Wisconsin Senate Bill SB1120

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/19/26
• Refer: 3/19/26
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to amend 196.027 (1) (f); to create 196.027 (1) (d) 3. of the statutes; Relating to: securitization of retiring power plants. (FE)

Summary

SB1120 would expand Wisconsin’s existing “environmental control activities” statute to allow an energy utility to seek Public Service Commission approval to finance the retirement of an existing electric generating facility fueled by nonrenewable combustible energy resources through environmental trust bonds. Under current law, utilities may use this financing mechanism for certain environmental control equipment projects and for retiring property to reduce pollution; this bill adds retirement of qualifying power plants to that list. The bill also revises the definition of “environmental control cost” so that, for these newly covered retirement projects, recoverable costs may include the unrecovered value of the retired property, along with demolition or similar costs that exceed salvage value. As a result, utilities could potentially spread the costs of closing fossil-fueled generating facilities over time through customer-backed bond financing rather than recovering them all at once.

Impact

SB1120 would amend section 196.027 of the Wisconsin statutes, broadening the types of utility retirement projects that may be securitized through environmental trust bonds. The practical effect is to give electric utilities a new financing tool for retiring nonrenewable combustible-fueled generating facilities, while allowing those costs to be recovered from customers through PSC-approved charges. It would also clarify that the recoverable environmental control cost for these retirements can include unrecovered plant value and certain demolition expenses, but not penalties or fines.

Sentiment

The available record shows little direct committee debate or recorded voting on the bill, and the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. Based on the bill’s structure and sponsorship, the measure appears to have been framed as a utility-finance and energy-transition tool rather than a controversial regulatory overhaul. However, the absence of committee transcripts and votes limits the ability to identify broad support or opposition from the legislative record provided.

Contention

The main policy issue is whether customers should be allowed to bear the costs of retiring fossil-fueled power plants through securitized utility charges. Supporters would likely view the bill as a way to lower financing costs and facilitate orderly plant retirements, while critics may object to shifting unrecovered plant value and demolition costs onto ratepayers. The bill’s expansion of securitization to nonrenewable generating facilities is the central point of contention, especially for parties concerned about utility cost recovery, rate impacts, and the pace of fossil-fuel plant closures.