top of page
Save The Date Sept 2023 (Instagram Post (Square)) (2).png

Demand Energy Justice 
for Health

We believe every Wisconsinite, regardless of how much money they make, should have access to safe, affordable, and clean energy. That future is possible if we stand together.

Protecting the health of our loved ones is something we can all agree on. We Energies’ rate case and proposals prioritize fossil fuel investments over the health of our communities: they would keep Wisconsinites reliant on fossil fuels that pollute the air in our lungs, contaminate the water we rely on, and destabilize our climate. 

WEC Energy Group, which owns several utility companies including We Energies, is proposing to:

Increase their rates (again) in 2025 and 2026: We Energies has proposed raising rates to 9.25% in 2025 and an additional 8.5% in 2026. They estimate that their average residential customer will pay over $150/month in utility costs by 2026.

 

Build methane gas projects: We Energies wants to build two new massive methane gas plants, which directly contradicts their stated commitment to achieve “net-zero carbon emissions from power generation by 2050”.

 

Increase their Return on Equity (ROE): We Energies is asking to increase the share of dollars that they can earn returns on from 9.8% to 10%. 

 

Continue profiting from stranded assets: We Energies intends to earn more than $300 million in profits on their Oak Creek coal plant after it’s no longer operating.

This is a health issue!

These proposals would harm climate and public health and increase energy burden, which  ​is the percentage of income a household spends on energy costs.

 

Explore the following resources to learn and share why energy burden is a serious health issue.

Screen Shot 2024-07-12 at 4.28.31 PM.png

Educate yourself and others with this brief 2-page overview

Utility Pole

Action Toolkit

Energy Justice

Action Toolkit

Take actionable steps toward a more equitable energy system

Screenshot 2024-07-24 115858.png

See more information about how gas harms organ systems.

The Public Service Commission (PSC) is the state agency that regulates utility monopolies in Wisconsin.

 

If approved, the burden of rate hikes and fossil fuel infrastructure will primarily affect families, with business and industrial customers experiencing a lesser rate increase.

WEC Energy Group’s shareholder profits are higher than any utility company in the state and higher than the national average. They have provided their shareholders with increasing dividends every year for the past 20 years and gave out a record-high $984 million in shareholder dividends in May 2024In 2022, the PSC pushed back against We Energies and decreased their ROE to 9.8%. This generated some savings for customers, but profit levels are still too high and We Energies is requesting to return their ROE to 10%.

 

We Energies is telling communities that the new price hikes are to support “clean” energy. Methane gas is NOT clean energy. We cannot let We Energies prioritize profits while communities of color and low-to-moderate-income families continue to struggle to pay rising utility bills and associated health costs. 


Join us in protecting the health of Wisconsin families that are already struggling to make ends meet.

Tell the PSC, the state agency with the power to regulate utilities, to require that We Energies:

Limit total energy bill burden to at least 6%, which is where the threshold for high energy burden begins.

Deny proposed methane gas infrastructure. It is a fossil fuel that threatens our health and our climate.

Pursue wind, solar, and energy efficiency to improve customer cost savings, community health, and environmental health.

Adopt the following programs prior to further rate increases: Percentage of Income Payment Program (PIPP), Arrearage Management Program, and pilot geo-targeted energy efficiency programs to lower bills.

Key Action Dates

More information regarding upcoming PSC hearing dates and times will be posted here as it becomes available. 

