Wisconsin stands at an energy crossroads. We Energies’ plan to build 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that threatens to lock in high energy costs, undermine clean energy goals and leave ratepayers footing the bill for outdated infrastructure.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 can’t afford.
Climate conflicts
We Energies has 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 fossil fuel reliance when cleaner, cheaper alternatives are available.
One justification 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.
Instead of overbuilding based on outdated projections, Wisconsin should prioritize flexible, adaptive energy solutions that can evolve with technology.
If Wisconsin lags in clean energy, it risks losing business investment. Major corporations such as Microsoft and Google have committed to 100% carbon-free energy by 2030. We Energies’ push for new gas plants contradicts these goals and could drive out investment.
Wisconsin should implement on-site demand response incentives for large energy users — reducing peak demand without costly new gas infrastructure.
Costly rush to gas
We Energies’ push for new gas plants is 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. Other Midwestern states favor renewables, battery storage and energy efficiency.
If Wisconsin fails to follow suit, residents and businesses could face skyrocketing energy costs and stranded, obsolete fossil fuel assets. Rather than allowing utilities to dictate energy policy, Wisconsin needs a strategic plan to manage its clean energy transition.Without a coordinated strategy, Wisconsin risks falling behind — leaving businesses and consumers to bear unnecessary costs.
The recent GreenBiz 25 conference proved businesses can “do well by doing good.” Companies are cutting energy use, reducing emissions and making strategic clean energy investments aligned with business and environmental goals.
Despite political resistance, businesses are stepping up, but they can’t do it alone. Wisconsin policymakers must work with businesses to create a regulatory environment that supports clean energy innovation.
Battery storage outpacing gas
The outdated notion that natural gas is the only way to meet peak demand is being disproven. Texas, California and 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, a proven technology that reduces emissions while stabilizing electricity rates.
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.
This “clean repowering” strategy allows for a smoother transition and maintains grid stability without 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.
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.
John Imes is co-founder, director and board president of the Wisconsin Environmental Initiative.
