Action Alert: Pairing Batteries With Solar Should Be Easy

Action Alert: Pairing Batteries With Solar Should Be Easy

by | Sep 25, 2026 | Action Alert, Advocacy, Renewables

This Action Alert might seem similar to one we sent earlier this month. We are, in fact, working to make it easier to pair batteries with residential solar across multiple utility territories!

Batteries are a great option for energy resiliency as they provide power during grid service outages. As they become more cost-effective, more people are hoping to pair them with solar. Unfortunately, utilities have been throwing hurdles in the way, preventing customers from storing and using the energy they create with their own rooftop solar array.

In WPS’ current rate case before the PSC, RENEW has addressed this issue head-on and is asking the PSC to step in and regulate utility interconnection practices. 

When installing a solar array, utilities often factor in the size of a rooftop solar array when they determine the cost to connect the system to the electrical grid. WPS adds the capacity of batteries intended to store energy at home (non-exporting) to the solar capacity in order to increase these costs and also make it so customers can’t benefit from net metering.

This utility practice has effectively blocked all non-exporting batteries from being installed in WPS’ service territory. To solve this, we need the PSC to officially tell WPS to stop this unreasonable practice and allow customers to install batteries that they can pair with their rooftop solar arrays.

Join us in telling the PSC to regulate WPS and require the utility to allow customers to pair batteries with their own rooftop solar. The deadline to file public comments with the PSC is October 5th.

TAKE ACTION

Sample comment:

WPS is blocking customers from adding batteries to their solar systems, but the PSC can remove this unreasonable hurdle and enable customers to invest in their own energy resilience. Certified, non-exporting batteries help customers store their own solar power for when the grid goes down.

Yet WPS has made it impossible for customers to add these batteries by increasing interconnection costs and pushing solar customers out of net metering. I urge the PSC to do the right thing and allow customers to add batteries to their rooftop solar!

Action Alert: Tell the PSC Pairing Batteries With Rooftop Solar Should Be Easy

Action Alert: Tell the PSC Pairing Batteries With Rooftop Solar Should Be Easy

by | Sep 11, 2026 | Action Alert, Advocacy, Renewables

As batteries have become more cost-effective, they have also become more in demand, in part, for the energy resiliency they provide during grid service outages. But as more homeowners and businesses attempt to add batteries to their solar systems, utilities have been throwing hurdles in the way, preventing customers from storing and using the energy they create with their own rooftop solar array.

In WE Energies’ current rate case before the PSC, RENEW has addressed this issue head-on and is asking the PSC to step in and regulate utility interconnection practices. 

When installing a solar array, utilities often factor in the size of a rooftop solar array when they determine the cost to connect the system to the electrical grid. WE Energies adds the capacity of batteries intended to store energy at home (non-exporting) to the solar capacity in order to increase these costs and also make it so customers can’t benefit from net metering.

This utility practice has effectively blocked all non-exporting batteries from being installed in WE Energies’ service territory. To solve this, we need the PSC to officially tell WE Energies to stop this unreasonable practice and allow customers to install batteries that they can pair with their rooftop solar arrays.

Join us in telling the PSC to regulate WE Energies and require the utility to allow customers to pair batteries with their own rooftop solar. The deadline to file public comments with the PSC is September 18.

*The deadline has passed for this comment period

Action Alert: Support Columbia Wind

Action Alert: Support Columbia Wind

by | Aug 20, 2026 | Action Alert, Advocacy, Renewables, Solar

Update: The comment period for the draft EIS has closed

A draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) created by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) staff regarding the Columbia Wind energy project is out for public comment. The EIS analyzes the social, cultural, and environmental impacts that could result from the Columbia Wind Project. The EIS should include the positive benefits the project would bring. However, the current draft EIS stops short of actually estimating Columbia Wind’s positive environmental benefits, such as the public health benefits of emission reductions.

