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.

Understanding Third-Party Solar in Wisconsin

Understanding Third-Party Solar in Wisconsin

by | Jul 31, 2026 | RENEW Wisconsin, Solar, Utilities

Third-party solar, also known as Third-party ownership, takes two forms— a solar lease or a power purchase agreement. The lease option is similar to how you would lease a car, paying for the system’s use over time. The power purchase agreement would allow you to purchase the system’s energy from the installer at a rate lower than you would normally pay for energy. Both options for a more affordable pathway to solar exist but are caught in a legal gray area for Wisconsinites, but that doesn’t mean it’s never been allowed in the state.

Around 2020-2021, there were some Wisconsin utilities that allowed TPO. At this time, WE Energies notably blocked installations in Milwaukee that would have utilized TPO arrangements.

Requests for the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) to weigh in on legal clarity were unsuccessful until 2022. The PSC took up two “declaratory ruling” requests, ultimately approving a request to allow TPO on a case-by-case basis and rejecting a request to instead appoint criteria for TPO.

Utilities challenged the PSC ruling approving an instance of TPO on a case-by-case basis. The family involved in the ruling moved before there was resolution in a case that would have provided clarity on the matter. Without a customer for the solar system, the PSC ruling was invalid. It is possible that another person or organization could seek approval for a TPO solar system, but it hasn’t happened yet.

These days, utilities seem unified in their approach to block the TPO option in their territories. For the most part, electric utility cooperatives take a similar approach to TPO.

Though it’s our position that TPO could be allowed under current law, there are conflicting interpretations of the law resulting in legal uncertainty. The disagreement comes from the state statute that says only utilities are able to sell power to the public. With TPO, it has long been our view that a customer involved in a TPO contract is not the general public and that this would be a business transaction rather than a utility transaction.

We also recognize that all Wisconsin utilities are actively blocking TPO during the interconnection process, and the PSC is not able to stop them. Wisconsin solar installers should know this history and avoid offering TPO at this time. If an installer is offering TPO in Wisconsin as part of their services, it is either not aware of important regulatory information or is lying to customers.

If you are still considering a TPO offer from an installer, speak to your utility before moving forward with the project.

In the meantime, creating clarity around TPO remains a priority for RENEW. It is our hope that either a case will find its way before the Wisconsin Supreme Court and provide clarity around the use of TPO, or that new legislation can be crafted and passed to create a clear pathway for TPO.

This would allow us to join the 28 other states across the country that have opened a clear pathway to financing options that help more people gain access to the benefits of clean and affordable solar energy.

Virtual Power Plants Can Produce Real Results for Wisconsinites

Virtual Power Plants Can Produce Real Results for Wisconsinites

by | Jul 30, 2026 | RENEW Wisconsin, Utilities

In early July, the U.S. power grid experienced a heat dome that drove Americans’ energy usage to an all-time high. 

There is little doubt that heat waves fueled by climate change, coupled with the rising power use of data centers, will increasingly strain the electrical grid, likely driving up consumer costs even further. 

So, what can we do? Virtual power plants offer a real solution where customers can work with power providers to reduce demand for energy and use it efficiently — cutting costs for both consumers and utilities.

At the most basic level, virtual power plants (VPPs) are a network of energy users and suppliers that use existing energy resources in the community and within people’s homes to provide power to the grid—and to strategically reduce energy demand during periods of peak use.

VPPs can be managed by private technology or renewable energy companies, regulated utilities, or other program operators. To manage energy use, VPPs use various devices and technologies that create, store, and use power. This can include rooftop solar, electric vehicles (EVs), home and industrial-scale batteries, smart thermostats, water heaters, and other similar energy systems.

By managing these resources throughout the day as power demand rises and falls, VPPs ensure reliable power while producing energy savings and rewards for participating consumers.

Because they reduce peak power demand and enable a more flexible power grid, VPPs have the potential to reduce or eliminate the need to build expensive and polluting fossil fuel infrastructure.

Preventing these new gas-powered plants from being built eliminates the risk that utility customers, who are already burdened by recent energy rate increases, will be asked to pay for stranded fossil fuel infrastructure as Wisconsin transitions to a clean energy economy.

Particularly as large data centers drive a projected 40 percent increase in energy use by 2032, expanded VPP programs will be necessary to supply reliable power, reduce the health impacts of dirty fossil fuel plants, and keep Wisconsin on track for our 2050 carbon-free energy goal.

