On January 12, 2026, WI Assembly Republicans held a press conference to discuss a bill related to data centers in the state. It has 6 provisions. Let’s assess:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/proposals/ab840.pdf

1. The Public Service Commission must ensure in its rate-making orders that no costs associated with the construction or extension of electric infrastructure that primarily serves a data center are allocated to or recovered from any other customer. Under current law, a public utility generally may not make a change to its rate schedules that constitutes an increase in rates, except by order of PSC after an investigation and opportunity for hearing.

This sounds great, but the utility companies are already saying they will do this. The problem is no one shows their work on how energy costs are calculated, so if the energy company is underestimating those costs, the ratepayers suffer. Residential user energy prices are impacted by many complex variables. The anecdotal evidence from other communities with large data center installations is that prices are rising faster than the national average. The solution to this problem has to be more than the energy companies saying "Trust me bro." As it stands today, if the energy companies promise and your rates still go up, they just blame it on "other factors."

2. Any renewable energy facility that primarily serves the load of a data center must be located at the site of the data center.

It is unclear what the goal of this is. If it's to encourage renewable energy, the bill makes it a token gesture. Energy use of a data center is massive. Land use of renewables is massive. Limiting renewable energy to the site of the data center will make on-site renewable energy a fraction of a fraction of a rounding error on the data center's energy use. If the intention is to prevent further nearby destruction of property for massive renewable energy projects to support data center energy use, then it will work as designed.

3. Water used by a data center for cooling purposes must be contained in a closed-loop cooling system, which is a system for removing heat from equipment and that relies on a fixed volume of water that is continually recycled.

This probably doesn't need legislation. The industry did this to react to local complaints about water use and the water use problem is likely already solved. Like much well-intentioned legislation, though, it isn't very future proof. If a future solution to cooling comes along and doesn't match the definition of this law, we'll have to amend a law to allow an improvement.

4. The operator of a data center must annually report to the Department of Natural Resources the total amount of water used by the data center for the 12-month period prior to submitting the report.

This is a win. Transparency is good.

5. A person may not operate a data center unless they file with DNR a bond or other security in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of fulfilling any required reclamation.

and

6. If construction of a proposed data center is not completed, the owner must notify DNR and commence restoring the parcel to the condition that existed prior to any construction on the data center.

These are a big win. It would be better still if they did what Saline Township MI did in their developer agreement: buy a bond to pay for destruction and restoration if the building sits unused for 5 consecutive years.

What is missing from the bill

1) There is no protection in here for property tax payers. The state should prohibit the use of Tax Increment Financing for these projects. The property tax valuation they produce dwarfs small town valuations and puts local governments in a place where to get tax levy benefit from the project they have to raise individual property taxes for the duration of the TID. Taxpayers should not have their taxes raised because of the data center projects.

• Mount Pleasant increased their general fund tax levy 8% for 2026 because of the data center, all of which will be borne by current taxpayers, not Microsoft.

• Beaver Dam's city administrator admitted publicly to residents "we'll have to raise your taxes [to get an increased levy]."

• Port Washington's mayor admitted state law needs to change if his local government wants tax levy increases from the project without raising current residents' taxes.

2) Require significant permanent employment numbers in order to justify the tax breaks. Industry average 20 permanent jobs per data center building do not justify hundreds of millions in sales tax exemptions or property tax credits.