Upcoming Events

  • Tue, Dec 10
    Milwaukee - In-Person Location TBD
    Dec 10, 2024, 7:00 PM – 8:00 PM CST
    Milwaukee - In-Person Location TBD
    Dec 10, 2024, 7:00 PM – 8:00 PM CST
    Milwaukee - In-Person Location TBD
    Join us for a special in-person strategy session! Please contact Brittany Keyes at brittany@healthyclimatewi.org for location details.
    Share
  • Fri, Nov 15
    La Crosse
    Nov 15, 2024, 8:00 AM CST – Nov 16, 2024, 3:00 PM CST
    La Crosse, 1827 Sims Pl, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA
    Nov 15, 2024, 8:00 AM CST – Nov 16, 2024, 3:00 PM CST
    La Crosse, 1827 Sims Pl, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA
    Share
  • What is energy burden and how is it driven by systemic racism?
    Energy burden is the percentage of income a household spends on energy costs. "The legacy of racist housing policies, and job and income discrimination, contributes to more families of color living in inefficient homes and having higher energy costs than white families, which forces these families to make trade offs between utility payments and other necessities and to navigate even more cumbersome and disenfranchising system hurdles. Meanwhile, energy efficiency improvements to alleviate the cost burdens are largely inaccessible to low-income families, and awareness of programs is often low." - Energy Burden in Milwaukee: Study Reveals Major Disparities & Links to Redlined Areas. Racial disparities in energy burden in Milwaukee remain amongst the highest in the nation (Sierra Club, 2024). African Americans in the U.S. are more likely to experience an energy burden due to the housing stock available from racial residential segregation (Hernández et al., 2016), which contributes to health inequities.
  • How is energy burden related to health?
    Recent analyses have found that energy burden is a central social determinant of health. It was so influential on premature mortality, self-reported health, and life expectancy, that only race and education had stronger influences (Reames et al., 2021). Higher energy burden is associated with asthma and other respiratory issues and increased mental health impacts (Wells et al., 2015, Brown et al., 2020). Inefficient heating or cooling systems can lead to thermal discomfort, hypothermia, or heat stress (Chen et al., 2017). Heat risks are increasing as climate change brings more intense heat waves to the Milwaukee area. An improperly heated home doubles the rate of respiratory issues and puts teens at five times the risk for mental health problems (Drehobl & Ross, 2016). It can also increase heart disease, arthritis, rheumatism, and infection rates (Lidell & Morris, 2010). Electricity shutoffs cause health and safety concerns and can be particularly dangerous for older adults and young children that need powered medical devices or refrigerated medications (Brown et al., 2020). In cases where energy burdens are too high, households often sacrifice health to pay for energy bills, leading to chronic stress and exacerbated healthcare costs down the road (Hernández et al, 2016). More than 25 million US households report reducing or forgoing food or medicines to pay electricity costs (EIA, 2015). This dilemma, often referred to as “heat” or “eat”, creates high risk for childhood malnutrition (Frank et al., 2006). On the other hand, the health benefits of energy efficiency upgrades are well documented and include reduced rates of heavy fever, asthma, headaches, sinusitis, respiratory allergies, and angina (Jacobs et al., 2015). In fact, the latest Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) evaluation showed that the program’s health benefits exceeded its energy benefits (Tonn et al., 2015).
  • Utilities are legal monopolies. What does this mean?
    The current utility system provides monopoly status for essential public utilities like electricity, gas, water, and telecommunications. This means customers do not get to choose which utility company provides their services – instead, it’s based on where they live. Historically, it was cheaper to have one company build the necessary infrastructure to deliver energy to households in a given area, so policy was created to ensure that only the company that had built that infrastructure could sell their services to area customers. The PSC cannot legally authorize a new utility (or cooperative or municipality) to provide service in an area where an existing utility is already providing a similar service. Learn more about the different types of utility providers here. All states have a regulatory agency for utilities – in Wisconsin, this is the Public Service Commission (PSC).
  • What is the Public Service Commission?
    The PSC is the state agency that regulates utility monopolies. Since utility companies are given monopoly status within their geographic service region in Wisconsin, the PSC's job is to regulate these services. The PSC consists of three full-time commissioners appointed by the governor in staggered six-year terms and confirmed by the state senate. The PSC is responsible for many critical decisions that relate to public health, including deciding where fossil fuel plants will be constructed and whether or not utility monopolies can increase their rates. The PSC requires public input to support their decision-making.
  • How do utility monopolies make money?
    Utilities make most of their money through returns on investments, which incentivizes them to build more infrastructure, like power plants. Utility rates are typically calculated based on the amount of money needed to cover operating costs and capital investments (the cost of providing service), plus a percentage return on equity (ROE) that the PSC approves. ROE is the profit rate utilities can collect from customers on eligible expenditures. For example, if the PSC set an ROE of 10% and a utility built a $100 million power plant, the utility company could charge customers the $100 million cost of the plant PLUS another $10 million in profits (Energy and Policy Institute, 2024).
  • What are stranded assets and how do they impact energy burden?
    Stranded assets are assets that turn out to be worth less than expected as a result of economic, physical, or regulatory changes associated with the transition to a low-carbon economy (Carbon Tracker Initiative, 2017). According to a 2022 study in the journal Nature, approximately 60% of oil and gas reserves and 90% of known coal reserves should remain unused to limit global warming to the Paris Agreement target of 1.5°C (Welsby et al., 2022). Typically, utilities invest money up front to build new infrastructure and then adjust their rates so that customer payments will eventually cover those costs. However, sometimes the economic reality is different than their predictions and they end up with stranded assets. One example in Wisconsin is We Energies’ Oak Creek coal plant, which We Energies is proposing to shut down sooner than expected. They may continue collecting profit from customers even after the facility is no longer providing services, or they may attempt to raise rates to recover their costs (Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters), both of which would worsen energy burden and associated health costs.
FAQs
Citations

Citations

  1. Sierra Club. (2021). Energy burden in Milwaukee: Study reveals major disparities & links to redlined areas. https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/default/files/sce-authors/u560/2392%20MilwaukeeEnergy_Report_06_high%20%281%29.pdf  

  2. Sierra Club. (2024). Energy Burden in Milwaukee: 2024 Report Update. https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/EB%20report%20update%202024%20%281%29.pdf

  3. Brown, M. A., Soni, A., Lapsa, M. V., Southworth, K., & Cox, M. (2020). High energy burden and low-income energy affordability: Conclusions from a literature review. Progress in Energy, 2(4), 042003. https://doi.org/10.1088/2516-1083/abb954

  4. Viggers, H., Howden-Chapman, P., Ingham, T., Chapman, R., Pene, G., Davies, C., Currie, A., Pierse, N., Wilson, H., Zhang, J., Baker, M., & Crane, J. (2013). Warm homes for older people: aims and methods of a randomised community-based trial for people with COPD. BMC public health, 13, 176. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-176

  5. Liddell, C., & Morris, C. (2010). Fuel poverty and human health: A review of recent evidence. Energy Policy, 38(6), 2987–2997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.037

  6. Frank, D. A., Neault, N. B., Skalicky, A., Cook, J. T., Wilson, J. D., Levenson, S., Meyers, A. F., Heeren, T., Cutts, D. B., Casey, P. H., Black, M. M., & Berkowitz, C. (2006). Heat or Eat: The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and Nutritional and Health Risks Among Children Less Than 3 Years of Age. Pediatrics, 118(5), e1293–e1302. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-2943

  7. Nord, M., & Kantor, L. S. (2006). Seasonal Variation in Food Insecurity Is Associated with Heating and Cooling Costs among Low-Income Elderly Americans. The Journal of Nutrition, 136(11), 2939–2944. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/136.11.2939

bottom of page