Journal Sentinel54%
Wisconsin Democrat Joel Brennan answers AI data center questions 11%
By Joel Brennan0%
7/24/2026, 12:49:32 PM
BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, In-Group Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 10.5% saturation with 196 hits. Analysis detected 804 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,861 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 27.9% and a BS Rank of 11% (18,941 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 89.40% of the article peer group.
Gubernatorial candidate Joel Brennan supports pausing new data center approvals until regulations are established.
Brennan advocates for data centers to cover their own energy costs and for union labor to build the projects.
He proposes ending non-disclosure agreements to increase transparency with local communities.
Brennan believes tax incentives for data centers should be tied to clear performance and community benefit standards.
Editor's Note: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel asked the leading Republican and Democratic candidates for governor to answer ten questions about the development and regulation of data centers in Wisconsin.
Five candidates completed the questionnaire.
Here is the response from Democrat Joel Brennan:
Question: Artificial intelligence has been hailed as technology that could usher in a new era of prosperity or destroy civilization.
What is your view of AI and how will that shape your administration's approach to its usage in state government as well as regulating data centers?
Answer: AI is a game changer and a disruptive force, but like most powerful tools, it cuts both ways.
Used well, it can improve how state government delivers services, finds efficiencies, and serves the public and the state more effectively.
Used carelessly, it can displace workers, entrench bias, harm consumers and erode privacy.
My administration would deploy AI thoughtfully inside state government to improve efficiency and reduce bureaucratic friction, while building real guardrails around its use — worker consultation before deployment, transparency requirements, human review of algorithmic decisions, and strong data privacy protections.
Wisconsinites shouldn't have to foot the bill for AI or data center projects, period.
Taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for construction, operations, the transmission, or the ultimate retirement of these projects.
No one should have to worry about affording their heating bill because a data center has driven up energy prices.
Technology is advancing quickly, and companies often prioritize speed.
The government's responsibilities are different: transparency, accountability, community engagement, and coordination with local communities who stand to be impacted.
That means requiring data centers to meet all necessary environmental standards for water and everything else, and to be subject to real accountability, not just promises.
It also means that Wisconsin workers will be the ones doing all the work if a data center is approved, and it means that local residents will have their opportunity to weigh on data centers before decisions are made - the era of nondisclosure agreements must come to an end.
Question: There were several bills to regulate data centers that died in the Legislature last session.
Do you think the state needs additional regulations?
What specifically would you propose or support?
If not, please explain why.
Answer: Yes.
In the last legislative session, Democratic legislators worked on bills with input from many of the stakeholders (environmental, business, labor, local citizens) who are affected by data centers.
These proposals, which went through more than 10 drafts and which would put guardrails in place related to data centers, never saw the light of day under a Republican legislature.
Here's what those guardrails should include: making sure you, me, and nobody else is going to pay for the construction, operation, transmission, and ultimate retirement of these projects; requiring renewable energy and meeting all appropriate air and water environmental standards; making sure Wisconsin union labor is building all of these projects; and ending nondisclosure agreements with local officials that result in the public first learning about a data center project when an agreement has already been negotiated and reached.
Data centers should also be subject to cumulative water impact assessments before permits are issued.
The Legislature failed to act.
As governor, I'd make this one of the first things I do.
Question: Should Wisconsin consider rolling back the sales and use tax incentives for data centers estimated to have already reached about $2 billion?
Please be specific about why or why not.
Answer: The $2 billion number should stop everyone in their tracks and ask: what did Wisconsin get in return?
If those incentives came with enforceable requirements for energy cost responsibility, local hiring, clean energy, and community benefit — and those commitments were met — then the incentives may have been worth it.
If they didn't, and I suspect many didn't, then Wisconsin got the short end of a very expensive deal.
Going forward, I'd restructure the incentive framework so that incentives are tied to clear, enforceable performance standards, energy self-sufficiency, local labor, clean power, and ratepayer protection.
As for rolling back existing incentives for projects already underway, that's a legal and contractual question that requires a careful review of the commitments actually made.
I wouldn't rule it out for projects that haven't broken ground, but I'd want to see the specifics before making blanket promises.
I have experience in this realm.
When Gov.
(Tony) Evers asked me to help manage the state’s relationship to the Foxconn project, Wisconsin was on the hook for up to $3 billion in tax credits.
We quickly came to understand that the original project that had been pushed by (former Gov.)
Scott Walker and (President) Donald Trump was never going to happen, and we reduced the state’s exposure and redirected funds to where they would have long-term impact.
Wisconsin needs a governor who has already been on the frontlines of this work.
