.png)
We Energies/WPS/WEPCO Data Center and Large User Rate
- Feb 2
- 8 min read
Here are 5 things a fairer rate for Wisconsinites should include:
Make data centers pay for 100% of their costs (transmission, fuel, infrastructure, etc.)
Rate protections that are mandatory for all large (20 megawatts or more) data centers.
Protection for communities from all costs for the full lifetime of any infrastructure built.
Prioritization of new clean energy and battery storage.
A community benefits agreement or an energy impact fund.
Outside the scope of this case, it’s clear that additional policies are needed to protect Wisconsin communities. Those policies include prevailing wages for construction workers, a requirement for data centers to bring 100% of their own renewable energy, full transparency on energy, water, and resource use, and more.
Skip to:
Details About the Proposal - Docket: 6630-TE-113
This proposal is a disaster compared to the protections other states are implementing, and We Energies should be sent back to the drawing board.
Below are five reasons why We Energies' proposal fails to protect Wisconsinites:
Reason #1: Wisconsinites would have to subsidize some of the infrastructure costs and ALL data center fuel costs.
Don’t be fooled by We Energies’ claim that the public will “take on no cost.” If you dive into the details of their application, a data center would only pay 75% of infrastructure costs. That leaves hardworking Wisconsinites and small businesses on the hook to subsidize 25% of the infrastructure costs for billion-dollar corporations.
To make matters worse, 100% of fuel costs used by a “capacity resource” like a gas peaker plant would be covered by everyday customers. That means people will pay twice because methane gas also harms their health. The Paris and Oak Creek gas plant which were approved for the Microsoft data center, are already expected to cost impacted communities millions of dollars in health costs each year, and several new gas plants like Foudry Ridge and Red Oak have already been proposed.
Reason #2: It’s term-length is too short, potentially leaving Wisconsinites on the hook for the full cost of infrastructure after ten years
As written, the service terms between We Energies and large users like hyperscale data centers would be 10 years, but the fossil fuel plants recently approved by the PSC to power data centers are expected to operate for “no less than 30 years.” Any rate structure approved by the PSC should require commitments that match the full lifespan of the assets built to serve these large customers. We need terms to be longer and stronger to prevent communities from picking up the bill.
Wisconsinites are already paying for $1 billion in stranded assets from retired fossil fuel plants that are no longer in service. That means Wisconsinites are paying more on their bills for infrastructure that isn’t even providing them with electricity because utilities didn’t plan for the future. With rampant AI speculation, we are at a high risk of this happening more often.
Data centers and large users need to be locked in for the life of the infrastructure that is built to support their demand.
There needs to be high fees for data center facilities that close prior to paying off their infrastructure, so Wisconsin residents don’t get stuck with the bill for decades.
Reason #3: Major size loopholes wouldn't cover several data centers.
The proposal's definition of what qualifies as a large user is outrageously high and wouldn’t cover most data centers, leaving Wisconsinites at risk for skyrocketing bills.
We Energies is defining a ‘Very Large Customer’ in this case as one with 500 megawatts (MW) of new load. That is vastly different from other states across the country. To get a sense of how different, check out this graph from Halycon, which compares proposals from different states. We Energies' proposal is almost completely off the chart (see source).
As you can see, other states have set their large user rates much lower. For instance, both Virginia and Ohio cover anything above 25 MW.
Even the Department of Energy states a large load is 20 MW.
The definition of large user matters. A higher MW definition would allow many developers to avoid the stronger protections intended for data centers- exposing customers to unnecessary financial risk.
Reason #4: No transparency, which prevents community members, nonprofits, and decision-makers from being part of reasonable and fair planning.
In the application, We Energies’ states that big tech was consulted and involved in the negotiation of this rate. But details about the energy demand of data centers, project resources, and even the names of data center developers have been repeatedly redacted from public view and Public Service Commission documents. Community members who will be most impacted by this rate were not at the table when this proposal was developed. Neither were consumer protection, environmental nonprofits, and local leaders. That means that communities are being left in the dark about key information. Wisconsinites deserve transparency about utility bill impacts, plans, and a seat at the table in the decisions that impact our communities.
Reason #5: It endangers health.
Research shows that energy burden, or the amount of their income people pay for their utilities, impacted premature mortality, self-reported health, and life expectancy, more than healthcare access and several other factors (Reames et al., 2021). High energy burden is associated with asthma, respiratory issues, and increased mental health impacts (Wells et al, 2015, Brown et al, 2020).
If Wisconsin utilities use the prospect of high energy needs from data centers or new energy demand as a reason to build additional, expensive fossil fuel infrastructure, it would worsen air and water pollution that directly harms the lungs, heart, and many organ systems in the human body. It would also accelerate climate change, causing more extreme weather events and health harms
Writing a Comment or Testifying
Comments do not have to be long to be impactful, as the PSC and parties in the case also look at bulk numbers of those who are 'for,' 'against,' or supportive of key changes. It is best to keep comments shorter and under 3 minutes.
Suggested Comment Format:
Introduction: State your name, a sentence about who you are, and why you care or are speaking up. Example: My name is Sarah Jensem, and I am a nurse and mother of two amazing little girls in Kenosha. I am here today for their future and the patients who come into our clinic every day.
