The column below reflects the views of the author, and these opinions are neither endorsed nor supported by WisOpinion.com.

For Wisconsin families opening their utility bills each month, one thing is clear: energy policy is no longer abstract, it’s hitting the kitchen table.

Recently, Governor Evers took to social media and formally petitioned the federal government to reverse actions requiring certain coal plants in the Midwest to remain operational. He argued those decisions would raise costs for Wisconsin ratepayers and undermine the state’s clean energy transition. In his letter, the governor warned that keeping aging coal facilities online would “force Wisconsin ratepayers to pay the price” for plants deemed no longer economically viable.

At first glance, that sounds like a defense of affordability. But for many Wisconsinites, it raises a deeper and more uncomfortable question: who, exactly, has been driving up energy costs in the first place?

Wisconsin families are already paying for power plants that no longer produce electricity. Today, ratepayers owe nearly $1 billion on so-called “stranded assets”—retired coal plants whose construction and upgrade costs are still being recovered through monthly bills. Even more troubling, utilities are allowed to collect not just repayment of those costs, but a guaranteed rate of return, often over 10 percent, long after the plants stop generating power. That means working families are effectively financing infrastructure that no longer serves them.

This didn’t happen by accident. It happened under a regulatory framework overseen by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, whose members are appointed by the governor. Over time, decisions approved by the PSC allowed utilities to overbuild generation capacity and double down on energy sources that later proved uneconomical.

And now, as those same systems are rapidly replaced in the name of a “green transition,” the costs are mounting again. We are being asked to build a second energy system before we’ve finished paying off the first.

That’s the context missing from the governor’s argument.

When federal policymakers act to preserve grid reliability by ensuring dispatchable, always-available energy sources like coal remain online during periods of transition, it is not done in a vacuum. It reflects legitimate concerns about whether intermittent sources like wind and solar can yet meet demand during extreme weather, peak usage, or supply disruptions.

Even the utilities themselves have acknowledged that some of these coal plants were retired based on long-term planning assumptions that may not fully account for today’s rapidly growing energy demand, from electrification to AI-driven data centers.

The reality is this: Wisconsin is entering an era of unprecedented energy demand while simultaneously dismantling reliable baseload power, the always-available energy sources like natural gas, coal, and nuclear. That is a risky combination.

Meanwhile, ratepayers are seeing the consequences. Wisconsin’s electricity rates have been among the highest in the Midwest for years, and major capital investments, whether in renewables, transmission, or replacement generation, are routinely passed directly onto consumers through PSC-approved rate increases. And yet, when those costs rise, we’re told the problem lies elsewhere.

Congressman Tom Tiffany pushed back publicly on the governor’s claims, highlighting what many constituents are already feeling: frustration that state-level decisions are being overlooked while blame is shifted to federal policy. Wisconsinites deserve an honest conversation.

Yes, energy markets are complex. Yes, federal decisions matter. But it is state policy approved by state regulators that determines how and when utilities build infrastructure, how quickly legacy systems are retired, and how aggressively new mandates are pursued. And most importantly, it is state policy that determines who pays. Right now, the answer is simple: you do.

If we are serious about affordability, we must take a more balanced approach, one that prioritizes reliability, phases in new technologies responsibly, and stops forcing families to pay twice for the same electricity system.

That means asking harder questions before approving new projects. It means reevaluating how stranded asset costs are handled. And it means acknowledging that an “all of the above” energy strategy, including traditional baseload power, remains essential to keeping the lights on and bills under control.

Wisconsin can lead on energy. But leadership requires honesty, not slogans. It requires putting ratepayers, not politics, first.

– Knodl, R-Germantown, represents the 24th Assembly District.