power. At the same time, utilities must replace aging infrastructure, maintain dependable service, control costs, and decide which generation and grid resources should serve Wisconsin for decades.

The next governor will influence these decisions through appointments to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC), state budgets, administrative policy, economic-development agreements, and cooperation with the Legislature.

This voter-education guide summarizes and compares the gubernatorial candidates’ publicly stated positions on renewable energy and related electricity policy. It does not endorse, oppose, rank, rate, or assign grades to any candidate.

Candidates are presented alphabetically and evaluated through the same policy framework.

The Evaluation Framework

The comparison examines four characteristics of a modern Wisconsin energy system.

Cross-Cutting Policy Questions

Several issues affect all four areas and are therefore discussed throughout the comparison.

Affordability

Energy affordability includes more than the initial cost of constructing a power plant.

Coal and natural-gas facilities require ongoing fuel purchases, transportation, maintenance, and exposure to commodity price fluctuations. Wind and solar require significant upfront investment but do not incur continuing fuel expenses. Renewable integration may also require transmission, storage, grid controls, and other reliability resources.

A complete comparison must examine the cost of the entire electricity portfolio rather than the construction cost of one resource in isolation.

Land Use

Every large energy system has a physical footprint.

Wind and solar projects require land, roads, substations, and transmission. Conventional energy also requires generating stations, pipelines, rail infrastructure, fuel storage, transmission, and waste-management facilities. Nuclear power requires plant sites, cooling infrastructure, security areas, transmission, and long-term fuel and waste management.

The relevant questions include how much land is needed, whether compatible uses can continue, whether the use is temporary or permanent, how the community benefits, and what restoration or decommissioning requirements apply.

Public Service Commission Governance

The governor appoints members of the PSC, subject to Senate confirmation. Commissioners make consequential decisions concerning utility rates, power plants, transmission, customer programs, and long-term utility investments.

The candidates therefore differ not only on particular technologies but also on how Wisconsin’s regulatory system should make energy decisions.

Candidate Policy Summaries (Listed Alphabetically)

Areas of Agreement

Despite significant differences, several themes appear across multiple platforms.

Most candidates acknowledge that electricity affordability has become a serious public concern. Several support preventing data centers from transferring their costs to existing customers. Most recognize that Wisconsin will need additional electricity and infrastructure, although they disagree sharply over the technologies, ownership structures, regulations, and timelines involved.

There is also broad recognition that appointments to the PSC will influence Wisconsin’s energy future. The disagreement concerns what commissioners should prioritize and how those priorities should be measured.

Major Policy Differences

The clearest distinction is the role assigned to renewable energy.

Hong and Roys propose explicit long-term clean-energy objectives, with Hong also establishing a near-term renewable standard. Brennan emphasizes a planning process through which renewable resources would be compared with other options. Crowley emphasizes efficiency and clean-energy access but has published fewer generation-specific details.

Manske and Tiffany place much greater emphasis on nuclear or existing firm generation. Manske proposes a nuclear-led expansion of electricity supply, while Tiffany emphasizes retaining existing generating plants, limiting large wind and solar development, and pursuing advanced nuclear technology.

The candidates also differ over data centers. Their positions range from a temporary moratorium or possible prohibition to conditional approval, separate tariffs, self-generation, demand response, publicly owned clean infrastructure, and general protections against cost shifting.

Conclusion

Wisconsin’s gubernatorial candidates offer substantially different approaches to energy policy.

Some emphasize binding renewable-energy standards. Others focus on integrated planning, consumer protection, efficiency, nuclear development, or the preservation of existing firm generation. Their data-center proposals also differ in important ways, particularly regarding cost responsibility, clean-energy requirements, land use, and public ownership.

No energy technology is free of costs, risks, or physical impacts. Sound policy requires careful consideration of affordability, reliability, environmental consequences, land use, implementation timelines, and Wisconsin’s continuing dependence on fuels purchased outside the state.

The purpose of this guide is not to tell readers which candidate to support. It is to identify the policy choices before Wisconsin and provide a consistent foundation for further public discussion.

*Methodology and Nonpartisanship Statement

This publication is intended solely for nonpartisan public education.

It summarizes publicly available candidate positions using the same subjects and general analytical framework for every candidate included. Candidate names are presented alphabetically. The publication does not endorse, oppose, rank, rate, grade, or recommend any candidate or political party.

The analysis distinguishes among documented policy proposals, general statements of support, and areas where detailed public positions were not identified. Inclusion or omission of a particular proposal reflects the publicly available materials reviewed and should not be interpreted as support for or opposition to any candidate.

Readers are encouraged to review each candidate’s complete platforms and reach their own conclusions.

Over the past week, millions of people across the Midwest and East Coast have stepped outside to hazy skies, smelled smoke in the air, and checked their weather apps—not for rain, but for the Air Quality Index (AQI).

For many communities, the AQI has climbed from “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups” to “Unhealthy” and even “hazardous” categories because of wildfire smoke drifting south from Canada.

The culprit is PM2.5—fine particulate matter measuring 2.5 micrometers or smaller. These particles are so small that they can travel deep into your lungs and even enter your bloodstream. They’re associated with increased asthma attacks, heart disease, strokes, respiratory illness, and other serious health concerns.

We often talk about building an economy and a clean energy future we can afford, focusing on the cost of producing energy and the size of people’s energy bills. In this case, the discussion shifts to what we can’t afford. We can’t afford to keep making the choices that have turned these smoky summer days into a new normal.

Those decisions have not only brought us to this moment, but have been producing the same type of pollution driving today’s air quality alerts. PM2.5 is also one of the primary pollutants produced when coal is burned to generate electricity. Coal-fired power plants also emit sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), which can react in the atmosphere to create even more fine particulate pollution.

To be clear, not every wildfire is directly caused by climate change, but our choice to rely on fuel sources like coal and natural gas makes it more common. What’s worse is that our continued reliance on coal plants continues to regularly expose nearby residents to fine particulate pollution that can harm our health. The same kind of air pollution that much of the country is being exposed to right now. 

Every time smoke fills our skies, we change our behavior. We keep our children indoors, cancel outdoor events, run air purifiers, and hope the wind shifts. Unfortunately, those who live near coal plants don’t have the benefit of waiting for the winds to change.

It reminds us of something we often take for granted: Clean air matters.

That is why RENEW Wisconsin works every day to expand renewable energy across our state.

Every new solar array, every wind project, every battery installation, every clean energy policy we advance is about more than electricity. It’s about protecting the air we breathe, strengthening our economy, creating jobs in Wisconsin, and building an energy system that doesn’t rely on harmful combustion to keep the lights on.

This work doesn’t happen by accident.

It happens because people like you believe Wisconsin deserves a cleaner, healthier, and more resilient energy future.

If you’ve ever wondered whether your support makes a difference, it does.

Your donation helps RENEW Wisconsin:

• Advocate for clean energy policies at the Capitol and before state agencies.
• Support the responsible development of wind, solar, and energy storage.
• Expand access to renewable energy for schools, nonprofits, and communities.
• Educate the public with trusted, fact-based information.
• Build a healthier energy future for every Wisconsin family.

The next time you look outside and see a hazy sky, remember that while we can’t stop every wildfire, we can choose how we generate the electricity that powers our lives and build the future we want to see.

If you believe, like us, that we can’t afford to continue to rely on the energy sources that got us into this mess, I invite you to support RENEW Wisconsin today.

Together, we can build a state where clean air isn’t something we hope for—it’s something we protect.

Donate today and help power Wisconsin’s clean energy future.

Ismaeel Chartier
Executive Director, RENEW Wisconsin