Share Your Concerns: Explain how your community or family would be harmed by subsidizing data centers. If you have a leadership role in your community of any type, share how those you serve or care for would be impacted. If you are comfortable doing so, you can then share feedback you have about this case and what you'd like to see.
Name Their Responsibility and What's Needed: Stress that the PSC should protect people, not big tech profits. Share that stronger safeguards have been put in place in other states and that Wisconsin regulators have a responsibility to secure stronger protections here and now.
Final Ask: Ask the PSC to reject the proposal and propose a stronger rate that has guardrails to protect the public.
When making a written comment, consider including your credentials in your name: Listing your health credentials or degrees after your last name (example: Sarah Jensen, DNP) can add a sense of expertise or credibility to the information you are sharing in the eyes of the PSC, especially if it's relevant to the type of concern(s) you are sharing.
Example Testimony or Comment
This is a longer example. Shorter comments are great, too!
My name is Sarah Jensen, and I’m a registered nurse at a family practice clinic here in Kenosha. Every day, I care for families who are doing their best to keep up with bills, but the rising cost of living is becoming impossible for families to afford. The proposed We Energies’ Tariff will have families pick up the cost for the remaining 25% of energy costs not covered by the hyperscale data centers, including 100% of fuel costs. This will result in higher energy bills that families cannot afford, and it’s not fair to ask families to subsidize big tech corporations.
I see families ration their medications because they can’t afford a refill, and they delay doctor visits until payday. When energy bills go up, these sacrifices become even harder and families will be forced to choose between keeping the lights on and paying for groceries.
I have also treated children with asthma whose conditions have worsened due to the pollution created by We Energies’ fossil fuel infrastructure. I have two little girls of my own, and I worry every day about how their lung development is being harmed by polluted air. Kenosha has been failing federal air regulations for ozone for years. Last year, the PSC approved the buildout of two new methane gas plants in Oak Creek and Kenosha, which are primarily being built to supply energy for hyperscale data center development.
I am concerned that we are about to enter a bad feedback loop, where Wisconsinites pay over and over again for data centers, while big tech and utilities rake in profits. We'd pay first with high energy bills, and then repeatedly with skyrocketing prices as more tech corporations target our state for projects exploit the loopholes in this proposal. Then we'd pay again through our health, healthcare bills, and environmental damages.
The Public Service Commission’s mission is to ensure safe, reliable, and affordable utility services. I ask that the PSC stay true to its mission, put Wisconsin families first, and reject this tariff application. We still need a tariff proposal, but one that is stronger and actually guarantees that hyperscale data centers pay their own way.
That means that data centers should cover 100% of all infrastructure and fuel costs needed to power their facilities. It means that rate protections should cover the full time length of any infrastructure the utility builds solely for data center demands, with fees if tech developers unexpectedly change construction plans to ensure the public doesn't get suddenly left on the hook with high bills. It means changing the definition of a large energy user. The 500 MW definition proposed in this application is completely out of line with what's being implemented in other states and the Department of Energy's definition of a large energy user, which is 20 MW. Finally, the public deserves transparency and a seat at the table in major grid changes and planning. Stronger safeguards are needed to protect us. Thank you.
FAQs
You will see this listed and referred to by the PSC as a tariff. What is a rate tariff, and why should I care?
When people hear “tariff,” they often think of President Trump’s tariffs. This tariff is completely different. A rate “tariff” is a set of rules and prices that determines how a utility charges large energy customers and what commitments they must provide in return for the infrastructure the utility has to build. Once approved by the Public Service Commission (PSC), it would apply to all energy users of that size.
We Energies has proposed a very large customer rate tariff that would apply to massive new energy users like data centers. The structure proposed by We Energies fails to protect everyday people and businesses for three core reasons:
It allocates 100% of all fuel costs and 25% of infrastructure costs to everyday people.
It has too short of a term-length, leaving everyday people on the hook to pay the full costs of infrastructure after ten years.
The inaccurate definition of ‘large user’ means that protections wouldn’t apply to many hyperscale data centers.
Large-load tariffs have been used in other states to ensure that data center developers are paying their own bills. A fair agreement would hold data centers accountable for their full share of service costs, which includes the cost of building new power generation, fuel costs, grid updates and maintenance, and transmission to serve their demands.
What Can You Do?
You can submit public comments or speak at the public hearing for the tariff case.
The docket is open for public comment through Tuesday, February 17, 2026.
Tell others! Talk to your neighbors, host an event, and/or post on social media! You can also express concerns to local and state leaders.
Attend the public hearing on February 10th via Zoom (virtual option only.
We recommend RSVP’ing! Life gets busy, so we’ll send you a reminder, Zoom and phone information, and talking points beforehand: RSVP for 1 PM >> RSVP for 6 PM >>
Additional protections are needed to protect our environment and Wisconsinites, especially comprehensive statewide legislation.
If you are a health professional or health advocate, we also encourage you to join us for our Climate and Health Advocacy Day at the Capitol because data centers are one of our core topics this year.
