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:

Stop We Energies' Gas Buildout in Oak Creek
Billions in new fossil fuel infrastructure will harm our health, climate, and raise utility bills.
What's Happening?
The Oak Creek project is a large methane 1,100 MW gas plant in South Oak Creek, Milwaukee County proposed by WEPCO.
If approved, it would be built in mid-2026 with an estimated cost of $1.2 Billion. This new infrastructure would make the Oak Creek Project one of the largest methane gas plants in Wisconsin.
To supply this new gas plant, We Energies is also proposing 33 miles of new pipeline and a new liquified natural gas facility which would cost an additional $364 million.
These figures only include construction costs and do not include the impact on our health, climate, and utility bills.


What are the consequences?
Health Impacts: From extraction to combustion, methane gas contributes to increased health harms, including—but not limited to—cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, cancer, kidney disorders, neurodevelopmental disorders such as Alzheimer's, cognitive and behavioral issues, and negative effects on almost every organ system, including the kidneys, lungs, heart, and brain.
Environmental Impact: The pipelines will cause ecological damage to acres of wetlands, woodlands, and grasslands, destroying and permanently altering acres of habitat.
Climate Impact: Methane gas projects have been consistently documented as being a significant contributor to worsening climate change. Historic droughts, floods, superstorms, record-breaking wildfires, and extreme heat -- will continue to worsen unless we cut greenhouse gas emissions rapidly.
Social cost: We Energies is proposing more than 2 billion dollars of methane gas infrastructure that will cause hundreds of millions of dollars of harm. We need clean energy infrastructure in Wisconsin. NO NEW GAS.
For more talking points and to submit a comment click here
What can we do?
The Public Service Commission (PSC) is the state agency that regulates utility monopolies in Wisconsin.
WEC Energy Group’s shareholder profits are higher than any utility company in the state and higher than the national average. Even though they claim to be (something about their energy goals) their energy portfolio is less than 4% renewables.
We can use the PSC to demand that We Energies cease their deadly Methane Gas Buildout,
Join us in protecting the health of Wisconsin families. We all deserve clean air!
Resist We Energies Reckless proposals
Help us get the word out!
Attend the town hall. Help us fill the room!
Submit a public comment. Every voice matters!
Attend the public hearing in person or on zoom!
Key Action Dates
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.
The Oak Creek and Paris gas plants would result in $3.6 billion-5.7 billion in health costs and hundreds of premature deaths over their operating lifetime.

Action Toolkit
Energy Justice
Action Toolkit
Take actionable steps toward a more equitable energy system
-
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.
Citations
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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