Wisconsin PSC approves Alliant–Meta data center service agreement, orders new large‑load tariff and reporting safeguards

The Wisconsin Public Service Commission on May 7 voted to approve an individual contract rate service agreement allowing Wisconsin Power and Light (Alliant) to serve a proposed 220‑megawatt hyperscale data center to be built by Degas LLC, a Meta subsidiary, in Beaver Dam, subject to a package of conditions meant to protect existing customers and increase transparency.

Commissioner Richard Nieto, who led the discussion, told colleagues the case was “consequential,” noting the proposed load equals several times Beaver Dam’s demand and a material share of the utility’s peak load. Nieto and staff said the commission’s legal standard under Wis. Stat. §§196.192 and 196.37 requires approving market‑based agreements only when they do not harm existing customers or shareholders.

"Existing Wisconsin customers should not pay a single cent to subsidize the service of data centers—not now and not decades from now," Nieto said, urging stronger reporting and safeguards. Chair Strand and Commissioner Hawkins joined Nieto in pressing for both consumer protections and increased public visibility into contract terms and costs.

The commission’s decisions included: directing Alliant to file a standalone large‑load tariff schedule for customers of 100 MW or greater in a separate docket (to be filed prior to or concurrent with any future service application for similarly sized customers); approving the ESA with conditions and modifications; and adopting a set of reporting, monitoring and cost‑reconciliation tools. Those measures include an incremental‑cost adjustment mechanism (a tariff rider or similar sheet) to allow the commission to reconcile actual costs and revenues in future proceedings, enhanced transparency reporting of energy and demand revenues, and special tracking of the Dodge County interconnection project’s transmission costs.

On the contract structure, commissioners approved the applicant’s proposed billing determinants for the ICR customer—monthly service charges, escalating demand charges, and market‑based energy pass‑throughs tied to MISO pricing—while tightening certain flexibilities. The commission accepted minimum demand levels and demand‑charge structures meant to ensure revenue for transmission and capacity investments, but narrowed the customer’s ability to change contract demand year‑to‑year to limit abrupt, cost‑shifting swings.

The commission also resolved contested credit and termination provisions: it set the guaranty amount to align with termination exposures, required Meta to serve as the guarantor, and agreed that collateral would be required if Meta’s creditworthiness slipped below the agreed threshold. Commissioners modified the ESA’s termination‑charge timing to apply for the remaining months of the ESA term rather than use confidential timing language that had raised concern about perverse incentives.

Renewable‑energy procurement provisions in the ESA were approved: the agreement allows Meta to pursue renewable energy procurement agreements (15‑year REP arrangements) supported by Alliant, including PPAs or Alliant‑owned resources, with the commission noting potential systemwide benefits and useful precedent for future large‑load customers.

Commissioners debated contract term length extensively. Nieto had argued for a 15‑year baseline to better match long‑lived transmission and generation investments; Strand and Hawkins favored the applicant’s proposed 10‑year initial term (with the option for extensions). After agreeing on the package of reporting, incremental‑cost and tariff protections, the commission settled on the 10‑year initial term as consistent with the overall safeguards.

The panel directed staff to prepare a final written order reflecting the discussion and the conditions adopted in the meeting. Commissioner Nieto moved to approve the ESA consistent with the record and the commission’s decisions; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.

The commission emphasized that its approval does not regulate the siting of data centers, tax incentives or non‑utility matters governed by other agencies; rather, the approvals and conditions address the utility‑rate consequences of serving a very large new load. The commission also noted ongoing staff work—separate from this docket—to collect statewide data‑center water‑use information and signaled that the large‑load tariff docket will provide a public forum for broader rules affecting future data centers.

The commission adjourned after completing its business. Next open meeting: May 14, 2026, at 10:30 a.m.