RENEW Wisconsin is submitting comments asking the PSC to make sure that both estimates of avoided emissions and climate change impacts are included in the final version of the EIS. The positive impacts of reduced air pollution from projects like Columbia Wind are necessary for helping the general public understand why clean energy projects like Columbia Wind are so important. Join us in telling the PSC that reduced climate impacts and greenhouse gas emissions are necessary for a complete EIS.

Personalized comments are more effective, please take the time to make your message to the PSC unique. Comments on the EIS are due on August 28 and are for regulatory staff, but EIS comments are not officially part of the Commission record. There will be an opportunity to submit official comments in support of Columbia Wind this fall.

Sample Comment:

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), prepared by the DNR and PSC for Columbia Wind, needs to include information about the emissions that will be avoided thanks to this project. By reducing the amount of emissions we put into the air, we reduce health issues caused by fossil fuels and avoid causing greater damage to our climate. The EIS is not complete without these necessary details.

Wisconsin’s Energy Future

Wisconsin’s Energy Future

by | Aug 4, 2026 | Advocacy, RENEW Wisconsin

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.

Clean

Does the policy seek to reduce air pollution, greenhouse-gas emissions, water impacts, and other environmental consequences associated with producing and delivering energy?

For purposes of this analysis, “clean” is broader than “renewable.” Nuclear power, for example, produces low operational carbon emissions but is not classified as a renewable resource.

Renewable

Does the policy support the responsible development of wind, solar, hydropower, geothermal energy, biogas, distributed generation, and complementary technologies such as battery storage?

This category also considers whether a candidate has offered measurable deployment targets, financing mechanisms, permitting changes, or other implementation policies.

Reliable

Does the policy support an electric system capable of serving Wisconsin homes, farms, hospitals, schools, and businesses at all hours and during extreme conditions?

Relevant policies include transmission, storage, demand response, generation diversity, resource planning, regional coordination, and firm or flexible generating capacity.

Independent

Does the policy increase Wisconsin’s ability to produce energy within the state, reduce exposure to imported fuels and volatile commodity prices, and retain more energy investment within Wisconsin communities?

This category also considers whether major new electricity users would pay the costs of the generation and infrastructure needed to serve them.

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)

Joel Brennan

Renewable and Clean Energy

Brennan supports establishing a requirement for Wisconsin utilities to reach 100% clean energy by 2050. His approach places substantial emphasis on restoring integrated resource planning, through which utilities would compare generation, transmission, storage, efficiency, environmental impacts, reliability, and cost before undertaking major investments.

The planning process could create a structured method for comparing renewable resources with conventional generation, storage, transmission, and energy-efficiency measures. The public materials reviewed provide less detail on interim renewable-energy targets, distributed solar, transportation electrification, or specific wind and solar deployment programs.

Reliability and Grid Planning

Brennan’s proposal gives considerable attention to long-term system planning. Integrated resource planning is intended to evaluate future demand and determine which combination of resources can meet it reliably and economically.

He also proposes linking utility financial performance more closely to affordability outcomes rather than relying primarily on returns from capital investment.

Affordability and Utility Regulation

Brennan’s approach would examine utility costs through a formal planning process and seek to link utility earnings to measures of customer affordability.

This would represent a change in how utility performance is evaluated, though implementation would require regulators to define standards for affordability, reliability, and performance carefully.

Principal Implementation Questions

The principal questions are how self-generation would be defined, whether generation would need to be renewable, how demand-response obligations would be enforced, and what interim steps would lead to the 2050 clean-energy objective.

David Crowley

Renewable and Clean Energy

Crowley supports expanding access to clean-energy technologies and describes climate policy as an opportunity for job creation and economic development. His publicly available materials emphasize energy efficiency and access more than specific renewable-generation mandates.

The materials reviewed do not establish a detailed statewide renewable-energy percentage, a timetable for replacing particular generating resources, or a comprehensive wind, solar, and storage deployment plan.

