"We are going to deliver bold action for Wisconsinites," Rep. Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said in a statement after her election as the next Assembly speaker. "We are going to lower costs, support our public schools, protect our rights and freedoms, help working families, ensure safe and welcoming communities, hold big corporations accountable, fight back against federal overreach, ensure a clean environment for future generations, and much more."

The Democrats will take over state government in January, cementing their first trifecta in 16 years, at a time when President Donald Trump's administration has prioritized extractive industries and rolled back environmental protections. While a single state cannot solve a global problem like climate change, Wisconsin's government has broad authority over air, land and water pollution, public land purchases, electric utility oversight and environmental funding.

Advocacy groups are pressing lawmakers to act both through standalone bills and in the next state budget, which will dominate the agenda next summer. Clean Wisconsin has released a list of policy priorities for 2027 that includes keeping PFAS, nitrates, lead and phosphorus out of state waters; giving farmers more tools for responsible land management; investing in county-level initiatives; regulating data centers; changing how utilities plan energy development; and expanding renewable energy.

"We're really focused on pragmatic work, like a long list of on-the-ground programs that help protect our water systems, our groundwater, drinking water, our surface water, and help protect our climate and our air, and put some meaningful guardrails in place around AI data centers," said Amy Barilleaux, a spokesperson for Clean Wisconsin. "I think people want to hear, 'Oh, this big thing and that big thing,' but it takes like a thousand little things to accomplish that big thing."

Barilleaux said Gov.-elect David Crowley and his choice to lead the state Department of Natural Resources can significantly affect environmental protection simply by restoring the agency's capacity after Republicans cut its staffing and budget under former Gov. Scott Walker.

"I think it's not that the DNR doesn't recognize some authority, but you have to have people to do the work," she said. "It's been very difficult with understaffing at some agencies to really be able to do the work they are in statute being asked to do. So that's a big one as well. We just need to improve the function of our government."

**Utility regulation**

In the days since their victory, Democrats have signaled that their first priority in January will be addressing the affordability concerns that dominated the campaign. For environmental groups, that has meant a focus on how the state regulates utilities.

The Public Service Commission, which oversees utilities, has recently taken steps to prevent data center developments from raising electric bills and to slow rate increase requests. But Barilleaux said the commission has also indicated in its decisions that it needs the Legislature to give it more authority.

Clean Wisconsin and other groups are pushing for integrated resource planning. Under current law, utilities are not required to make long-term plans for meeting demand, meaning that as hyperscale data centers proliferate, utilities can pursue whatever generation they choose. So far, that has meant extending the life of or planning new fossil fuel plants powered by coal and natural gas.

Integrated resource planning would require utilities to get their future plans approved by the PSC, which advocates say would encourage cheaper long-term sources such as solar and wind.

"Our utilities don't have to be transparent about what they're doing, they don't have to have a big picture where we look at different utilities together for a full statewide energy system in Wisconsin, and that leaves us very vulnerable in this moment, extremely vulnerable as we have these AI data center projects coming in and demanding just intense amounts of energy, historic amounts of energy," Barilleaux said. "So we're just sitting here flat-footed with no integrated resource plan. So the Public Service Commission … when it approved the latest two gas plants, it was almost a cry for help, saying, 'We can't, we don't have any authority to do anything about this,' and that should be alarming to everyone. Even though integrated resource planning does not sound like a super exciting topic, when you see how things are unfolding here in Wisconsin, when you see the Public Service Commission saying we need help from lawmakers right now — we're expecting lawmakers to take that very seriously."

Barilleaux said another major priority is cleaning up PFAS contamination in state waters. Over the past year, the Legislature and Gov. Tony Evers finally passed legislation to spend $125 million set aside for PFAS mitigation after years of partisan deadlock. The Natural Resources Board recently set a standard for PFAS allowed in groundwater after years of failed efforts.

Barilleaux said more money is needed beyond that appropriation to address the full scope of the problem and that she would like to see a total ban on PFAS use in the state.

"We need to take this seriously. We can't pretend like it's not happening. We can't pretend like groundwater standards and surface water standards and drinking water standards are it, because it's not," she said. "It is over $100 million a year in health harms that PFAS exposure is causing right here in Wisconsin, and so these are tremendous costs. I think sometimes things get characterized as, you know, cost versus environmental protection, or jobs versus environmental protection, but really, this is people's health on the line. It is expensive to be sick from pollution and contamination. You know, this is about protecting the health of our communities."

**Knowles-Nelson**

Among the most divisive environmental issues of the last session was the failure to reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant Program, which for nearly four decades allowed the DNR to fund the purchase and maintenance of public land. A faction of Republicans in control of the Legislature had become hostile to the program, which had previously enjoyed bipartisan support, over objections to government land conservation and complaints about lost local property tax revenue from state land purchases. Multiple compromise bills were proposed, but none passed, and the program expired this summer. Reauthorization became a campaign issue in some of the races that helped Democrats win majority control.

Charles Carlin, director of strategic initiatives at the land conservation nonprofit Gathering Waters, said Democratic control opens new possibilities for the program, including balancing spending on new land purchases with developing existing public land for recreation and wildlife habitat.

"It feels like everybody is sort of absorbing the ramifications of the elections, what's possible," Carlin said. "But I think that certainly one of the things that you know that we are looking at now is it feels like there is a real opportunity here to have a long-term authorization for Knowles Nelson, one that is appropriately funded, and I think the other thing we're looking at is there's an opportunity to rebalance the program between development projects and land acquisition."

He said it helps not to have to negotiate with people hostile to public land conservation and that complaints about dwindling local government revenue tie into coming debates about local government funding, which are likely to play a major role in the new government's work.

"Local government revenue is likely to be a hot topic of conversation in the next legislative session on all kinds of issues," Carlin said. "So public lands is one small one, but shared revenue, school funding, transportation — these are all going to be things that get talked about and considered a lot. But I do want to see a renewed emphasis on DNR soliciting input from local governments on projects that are happening in their jurisdiction and taking those viewpoints and that feedback into account. I also think that if the conversation in the Legislature can be more fact-based and less driven by an anti-conservation ideology, then I think that creates the space for us to have a really solution-focused conversation about how tax and land use policy really impacts local government revenues."