Efforts to address the legality of third-party-owned solar energy in Wisconsin faced a significant setback due to the dismissal of a pivotal legal case. Despite growing interest in alternative ownership models to make solar energy more accessible, the ongoing ambiguity in the state’s laws continues to deter both developers and residents. The issue highlights a broader challenge in balancing energy innovation with regulatory frameworks, leaving Wisconsin behind neighboring states that have embraced third-party solar agreements.
What led to the case dismissal?
The case originated from a Stevens Point family’s attempt to buy electricity produced by solar panels owned by North Wind Renewable Energy Cooperative. The third-party arrangement aimed to bypass high upfront installation costs. However, after the family moved before the case was resolved, the Wisconsin appeals court declared the matter moot. The ruling effectively halted efforts to secure legal clarity on third-party solar ownership in the state, frustrating advocates who had hoped for a broader precedent.
How does Wisconsin compare to neighboring states?
Unlike Wisconsin, states such as Michigan, Illinois, and Iowa already permit third-party solar ownership. Advocates argue this model can expand access to solar energy for households, nonprofits, and public institutions by reducing financial barriers. The lack of resolution in Wisconsin contrasts sharply with these states, where clear policies encourage distributed solar energy adoption. This disparity continues to limit Wisconsin’s ability to diversify its energy sources at the local level.
Earlier legal battles in Wisconsin, such as Eagle Point Solar’s dispute with the city of Milwaukee, also failed to produce definitive outcomes. These cases reflect a pattern of uncertainty that hampers solar expansion, particularly in light of utilities’ opposition. The utilities claim such arrangements infringe on their monopoly rights, further complicating the implementation of third-party solar projects.
Advocates, including groups like Vote Solar and the Environmental Law & Policy Center, have consistently pushed for state authorities to take a definitive stance. Despite this, attempts to clarify the law through petitions or court cases have been unsuccessful. The Public Service Commission’s reluctance to rule on past petitions underscores the difficulty of resolving the issue without legislative action.
However, the Inflation Reduction Act’s direct-pay provision offers a partial workaround for nonprofits and government agencies, enabling them to bypass tax incentives. Even so, advocates emphasize that procedural hurdles for direct-pay mechanisms and potential rollbacks under future administrations make third-party ownership an equally valuable option.
The case dismissal also underscores broader challenges for residential solar adoption in Wisconsin. Without legal clarity, potential customers and developers remain hesitant to engage in third-party ownership models. As a result, this uncertainty undermines efforts to decentralize energy production and reduce reliance on large-scale, utility-driven power generation projects.
In the wake of this setback, advocates like ELPC attorney Brad Klein suggest pursuing alternative avenues, including legislative measures or new legal cases that address specific project contracts. Despite the challenges, proponents remain optimistic about achieving long-term legal clarity in Wisconsin, citing the growing demand for clean energy solutions as a catalyst for change.
For Wisconsin, resolving the question of third-party solar ownership is not just a matter of expanding renewable energy access but also reducing dependence on costly new infrastructure, such as the $1.2 billion gas plant proposed by WEPCO. Expanding behind-the-meter solar installations could save ratepayers money and lessen the need for additional energy investments, making it a pressing issue for state policymakers.