VPPs in Your Home

In areas where demand response programs are available, customers can voluntarily install smart thermostats, heat pumps, and other devices in their homes that can be managed remotely by the VPP operator. The operator can then reduce demand and draw excess energy to other users, in exchange for compensating the customers, often via bill credit.

VPP systems have begun to catch on throughout the United States, including in Chicago, where a smart thermostat VPP program was recently approved, slated to begin in May 2027. ComEd, the utility serving northern Illinois, will manage the Chicago program and utilize smart thermostats voluntarily installed by consumers. The program is estimated to save $60 per year for the average household.

So, what would the program look like in your home? Let’s say it’s a particularly hot August day, and your thermostat is set to 70 degrees to keep your house comfortable. A VPP operator may increase your house’s temperature to 73 degrees to reduce energy demand during the afternoon or early evening when energy consumption is high, and the energy grid is under stress.

Making this small change across thousands of homes will significantly reduce energy use and relieve stress on the grid. In exchange, you will receive a bill credit for allowing your thermostat to be remotely controlled.

In 2025, a brutal heat wave hit Vermont. But Green Mountain Power, the region’s utility, sourced power from customers’ batteries distributed across the state, reducing the need to buy expensive peak demand energy. Ultimately, the VPP saved consumers an estimated $3 million in energy costs for just one day — roughly $10 per customer.

RENEW’s Role in the VPP Revolution

Here in Wisconsin, RENEW Wisconsin is working to expand consumer access to rooftop solar systems, making it easier and more financially viable to install a miniature solar energy plant on your property.

Additionally, RENEW advocates for expanded consumer EV and Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) programs that reflect the value of consumers reducing their demand, connecting consumers to the energy system, and enabling customers to exert greater control over their energy — reaping the financial reward when they reduce energy consumption.

Wisconsin’s statewide energy efficiency program, Focus on Energy, provides $50 rebates on qualified smart thermostats across nearly all utilities in Wisconsin. Some utilities also offer demand response programs that are compatible with utility-eligible smart thermostats. These utility smart thermostat programs manage cooling during peak times and provide rewards or bill credits for customer participation.

WE Energies just unveiled a summer program that offers new participants $50 for allowing the utility to adjust their thermostat for up to four hours, with the option for customers to override the adjustment. Returning customers can get more than $6 per month for their participation, shaving a few dollars off their monthly bills.

Another example of a demand response program is WE Energies’ pilot EV program, which gives consumers credit for charging their EVs between 12 am and 8 am, when energy demand is low.

RENEW also advocates for consumers to get monthly bill credits for participating in demand response programs, such as Madison Gas and Electric’s smart thermostat and smart water heater programs. Monthly credits, as opposed to annual bill credits or gift cards, enable consumers to readily see how their participation is reducing energy demand and enabling grid flexibility.

In the future, RENEW will continue to advocate for utilities to make these programs permanent, larger, and more comprehensive — linking together thermostats, EVs, batteries, and rooftop solar to create a smart, responsive energy system for Wisconsin, powered by renewable energy and clean technology.

Doing so will reduce the need for outdated fossil fuel infrastructure, lower customers’ energy bills, and help meet all of Wisconsin’s growing power needs.

Brian Wagenaar, a Twin Cities native, is one of RENEW’s 2026 summer law clerks. He is currently a student at the University of Wisconsin Law School and starts his second year in the program this fall. Prior to his time at UW’s Law School, Brian earned his bachelor’s in environmental policy from UW-Green Bay.

The Great Wisconsin Energy Road Trip

The Great Wisconsin Energy Road Trip

by | Jul 20, 2026 | RENEW Wisconsin, Renewables

Imagine Wisconsin is about to take the most ambitious road trip in its history.

The destination? A future where the lights stay on, electric bills are affordable, businesses have the power they need to grow, and the air is cleaner than it is today.

Three people walk up to the driver’s seat and say, “I know the best way.” But they all want to take a different route.

Mandela Barnes: “Let’s Build Opportunity.”

Barnes looks out the windshield and says, “This trip should help everyone.”

His path focuses on creating good-paying jobs, expanding clean energy, and making sure the benefits reach working families and communities that have often been left behind.

His message is simple: Wisconsin can grow its economy while building more renewable energy.

Francesca Hong: “Let’s Build the Highway of the Future.”

