Chair Strand opened the commission’s discussion of docket 5‑EI‑163 on Aug. 13, 2025, recapping federal and state actions that led to the review and saying, “It’s a long and winding road.”

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin advanced the investigation unanimously after commissioners debated options ranging from no action to formal rulemaking. The commission’s discussion centered on how to allow third‑party aggregators (ARCs) to participate in Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) wholesale markets for Wisconsin retail customers while protecting utility demand response programs, preventing double counting of capacity, and safeguarding customer data.

The investigation was opened in September 2024 after a court of appeals in May 2024 found the commission’s 2009 temporary prohibition on ARCs invalid. Chair Strand told colleagues the court decision means “our participation is not currently prohibited in Wisconsin” and that the commission is not compelled to take immediate substantive regulatory action.

Commissioners described three consistent concerns they expect staff and any future utility filings to address: methods to prevent double counting of demand response capacity between utility programs and ARCs; practices and protections for sharing customer data; and safeguards for nonparticipating customers to avoid discrimination. Strand said those three topics are at “a minimum” what any future filing should include.

Commissioner Christian Nieto said expanding the state’s demand response capacity is important, adding, “Expanding our state's demand response capacity is essential.” He said his preferred option was to encourage utility filings that include parameters for addressing the three topics rather than directing immediate tariff changes or imposing a temporary prohibition.

Commissioner Hawkins emphasized the value of price transparency ARCs can provide, saying there is “value in the price transparency that ARCS can provide.” Hawkins supported a modified version of Alternative 2 from staff’s memo that would not compel filings on a fixed timeline but would require any future ARC‑related utility filing to include a holistic analysis of administrative costs and benefits, proposed protections for nonparticipating customers, communication practices including methods for double‑counting checks, and practices for proper sharing and protection of customer data.

The commission discussed the scope of any participation. Strand reiterated she does not support expanding ARC participation beyond the four Wisconsin utilities that meet the current statutory/commission criteria (utilities that served more than 4,000,000 megawatt‑hours in the prior year and are rate regulated by the commission). Commissioners agreed that smaller utilities should continue to be treated differently under the existing framework.

Commissioners also discussed timing and possible regulatory pathways. Some supported a future rulemaking to produce clearer, statewide rules; others preferred encouraging utility filings and additional study (including pilots, working groups, or collaboration among utilities and aggregators) before formal rulemaking. Strand said she could consider modified versions of alternatives that would require filings by a later date (she mentioned 2028 as a possible compromise) if the commission decided to require filings rather than leaving the matter to case‑by‑case proposals.

After the discussion, Commissioner Christian Nieto moved “we advance the investigation pursuant to our discussion today.” Commissioner Hawkins seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

The commission did not adopt a temporary prohibition, did not direct utilities to file tariffs on a fixed immediate timeline, and did not order a specific rulemaking at this meeting; the formal vote advanced the existing investigation consistent with the points commissioners discussed.

The commission’s next open meeting was scheduled for Aug. 28, 2025.

Ending: The PSC’s action advances an evidentiary and policy review; any future regulatory changes — whether by utility tariff filings, targeted orders, or an administrative rulemaking — will rely on the record developed in docket 5‑EI‑163 and the additional analyses the commission described during the Aug. 13 discussion.