Question: Are you satisfied that data centers will not excessively draw down lake or groundwater levels or cause pollution with wastewater discharges?
Answer: No, not under the current regulatory framework.
Data centers are among the largest water consumers of any industrial facility, and Wisconsin's review process hasn't caught up to the scale of what's being proposed.
We need to make sure we are meeting all necessary environmental standards for water and everything else.
I'd require cumulative impact assessments before any large data center receives water use permits, so we're looking at the aggregate effect on groundwater and surface water — not evaluating each project in isolation as if the others don't exist.
I'd also require wastewater discharge plans to meet the same standards we'd apply to any major industrial user, with real enforcement rather than self-reporting.
Wisconsin's water is among our most valuable long-term assets.
We're not going to trade it for short-term investment dollars.
At the same time, technology and the “closed loop” systems have the potential to dramatically limit the water usage concerns related to data centers, and we should both encourage and promote their usage in whatever ways we can.
Other concerns around heat, air and noise must also be considered by regulators and the local community in assessing the impact of data centers.
Question: The demand for electricity for data centers has put a renewed focus on utility regulation.
What would you look for in prospective appointees to the Public Service Commission?
Answer: I will appoint Public Service Commissioners who understand both sides of their mandate and the balance they are required to strike: determining what utilities need to remain financially healthy and deliver dependable service, and defending families and businesses based on what they can actually afford to pay.
Right now that balance is broken, and some PSC rulings on data center energy costs reflect it.
I'd look for appointees with a genuine track record of standing up for residential ratepayers, not just facilitating utility requests.
They should also have a level of technical expertise that enables them to understand and navigate issues in ways that deliver relief to Wisconsin residents who are struggling right now.
I'd also tie what utilities are allowed to earn directly to whether they're meeting affordability goals.
Right now, there's no link between utility profits and family affordability, and there must be one.
The Commissioners I appoint will also move Wisconsin toward integrated resource planning to help utilities meet demand while also considering environmental impact, cost-effectiveness, and grid reliability.
On data centers specifically: I'd expect PSC commissioners to require that large commercial customers pay for the infrastructure their demand requires.
My PSC Commissioners would push Wisconsin toward our goals of 100% clean energy by 2050, and I would ask the Legislature to have Wisconsin join other Midwestern states in making that a legislative mandate that we can track, rather than a goal that exists only through Executive Order.
Question: Is the process for recruiting, vetting and approving data centers transparent enough?
For instance, some public officials signed non-disclosure agreements.
How would you balance the need to protect proprietary information with the public's right-to-know?
Answer: No, it's not transparent enough.
The idea that local communities and residents don’t learn about a potential deal until the project is 99% baked is unacceptable, and there should never be any nondisclosure agreements in these deals going forward.
Proprietary business information deserves some protection — site details, technology specs, competitive business data — but the basic terms of the deal should be public: what incentives are being offered, what the energy and water demands will be, what the community benefit requirements are, and what happens if the company doesn't deliver.
I'd establish clear rules for what can be kept confidential and what can't, and I'd make sure affected communities have access to the information they need to participate meaningfully, not just a notice posted after the decision is already made.
The lack of transparency around data centers, combined with the potential for environmental harm to the state we love, has caused residents around the state to be outraged and it has sown additional distrust in government.
If we are going to make government work in and for Wisconsin, we need to demonstrate that important policies like data centers, creating the state budget, and legislative action are not done in secret with only a select few.
People are demanding open and honest government, and we need to deliver.
Question: Should communities have a direct voice through referendums on approving data centers if the tax incentives or footprint reach a certain size?
Since the impact of these businesses is not limited to the community where they operate, should other governmental bodies have a role in their approval?
Answer: Yes on both counts.
When a project reaches a certain threshold, whether that’s in tax incentives, energy demand, water use, or physical footprint, the affected community should have a real voice, which may include a referendum process for the largest projects.
The lack of transparency in projects that have been approved to this point has caused local residents to be suspicious of any economic development project, and that is dangerous for the state, but we need to be in a position to reestablish some of that trust through our actions.
There will be communities that approve data centers, and it should happen under a set of circumstances where everybody knows the rules and plays by them.
In DeForest, Caledonia and Greenleaf, residents and communities stood up and said no.
That's fine as long as it's a transparent process everybody understands.
Neighboring communities that share a watershed or a grid shouldn't be left out of a conversation that directly affects them.
I'd support a framework that triggers regional review when a project's impacts cross jurisdictional lines, and that gives communities real authority, not just advisory input that gets ignored.
Speakers
1speaker81%attributed speech359writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
34%flagged-word coverageJoel Brennan
1,502 attributed words100% of attributed speech0% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.