Reliability and Grid Planning

Crowley emphasizes appointing PSC Commissioners with technical competence and a commitment to reliability, transparency, innovation, consumer protection, and long-term planning.

This approach places considerable responsibility on administrative leadership and the regulatory process rather than establishing a detailed generation portfolio in the campaign platform.

Affordability and Utility Regulation

Crowley proposes expanding weatherization and energy-efficiency initiatives. These programs can lower household costs by reducing the amount of energy needed rather than relying exclusively on new generation.

His position also emphasizes protecting consumers and increasing accountability in utility decision-making.

Principal Implementation Questions

The principal question is how the administration would translate broad support for clean energy, efficiency, and consumer protection into measurable policies for generation, transmission, storage, and emissions.

Francesca Hong

Renewable and Clean Energy

Hong supports statutory clean-energy and carbon-reduction standards. Her bold agenda includes a proposed requirement for 60% renewable electricity by 2030 and 100% clean electricity by 2040.

Her platform also supports a state green bank intended to attract private capital for renewable energy, energy efficiency, resilience, and related infrastructure.

Additional proposals address electric vehicles, electric school buses, building standards, labor requirements, and community benefits.

Reliability and Grid Planning

Hong’s approach anticipates a rapid expansion of renewable generation and grid infrastructure. Meeting the proposed targets would likely require substantial additions of transmission, storage, interconnection capacity, demand management, and firm or flexible resources.

The platform establishes specific clean and renewable objectives, although additional detail is needed on the operational sequence to achieve them while maintaining reliability.

Affordability and Utility Regulation

Hong supports limiting the energy burden on lower-income households and restricting the use of ratepayer money for certain utility lobbying and executive compensation expenses. She also supports permitting local governments to establish publicly operated utilities.

These proposals raise broader questions about utility governance, financing, and the balance between consumer protection and infrastructure investment.

Principal Implementation Questions

The principal questions concern the speed of transmission and generation development, financing and ownership of new infrastructure, local siting, storage and firm-capacity needs, and the conditions under which a temporary data-center moratorium would end.

Andy Manske

Renewable and Clean Energy

Manske’s energy platform centers on nuclear generation rather than wind and solar. He describes nuclear power as a low-carbon, land-efficient energy source that could provide a much larger supply of electricity.

He does not reject wind and solar outright, but his public platform gives nuclear development the primary role in Wisconsin’s future energy system.

Because nuclear power is low-carbon but not renewable, the platform addresses clean electricity and renewable electricity differently.

Reliability and Grid Planning

Manske argues that nuclear generation could provide large amounts of dependable electricity and reduce reliance on weather-dependent resources.

His platform proposes accelerating nuclear approvals and subsidizing new construction. The available materials do not provide detailed timelines, reactor selections, financing structures, transmission requirements, or methods for allocating construction and cost-overrun risks.

Affordability and Utility Regulation

Manske argues that building multiple nuclear plants would produce very inexpensive electricity. New nuclear projects, however, require substantial capital, specialized labor, licensing, fuel arrangements, cooling systems, transmission connections, security, and waste planning.

Whether the proposal would lower consumer rates would depend heavily on financing terms, construction performance, regulatory treatment, and which parties bear development risks.

Principal Implementation Questions

The principal questions concern capital costs, licensing and construction timelines, taxpayer or ratepayer exposure, fuel and waste management, and how near-term electricity needs would be met before new nuclear facilities could begin operating.

Kelda Roys

Renewable and Clean Energy

Roys supports a statewide goal of reaching 100% clean energy by 2050. Her platform describes wind and solar as important sources of new electricity and connects clean-energy development with lower long-term fuel exposure and economic growth.

She also supports expanding Focus on Energy and increasing investment in Wisconsin’s clean-technology sector.

Reliability and Grid Planning

Roys’ approach combines renewable development with efficiency, regulatory capacity, and long-term planning.

