Wisconsin gas plant proposals expose $668m gap in state approval process
Pipeline and storage costs add roughly 30% to a $1.5bn generation buildout but fall outside the formal certification review that governs ratepayer protection.
Wisconsin regulators are weighing proposals for two new gas-fired plants totaling $1.5 billion in generation costs, with a further $668 million in pipeline and storage infrastructure excluded from the initial certificate proceedings — costs that would land on ratepayers without a formal hearing on whether they are justified.5,4
If approved, Chicago-based independent power producer Inveneg is set to build the plants, which would then be acquired by We Energies to serve demand from hyperscale data centers, including a Microsoft campus and a Vantage project leased to OpenAI and Oracle, according to regulatory filings.5
The omitted infrastructure adds roughly 30% to the headline price of Wisconsin's gas buildout, according to the filings.4 Analysts at the Union of Concerned Scientists have warned that by the time a utility must demonstrate public need, "there's already a gas plant set for construction," as Maria Chavez, a senior energy analyst at UCS and author of a recent report on the topic, put it in an email.5
The proposals test whether the state's review process can adequately protect the public interest amid the scramble to secure power for the data center boom.5 Wisconsin is not alone. Texas regulators on Wednesday (2026-06-17) voted 5-0 to temporarily halt approval for the first of five major transmission lines that could cost ratepayers at least $33 billion and stretch more than 3,400 miles across the state.2
The Texas delay came as Todd Staples, president of the Texas Oil and Gas Association, said in a statement that working with affected parties is fundamental to building out electricity infrastructure, noting that from 2015 to 2025 oil production in the Permian Basin surged.2
Back in Wisconsin, the full cost picture is coming into sharper focus. Accounting for fixed, decades-long fuel liabilities routinely inflates a project's true cost to consumers by roughly 30%, significantly altering its economic competitiveness against cleaner energy resources, according to GridLab, a nonprofit technical consulting organization.4
Gas has dominated the PJM Interconnection's queue as utilities rush to meet surging demand.4 But the Wisconsin case highlights a structural gap: pipeline and storage costs, which are borne by ratepayers, fall outside the standard certificate of public convenience and necessity proceedings that govern generation plants.
The dynamic extends beyond the Midwest. Indiana's NIPSCO is planning a gas plant and adjacent data center at its Schahfer coal site, a plant former President Donald Trump had forced to remain open but which is now not operating.1 Local residents are furious, and experts are skeptical of the Trump administration's "energy emergency" framing, though the U.S. does need more power.1
State regulators are still including EPA carbon rules in the permits they issue for new gas-fired plants, despite the federal agency's plans to repeal those rules, E&E News reported on June 26 (2026-06-26).3 How they do that varies from state to state, creating additional uncertainty for developers and investors who must budget for compliance costs that may or may not materialize. Whether those regulatory divergences have narrowed since that reporting has not been established.
The decision facing Wisconsin's Public Service Commission is narrow but consequential: force the pipeline and storage costs back into the main proceeding, or allow them to proceed on a separate track. If the commission requires consolidated review, the economics of both plants face scrutiny they have not yet received. If it does not, ratepayers absorb costs totaling $668 million without a formal public interest determination.4
The commission has not set a timeline for its decision.5