Equity and Justice are on the line for Milwaukee, We Energies customers. Paying for power plants that are no longer in use, should be illegal.
In recent years, We Energies, one of Wisconsin's monopoly utility companies, has been engaging in practices that some consider oppressive and unjust, particularly in relation to solar energy and affordability programs. These are essentially "human rights issues" as it is apparent that a reign of tyranny exists in Wisconsin's energy sector.
The cumulative impact of We Energies' rate hikes from 2021 to 2026 on an average residential customer's monthly bill is significant. The total increase over this period amounts to $37.67 per month, representing a 37.67% rise from the initial $100 baseline in 2021.
This substantial increase is the result of several consecutive rate hikes:
11% increase in 2022
8.4% increase in 2023-2024
$7.62 flat increase in 2025
$9.73 flat increase in 2026
The final monthly bill in 2026 is projected to be $137.67, up from $100 in 2021. This represents a significant burden on customers, particularly those with fixed or low incomes.
Understanding Tyranny
Tyranny is defined as the severe deprivation of natural rights or the accumulation of all powers in the same hands, whether few or many. Modern usage, it often refers to the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power, especially in a cruel or harsh manner.
We Energies' Controversial Practices
Blocking Community Solar
We Energies has been criticized for impeding the development of community solar projects, which could provide more affordable and accessible renewable energy options for Wisconsin residents. By limiting these initiatives, the utility is effectively preventing many households, especially low-income ones, from benefiting from clean, cost-effective energy solutions.
Overcharging for Rooftop Solar
The utility has proposed charging customers with solar panels an additional $3.53 per kilowatt they generate. This controversial move could significantly increase bills for small businesses and residents with solar installations, potentially making solar energy financially unviable for many.
Unfair Reimbursement Rates
We Energies, along with other Wisconsin utilities, have proposed changes to net metering reimbursements for solar customers. These changes could reduce the financial benefits for individuals who produce their own power, discouraging the adoption of residential solar energy.
The Impact of These Actions
These practices by We Energies can be seen as a form of energy tyranny, as they:
Limit consumer choice and energy independence
Disproportionately affect low-income households
Hinder the transition to cleaner, more sustainable energy sources
Maintain the utility's control over the energy market
Stranded Assets - (Paying for power plants that are no longer in use, should be illegal)
We Energies' rate increases, and financial strategies reveal a complex and controversial situation, particularly regarding stranded assets and the utility's resistance to income-based payment programs.
Stranded Assets
We Energies expects ratepayers to cover costs for several stranded assets, which are investments that have become less valuable or obsolete due to changes in technology, regulation, or market conditions:
Coal-fired power plants:
Pleasant Prairie Power Plant: Closed in 2018, with remaining value of approximately $645 million
Oak Creek Power Plant: Partial retirement planned, with potential stranded costs of hundreds of millions.
Natural gas infrastructure:
Investments in pipelines and storage facilities that may become underutilized as renewable energy adoption increases
Older transmission and distribution infrastructure:
Equipment that may need early replacement to accommodate renewable energy integration.
We Energies argues that these costs should be recovered through rate increases, as they were prudent investments at the time they were made.
Percentage of Income Payment Program (PIPP) Resistance
We Energies has stalled the implementation of a Percentage of Income Payment Program (PIPP), claiming it is illogical and would lead to increased costs for other ratepayers. Their arguments include:
Administrative complexity and cost
Potential for abuse or gaming of the system
Unfair burden on non-participating customers
However, this stance contradicts successful PIPP implementations in other states, which have shown benefits such as reduced arrearages, improved payment consistency, and decreased utility shut-offs.
Utility Legal Expenses
We Energies has used ratepayer funds to cover legal expenses related to opposing clean energy initiatives and defending rate increases. This practice raises questions about whether these costs should be borne by shareholders instead.
Examples include:
Litigation against community solar projects
Legal challenges to net metering policies
Expenses related to rate case proceedings
Federal-Level Issues
The situation in Wisconsin reflects broader national concerns:
Stranded asset recovery: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has generally allowed utilities to recover stranded costs, but this policy is increasingly questioned as the energy transition accelerates.
Clean energy transition: Federal policies, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, are pushing utilities towards cleaner energy sources, potentially creating more stranded assets.
Energy affordability: The Department of Energy has emphasized the importance of energy affordability, which conflicts with We Energies' resistance to income-based payment programs.
Regulatory capture: Critics argue that utilities like We Energies have undue influence over state regulatory bodies, necessitating federal oversight.
The contrast between We Energies' push for full cost recovery of stranded assets and their resistance to income-based payment programs highlights a significant imbalance. While the utility seeks to protect its investments and shareholder returns, it appears less willing to implement programs that could alleviate the financial burden on low-income customers.
This situation underscores the need for:
More rigorous scrutiny of utility investment decisions and cost recovery mechanisms
Implementation of proven affordability programs like PIPP
Reevaluation of how utility legal expenses are allocated
Stronger federal guidance on balancing utility financial interests with customer affordability and clean energy transition goals
State of Wisconsin to mandate the establishment of a Integrated Resource Planning, state law.
The ongoing debate in Wisconsin exemplifies the broader national challenge of managing the energy transition in a way that is fair to both utilities and consumers, while also advancing clean energy goals.
Dr Givens, provides a global perspective..