Hong unfolds what appears to be the largest map anyone has brought. She talks about adding more solar and wind farms, more battery storage, and a stronger electric grid. She also wants Wisconsin to plan ahead rather than wait until there’s a problem.

When giant new electricity users, like AI data centers, move into Wisconsin, she argues they should pay for the new power plants and transmission lines they need, rather than sending the bill to everyone else.

Her route is ambitious and detailed.

Tom Tiffany: “Don’t Fix What Isn’t Broken.”

Tiffany eases off the gas and says, “Slow down.” Tiffany wants to pump the brakes on utility-scale renewable energy projects. His alternative? Wisconsin should lean into fossil fuels and add more nuclear energy generation to the mix to meet our energy needs and keep prices low.

Renewable energy could have a place on his map, but he believes nuclear energy and fossil fuels are what’s needed to meet Wisconsin’s energy needs.

More on The Candidates’ Energy Plans

Though RENEW has a preference for a route that includes the most renewable energy possible, that doesn’t automatically make the plan we prefer the “best” plan for every voter.

Francesca Hong

Hong brings the most complete blueprint to the table. Her plan covers renewable energy from nearly every angle—expanding solar and wind power, adding battery storage, strengthening the electric grid, improving energy efficiency, and planning for Wisconsin’s future energy needs. She also explains who should help pay for new infrastructure.

 Mandela Barnes

Barnes strongly supports renewable energy and clean-energy jobs. His vision is optimistic and focuses on creating opportunities for working families. While his goals are clear, his publicly released energy strategy contains fewer specific details about how those goals would be achieved.

Tom Tiffany

Tiffany’s focus is different. He believes that expanding nuclear power and relying on fossil fuels will drive down energy prices. Renewable energy might be part of his approach, but it is certainly not the centerpiece of his energy strategy. Because this report card grades only renewable energy policy, he receives the lowest score.

The Destination

Every candidate agrees on one thing:

Wisconsin needs more energy.

Where they disagree is how to build it, who should pay for it, and how quickly the state should move toward renewable energy.

As with every road trip, there are different routes to the same destination, but it’s up to the people of Wisconsin to decide who gets the keys.

*This blog post is not a candidate endorsement and includes the top three polling candidates at the time of publication. We encourage everyone to research the policies of each candidate and make their own decision on who has the best plan for them.

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
Wisconsin’s Climate Youth is an Energy Wakeup Call for Wisconsin

Wisconsin’s Climate Youth is an Energy Wakeup Call for Wisconsin

by | Jul 8, 2026 | RENEW Wisconsin, Renewables

Across the country, youth impacted by climate change have sued state governments on the theory that inaction in the face of the climate crisis violates their fundamental constitutional rights.

In one highly publicized case, Held v. State, 16 kids sued the State of Montana over environmental laws that shielded companies developing fossil fuel projects, forbidding the state from reviewing the full impacts of the projects’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The youth litigants won a decisive court victory, striking down that provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act and securing a declaration of their constitutional right to a “stable climate system.”

More recently, the Montana plaintiffs are back in court in 2026 seeking to reinforce their win and ensure Montana’s energy and environmental policy actually complies with the established right to a stable climate.

Wisconsin’s Youth Climate Case

Here in Wisconsin, the nonprofit legal advocacy group Our Children’s Trust teamed up with Midwest Environmental Advocates (MEA) to sue the state’s Public Service Commission (PSC) and the state legislature in 2025 in Dunn v. Wisconsin Public Service Commission.

In their complaint, the young plaintiffs — ranging from age 8 to 17 at the time the case was filed — challenged aspects of Wisconsin energy law that allow utilities to continue building fossil-fuel infrastructure despite the climate crisis.

The youth plaintiffs hail from a wide range of backgrounds, but they all share one tragic bond: climate change is making their lives measurably worse.

The climate crisis has forced some of their families to move, rendered many Wisconsin rivers and lakes degraded and unfit for swimming, fishing, and boating, robbed them of opportunities to engage in cultural activities like tapping maple trees for maple syrup, exposed them to a heightened risk of Lyme disease, exacerbated health issues like asthma, and led to a decline in their mental health.

Driven by these cultural, health, and economic impacts, many of these kids and young adults have dedicated themselves to climate education and activism.