Her published materials provide less detail on interim generation targets, storage quantities, transmission expansion, or the role of firm-generating resources during the transition.

Affordability and Utility Regulation

Roys supports expanding energy-efficiency programs, increasing PSC staffing and technical capacity, and strengthening consumer representation through the Citizens Utility Board.

These proposals focus on both reducing energy consumption and improving the institutions responsible for reviewing utility costs and investments.

Principal Implementation Questions

The principal questions concern interim milestones before 2050, transmission and storage requirements, the design of renewable-energy obligations for data centers, and the methods used to measure whether consumer savings are being achieved.

Tom Tiffany

Renewable and Clean Energy

Tiffany’s platform places greater emphasis on preserving conventional generating resources and developing nuclear power than on expanding wind and solar. He also supports creating new restrictions specifically for renewable energy projects.

He has criticized policies that encourage large-scale renewable projects on agricultural land and supports limiting incentives for utility-scale wind and solar development.

His approach would preserve a larger role for existing firm or “baseload” generation while encouraging new nuclear technologies.

Reliability and Grid Planning

Tiffany argues that Wisconsin should prevent the premature closure of dependable generating facilities and appoint PSC Commissioners who prioritize reliability, affordability, and firm generating capacity.

This approach emphasizes the output of individual generating plants. A complete reliability strategy would also need to address transmission, flexible resources, regional markets, storage, demand response, fuel availability, and the economics of maintaining aging facilities.

Affordability and Utility Regulation

Tiffany attributes part of Wisconsin’s utility-cost problem to energy policies that encourage renewable development without producing sufficient dependable in-state generation.

His approach seeks to lower rates by reducing regulations and preserving existing resources. The long-term effect on customer costs would depend on plant-maintenance expenses, future fuel prices, the economics of proposed nuclear technologies, and the cost of alternatives.

Principal Implementation Questions

The principal questions concern the criteria for retaining existing plants, the treatment of uneconomic facilities, the timetable and cost of new nuclear technologies, Wisconsin’s continuing exposure to imported fuels, and the absence of a detailed wind, solar, storage, or distributed-generation strategy.

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.

Dawn Break Solar Approved by the PSC

Dawn Break Solar Approved by the PSC

by | Jul 30, 2026 | Advocacy, Renewables, Solar

On Thursday, July 30, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) approved Dawn Break Solar. This Waushara County project comes in at 180 Megawatts (MW) and is paired with an equally large battery energy storage system (BESS). Many renewable energy advocates joined us in supporting this project, thanks to all of you who helped us support this project as it sought approval from the PSC.

In our comments that advocated for this project, we highlighted both the benefits of the clean energy it will produce, along with the many economic benefits.

When construction is completed, Dawn Break Solar is expected to create many temporary construction jobs, as well as several long-term local jobs for operations and maintenance. Landowners will also benefit from consistent lease payments during the 35-year lifespan of the project.

Over the course of its life, the project will contribute more than $31.5 million in utility-aid payments. Local governments will receive $900,000 annually, with $510,000 for Waushara County and $390,000 for the Towns of Oasis, Plainfield, Deerfield, and Hancock.

Along with the many direct economic benefits, Dawn Break Solar will reduce emissions from energy production by about 600 million pounds of CO2 in the first year of operations. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, this is the equivalent of taking more than 59,100 vehicles off the road for a full year.

The more we reduce our emissions, the more benefits we will see, specifically better health outcomes. In this case, Wisconsin can expect more than $1.3 million in economic benefits associated with public health improvements in Dawn Break Solar’s first year of operations alone.

Dawn Break Solar is just one piece of the clean energy puzzle. We hope you’ll all continue to join us in supporting invaluable projects like this as we continue to build our clean energy future.

When the Sky Turns Orange, It Changes the Conversation About Energy

When the Sky Turns Orange, It Changes the Conversation About Energy

by | Jul 17, 2026 | Advocacy, RENEW Wisconsin

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

DONATE HERE