A Rigged System: Lack of Transparency in Planning

One of the major problems in Wisconsin and several other states heavily dependent on fossil fuels is a lack of transparent utility planning processes. 

Wisconsin lacks an Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process, allowing utilities like WEPCO to push costly fossil fuel projects without much scrutiny.  Without this critical transparency measure, utilities can overstate energy demand to justify new fossil fuel projects—locking in unnecessary, expensive investments that are likely to become stranded assets. In states with IRP processes, utility proposals can receive more scrutiny and are more closely tied to demand projections and alternative analyses. If the Oak Creek gas plant isn’t stopped or at least delayed until viable alternatives can be fully assessed, residents will end up paying for decades of bad energy planning while cleaner, cheaper options are not even studied.

States need to empower their public service commissions to demand real transparency in a rapidly changing energy landscape. In Wisconsin, failing to do that will cause the state to fall behind. For years, the Republican-controlled legislature has neglected commonsense energy policies while neighboring states reap the economic and environmental benefits of clean energy leadership. Without legislative action to require integrated resource planning, Wisconsin risks higher costs, missed investment opportunities, and continued reliance on outdated energy infrastructure.

Manipulating Demand Projections for Profit

Utilities aren’t just pushing gas expansion; they’re often exaggerating demand to justify it. Without transparent processes to prevent utilities from getting rubber-stamped approval for new power plants without sufficient proof of need, ratepayers could end up footing the bill for unnecessary, polluting infrastructure.

While utilities cite expected explosive growth in data center electricity demand, the reality is more nuanced. Microsoft has already paused construction and canceled leases for planned data centers across the country and power demand may be overestimated even if the data centers are constructed, casting doubt on the demand projections used to justify gas plants in Wisconsin. Wisconsinites shouldn’t be forced to pay for Big Tech’s misprojected energy needs to benefit fossil fuel corporations.

Selling Out Communities for Profit: Who Pays the Price for These Plants? 

The Oak Creek gas plant wouldn’t just raise energy bills; it would harm surrounding communities who have already suffered the consequences of an expensive, dirty coal plant at the same site for decades. Gas plants aren’t a “clean” alternative to coal. In addition to climate pollution, they release pollutants that worsen respiratory conditions, increase heart disease, and contribute to premature deaths. 

A study from PSE Healthy Energy and Healthy Climate Wisconsin found that pollution from the Oak Creek gas plant and another new gas project being proposed by WEPCO, the Paris plant, could cause 165 to 264 premature deaths over 30 years, with cumulative health and economic costs reaching $5.7 billion. WEPCO is gambling with public health because it knows it won’t pay the price; ratepayers and communities on the frontlines of these gas plants will.

Clean Energy is the Most Affordable, Reliable Way Forward 

Americans who pay electricity bills shouldn't have to subsidize the fossil fuel industry's outdated and costly business model. The smarter path forward is clear: investing in clean energy, energy efficiency, and grid-enhancing technologies. These investments provide reliable, cheaper power amid growing power demand. 

In the face of so much misinformation, Wisconsin needs a fair and transparent utility planning process that allows for more scrutiny before unnecessary fossil fuel projects are approved at people’s expense. Rejecting these rash gas plant proposals—while strengthening clean energy targets and committing to more thoughtful capacity planning—will ensure a more responsible, affordable path as renewable costs continue to decline.

When utilities push expensive gas infrastructure over cleaner, more cost-effective alternatives, states must hold them accountable for misleading the public and delaying progress. States have the power—and the responsibility—to shape an energy future that serves their residents, not corporate profits.