But they can’t do it alone — they will need help from engaged Wisconsinites to push our legislators and courts to consider the true costs of continuing to develop more fossil fuel infrastructure when renewable energy alternatives are readily available.

The Youths’ Argument

In court, plaintiffs argued that the law prohibiting the PSC from considering the impacts of air pollution in issuing Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCNs) to large energy projects is unconstitutional, allowing the continued development of fossil fuel projects without considering their full costs to society.

Second, the youth argued that Wisconsin’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is unconstitutional, effectively putting a ceiling on the PSC’s ability to push utilities to supply more renewable energy.

In 2005, Wisconsin amended Act 9, setting an initial goal of 10 percent renewable energy by 2015. That goal was first met back in 2013, two years ahead of schedule. Since then, the PSC has been unable to require more renewable energy to support our statewide climate goal, or even accurately track the renewable energy portfolio of Wisconsin’s utilities. This shortcoming has led Wisconsin to fall behind in the adoption of renewable energy.

Without the ability to mandate that utilities develop more renewable energy, Wisconsin will struggle to meet the long-range 2050 goal of 100% carbon-free energy set by Governor Evers.

The plaintiffs argue that these maladies in Wisconsin law are violating their foundational rights to life and liberty, which rest on a stable climate system.

They also argue that the defendant’s inadequate response to climate change was violating Wisconsin’s Public Trust Doctrine and depriving plaintiffs of the ability to use and enjoy Wisconsin’s bountiful water resources: our many public rivers and lakes. Sadly, Wisconsin’s public waterways are increasingly degraded by extreme heat and algal blooms closely linked to climate change.

The Lower Court’s Ruling

Despite a load of evidence, the plaintiffs’ case was dismissed by the court. While the judge sympathized with the youth, acknowledging that the plaintiffs showed clear harm from climate change, they decided that this case is not fit for resolution in a courtroom.

Instead, the court said the plaintiffs’ cause is an energy policy issue that would be better addressed in the state legislature.

However, the plaintiffs are appealing that decision and fighting to bring awareness to the human impacts of the climate crisis, and to push Wisconsin to take meaningful action to mitigate climate change and protect the future of all Wisconsinites.

The High Cost of Fossil Fuels

The natural gas plants that Wisconsin utilities and power producers are currently building and proposing will operate for 30 or more years, producing a wide range of serious, negative environmental health impacts for Wisconsinites.

Natural gas and coal plants struggle to compete with solar and wind power on costs, and that’s not including the often-ignored economic and health costs of fossil fuel projects, which include dirtier air, a slew of health risks, and early death.

In 2025, WE Energies received PSC approval for two massive natural gas plants, Oak Creek and the Paris Generation Project.

While some have touted natural gas as a cleaner “bridge” fuel, analysis conducted by Healthy Climate Wisconsin and the Union of Concerned Scientists predicts that the plants will cost more than $5 billion in health impacts from particulate, sulfur, and other forms of toxic pollution over their three-decade lifespan, with impacts in Wisconsin and neighboring states like Michigan.

These new plants will particularly harm people with existing heart or respiratory issues, as well as communities that have already borne the hefty costs of fossil fuel development.

Overall, Wisconsinites will be less healthy as a result of these natural gas projects, in addition to the broader impact on climate change from burning methane — a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide.

The roughly $2 billion WE Energies is spending developing the Oak Creek and Paris projects could have been used to build large-scale solar or wind farms that would have provided clean, reliable energy.

Wisconsin’s Clean Energy Future

With the technology we have available, there is no need for more outdated, dirty fossil fuel infrastructure in Wisconsin.

RENEW Wisconsin is fighting to put solar and wind on level ground with fossil fuels — because solar and wind power prevail when they are given a fair chance to compete in the energy market.

A brighter and attainable Wisconsin energy future powered by renewable energy would produce reliable power, create jobs, and lessen air pollution, leading to a healthier and wealthier Badger State.

A combination of rooftop, community solar, large-scale solar, energy conservation, smart demand reduction programs, and battery storage can meet all of Wisconsin’s energy needs, even with the projected increase in energy demand from data centers.

That is the future RENEW Wisconsin is fighting for.

Brian Wagenaar, a Twin Cities native, is one of RENEW’s 2026 summer law clerks. He is currently a student at the University of Wisconsin Law School and starts his second year in the program this fall. Prior to his time at UW’s Law School, Brian earned his bachelor’s in environmental policy from UW-Green Bay.