Comment on Wisconsin’s draft energy plan
Take Action › Comment on the energy plan
Comment on Wisconsin’s draft energy plan by September 28
The Public Service Commission is taking comments on the state’s draft 2026–2032 Strategic Energy Assessment in docket 5-ES-113 until Monday, September 28. The draft projects peak demand up more than 40 percent by 2032, lists BECI among the transmission it expects, and puts Wisconsin providers’ first-year share of the Tranche 2.1 cost at about $379 million. A comment here asks the Commission to show the assumptions, the alternatives and the risk before the plan is final.
The draft lists BECI before any permit application exists
The SEA is a statewide planning report and grants no permit for either proposed 765 kV project. Even so, the draft identifies BECI as anticipated infrastructure (report pp. 78 to 79) while BECI’s permit application, routes, need case, alternatives and final cost are all still undecided.
The same draft carries a preliminary staff estimate that Wisconsin electric providers could pay about $379.29 million in the first year of service for the Tranche 2.1 projects, at 2024 rates, if the projects are approved for siting in each state (report p. 79). Wisconsin’s share would be 14.16 percent of what MISO collects for those projects each year. The final report should show the assumptions behind that estimate and a range of customer impacts.
Source · PSC Draft Strategic Energy Assessment 2026–2032, PSC REF# 595734, report pp. 78–79Five prompts to choose from
Choose one or two. Add what you know from your own bill, farm, business or town plan, in your own words: the PSC’s comment form states that prepared material not written by the person commenting is not treated as a public comment.
Which loads are firm
Which very large loads are only proposed, permitted, under construction, contractually committed, or operating?
Who pays if a data center is delayed or canceled
If a forecasted data center is delayed, downsized, or canceled, who is responsible for infrastructure built around it?
Alternatives on equal footing
How do efficiency, demand response, storage, local resources, advanced reconductoring, dynamic line ratings, power-flow controls, and existing corridors compare on the same reliability assumptions?
The place a statewide plan cannot see
Describe the farm, well, karst, stream, business, emergency service, habitat, or community plan a future project-specific review must examine.
The evidence that would change the plan
Request public decision triggers, sensitivity cases, and a clear distinction between anticipated and approved projects.
About five to ten minutes
How to file
- Draft it somewhere that keeps a copy. A note, document, or email draft protects your work if the form times out.
- Open the PSC’s official form for docket 5-ES-113. Go directly to the form.
- Give the required public information. Name, city, and state are required. Share only what you are comfortable putting in a public record.
- Paste your own words. Name the draft SEA and make one or two specific requests.
- Submit no later than Monday, September 28, and save the confirmation. You may forward the confirmation to info@no765line.org so we know you filed; you do not need to send us your comment.
Prefer mail? Address it to: Docket 5-ES-113 Comments, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, P.O. Box 7854, Madison, WI 53707-7854. Allow time for delivery.
A starting draft to make your own
The scope of this comment
- This comment enters your view into the official record for the statewide draft energy plan.
- It does not approve, deny, or select a route for BECI or MariBell.
- It does not replace commenting or intervening in either future CPCN proceeding; MariBell and BECI are separate projects and will have separate permit records.
- Send it through the official public form or the mailing address, never privately to individual commissioners.
Ask the final SEA to keep three questions open until the evidence answers them: whether the infrastructure is needed, whether it is paid for fairly, and whether it is less harmful than the reasonable alternatives.
The starting draft
I live in [town], [county] County, and I am commenting on the draft Strategic Energy Assessment in docket 5-ES-113. The draft projects peak demand rising by more than 40 percent by 2032 and says over 72 percent of that projected increase is tied to three data-center developments. Please separate proposed, permitted, under-construction, contractually committed, and operating loads, and explain who pays if one is delayed or canceled. Before the plan counts on new 765 kV transmission, please compare efficiency, demand response, storage, local resources, advanced reconductoring, other grid-enhancing technologies, and existing corridors on the same reliability assumptions. Please label projects that have no permit as proposed. [Add two or three sentences about the place, bill, business, or community concern you know personally.]