Press Releases

Fact vs. Fiction: WE Energies is Peddling Wisconsinites Expensive Gas Plants

TAGS:
Freedom from Fossil Fuels State Climate Action
Press Contact: Emily Halvorson

To: Interested Parties 
From: Evergreen Action Senior Policy Lead Mattea Mrkusic and Evergreen Action Deputy Director for the Midwest Region Courtney Brady 
Date: Monday, March 24, 2025
RE: Fact vs. Fiction: WE Energies is Peddling Wisconsinites Expensive Gas Plants

Clean energy is affordable. It can be quickly built, provides grid resilience, and is reliable for quick backup power. But recently, WE Energies issued a press release trying to justify why the Wisconsin-based utility should build new expensive and unnecessary gas plants in the state. Why they’re doing this is clear: Utilities profit from new infrastructure. WEPCO is pushing gas in part because it will reap short-term profits for its shareholders, with a guaranteed rate of return, while offloading risk and costs—higher energy costs and stranded asset risks—onto their ratepayers.

Let’s take a hard look at the claims put forward by WE Energies—and set the record straight.

Fiction: “Sun and wind are not enough,” stated WE Energies, trying to sow doubts about the reliability of clean energy. Their press release argues that gas plants need to be “available and running when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.” 

Fact: Solar and wind energy, paired with battery storage and other technologies, can and already are supporting reliable grids. The Wisconsin grid can support much more wind and solar without new gas; other regions and countries are successfully managing penetration levels of wind and solar several times higher already. Modern battery storage systems can rapidly respond to fluctuations in energy demand, offering a viable alternative to new fossil fuel-based peaker plants. For instance, studies have shown that battery storage systems are approximately 30% cheaper than gas peaker plants for firming renewables, with faster reaction times and greater flexibility. 

WE Energies’ press release also points to examples of when wind power diminished during a dangerous heat wave and a winter storm as a reason why they need to invest in fossil gas infrastructure. In fact, we know that clean energy, when complemented with battery storage, can provide reliable power during extreme weather events and has done so countless times. Meanwhile, gas plants have a long history of failing during cold snaps. 

Fiction: WE Energies contends that “quick-start” fossil gas plants are essential for meeting immediate energy demands. In fact, thanks to improvements in technology, battery storage systems now offer faster response times than gas plants. While gas turbines can take several minutes to start up, battery storage can respond almost instantaneously to fluctuations in energy demand, providing a more efficient and flexible solution for grid stability. Moreover, the deployment of battery storage is often quicker and more cost-effective than constructing new fossil gas plants, which are currently subject to turbine shortages and long construction timelines for plants and pipelines.

Fact: Gas plants are a more expensive option that could leave ratepayers on the hook for decades—especially if WE Energies is overestimating projections for demand growth. 

  • New modeling from RMI shows that building the Oak Creek gas plant could leave ratepayers on the hook for an additional $1.25 billion in energy costs—especially if the plant becomes an unused stranded asset due to over-estimation of demand growth. If new gas plants became stranded assets when displaced by more affordable and less volatile clean energy sources, ratepayers would bear the cost. Fossil gas is hardly a ‘bridge’ fuel – it’s more an unnecessary and expensive diversion from affordable clean energy. 
  • In expert testimony to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC), 5 Lakes Energy showed that WE Energies has not fully demonstrated the actual need for additional power capacity based on their demand projects—undercutting the justification for new gas plants. If demand growth is uncertain or can be managed through efficiency and storage systems, then building new costly gas plants would be wasteful and come at the expense of ratepayers. 
  • A PSC analysis found that high fossil gas prices are driving increased renewable adoption because renewables provide long-term price stability and lower costs for ratepayers. 

Wisconsin deserves a thriving and affordable clean energy economy. The state’s clean energy goal to use 100% carbon-free electricity by 2050 is feasible and the right path to save people money on their electricity bills. When compared to gas, clean energy is a no-brainer for these 5 reasons:

  • Clean energy is cheaper than gas. WE Energies’ proposed Oak Creek gas plant would incur higher energy bills for households and small businesses.
  • Clean energy is faster. Renewable energy and storage can be built faster than fossil gas. The supply chain for combined-cycle gas turbines is struggling to meet projected demand. If load growth projections are correct, we should invest in quicker-to-build renewable energy to keep the lights on.
  • Clean energy is healthier. New gas plants would harm the public health of Wisconsinites. It would also undermine Wisconsin’s state clean energy goal to use 100% carbon-free electricity by 2050. 
  • Clean energy is resilient. Gas plants can fail in extreme temperatures. 
  • Clean energy is reliable. When paired with storage, renewable energy can support a reliable grid and reduce the need for expensive gas.


But WE Energies is ignoring these facts and instead pushing the misleading narrative that gas plants are necessary to ensure reliability. The Wisconsin PSC must scrutinize these claims closely before approving new gas infrastructure that could leave ratepayers on the hook for higher energy costs.